My Idea and Arguments For the New Elma Stadium

My idea for the Elma Stadium isn’t a new one, but I will share the reasons why I think it is a good choice. I like the $3.4 million idea of building the stadium and field in it’s same footprint using real grass. Here are my reasons:
By building in the same spot it will effectively reduce the cost by half of the original proposal. The previous proposal gave me the impression in addition to the relocation of the stadium to a spot not near the high school, there would be room left in the plan for a track and sports facility for future consideration. To me this would leave an open ended solution that would eventually require more levy’s to be run to add more and more, or at the very least more school district expenditures to build additional facilities that are already present at the High School. If after 3 tries, this is such a hard sell to the public (for whatever reason) then, maybe asking the taxpayers to approve a proposition that will be followed up by possibly additional facilities, new artificial turf every 10 years, and the addition of commuting the kids to and fro to practice and the general separation from the High School grounds, we may be faced with the reality that this just isn’t the time for this plan. Considering the past 10 year economic, and employment history of the Elma area, and the east Grays Harbor County, it might not be wise to burden the tax paying public with a long term payment for a large and separate facility, and expect them to warm up to future levys. As I have said before, using the monies saved from the use of real grass, the monies could go to separate practice fields to alleviate the field from overuse due to practicing on it. The figure of $50,000 per year to maintain real turf has been touted, as you know once a system of maintenance has been established the additional cast would be less to maintain the additional practice fields using the same equipment, and personnel, possibly for almost the same budget. And finally, if we offer the public a proposal that simply replaces the stadium, and field in it’s same location, the likelihood of dissension is far, far less than the public seeing a plan that seeks to re-invent the wheel so to speak, and create a separate facility. The fact that the stadium needs to be rebuilt is indisputable, rebuilding it in it’s same spot as close to it’s original state is a hard proposal to balk at. For this reason I believe this is the best course of action. That is not to say we can’t look at artificial turf and raising the field down the road. I believe this would serve our kids and the taxpayers well, and get us back on track. Thanks for reading this, and be sure to let me know if I have anything wrong.

This came to me from the Elma School District and I think it is very helpful in
understanding how the cost's of levies are determined and the assurance that our
school district is watching out for the taxpayers as well as it's students:

Elma school District: A History of Fiscal Responsibility

There have been a number of issues that have been broached during the bond
campaign. One of these issues is the cost of the stadium and bonds. The funding of
schools in this state is found to be so lacking that  the Washington Supreme Court
found the Legislature to be remiss in its duty to fully fund its schools. This was
largely caused by the way our schools are funded (through local property tax levies)
which are inherently unfair to districts and tax payers who do not live in property
rich districts such as Seattle, Bellevue 0r Mercer Island. Those districts are able to
supplement their budgets through levies that generate much more money for their
students, while actually creating lower burdens on their taxpayers than in districts
such as Elma or McCleary.

This situation would be worsened, were it not for the fact that this district has a
history of fiscal responsibility when it comes to its management of bond debt and
levy conservation. This fiscal restraint is to be lauded. Thanks are extended to the
School Boards, the superintendents and the business manager during this time, Lisa
Arnold. Elma School District had several outstanding bonds at the start of the 2002
calendar year. By re-funding the bonds at that time, debt that was due to expire in
2015, instead was retired in 2010 saving the citizens hundreds of thousands of
dollars.

In addition, during the 2012 calendar year, a ruling caused the District to be ordered
to repay almost $535,000 to Grays Harbor Energy after they prevailed in a lawsuit
over what they had been assessed. Grays Harbor County chose to levy taxes to repay
the amount as did many other taxing entities affected by this ruling. Elma School
District did not. The money saved from repaying the bonds early remained in our
Debt Service account where it could be used to repay the over taxing of the Energy
company. Please know that we understand that all our dollars are public dollars and
we appreciate the financial and many facets of support our community provides for
us.

The final example official responsibility is in regards to the Transportation
Cooperative Building, which pending state approval, is scheduled to begin
construction in 2016. In the fall of 2011, the District asked the voters to fund this
building along with a stadium. After the issue failed, the District continued to work
through other channels to secure state funding, and then managed its own resources
to provide a smaller share, and as a result we are scheduled to be the home of a
transportation cooperative for the McCleary and Oakville districts, along with
Educational Service District 113's Head Start Program. This cooperative will allow
the district to function more economically than we do currently and provide more
and better services to our students as a result.

We prepared this document to ensure that our community understands we are good
stewards of public monies. We regret that the funding system in our state is such
that we must ask for your financial support every two years. But please know that
we never take for granted how valued these dollars are, and at what price they are
provided to us. Thank you, Elma for your support, your caring and your
commitment to help us get better every day.

Another Idea for the Elma High School Stadium

I am writing today to share my thoughts regarding the Elma Stadium and football field that the school district is asking the taxpayers to pay for. Rather than listing all the negative things I have to say about the current proposal, I feel like I would be much better served to look at this in a more constructive way. Several weeks back I wrote an email to Superintendent Acuff. much to my surprise later that very afternoon he came over to my business and sat down with my wife and I for roughly an hour and explained the school district's proposal for a new Stadium and ball field. I wish to thank superintendent Acuff for taking the time out of his busy schedule to come and speak personally to me about this. Among other things, he shared with me the school district’s different ideas that they had mulled over before arriving at the one that they have now. One idea was to rebuild on the same spot the Stadium and football field was located before it was demolished, another idea was putting the Stadium in the same area that the High School parking lot is now. yet another was to put the grandstand next to the track where the bleachers are now and have that as the football field. And finally, and ultimately, the idea to put the Stadium, football field, and leaving room for a track and other things next to the grade school. So now I come to the part where I have questions. Again, rather than picking apart the district’s plan, I would much rather ask a few of my own questions. I was told that by locating the Stadium in the same spot it was before, FEMA demanded that it be raised 5 feet higher than it was previously. Also superintendent Acuff reminded me that the football field In its current spot, was very muddy and not very usable by the end of the football season. He also said the cost would be about ten million dollars to locate the stadium in the exact same spot. He said the district had hired two separate independent engineers to review these plans just so there could be no accusation that one engineer wanted to have it his way. Also I understood that having artificial turf meant having to replace it every 10 years at a cost of $1 000,000, at today's rate. In addition, the maintenance of a grass football field would cost roughly $50,000 a year, which would indeed be less expensive than the artificial turf. However, the common thought was that if all sports teams played on the football field throughout the year, it wouldn't last the season if it were a natural turf, that's why the idea for artificial turf was left in the plan. My questions are these: Two things are true, the school district needs a new stadium, and, the taxpayers need to be thought of, so as not to overtax them. Could it be possible, that there would be a more frugal way to look at relocating the football field and stadium to its original spot? If indeed it would cost the school district via the taxpayers, $1,000,000.00 every 10 years for artificial turf, using the savings of natural turf, could we not build separate practice fields with the money saved, and pay the extra cost to raise the stadium 60 inches in the long term? So, my thoughts are like this: if it cost $50,000 a year to maintain a grass football field x 10 years, that is a total of $500,000. So in my way of thinking that leaves a difference of $500,000 every 10 years that could be spent on practice fields, the cost to lift the stadium 60 inches,resurface the old playing field, and at some point it would be paid off, relieving the taxpayers of having to pay $1,000,000 dollars every 10 years for eternity, plus, any other levies or needs the school district may have could be dealt with without piling more tax debt on the rate payers. I am as excited as the next man to see Elma get a new stadium. I also am excited as the next man to take good care of our taxpayers should the economy not be as robust as it is now down the road. I feel like being conservative when spending the taxpayers money will leave us in much better shape in the future for other capital outlays. So, at this time, I am more inclined to pass on the current offer the school district has for the stadium and football field, and ask them to go back to the drawing board, and give us an option that includes using the money saved from the absence of artificial turf to pay for an alternative practice field, and build the stadium in its original location. I hope all that read this will understand I am NOT against athletic’s or any extracurricular activities. I am however, very conscious of the financial burden we place on our taxpayers and spending money wisely. I would like to see an alternative offering that uses the monies saved by not using artificial turf, to pay for practice fields, the additional 60 inch lift the stadium, and repairing and making better drainage for the existing field in it's current location.  

My overview of Bernie Sanders "Agenda for America"

Here is my overview of Bernie Sanders "Agenda for America" as put forth at: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/agenda/.  I hope to review it politely, and with consideration.

1.Rebuilding Our Crumbling Infrastructure
Infrastructure is an important component in any industrialized nation.  In our case keeping it in top shape is very important.  Sending money to Washington DC and back to the states is not prudent, or Constitutional.  Let the states deal with the states, and the Interstate infrastructure be maintained by the Feds.

2.Reversing Climate Change
Climate Change is not a closed science regardless of what pundits on the left say.  It is a political football to advance a leftist agenda in it's present depiction.  Being good stewards of the earth and it's resources is also a critical agenda to pursue.  Ignoring proven advancements like clean coal, and other sources of energy that can improve the environment is irresponsible.  There is a balance that can be had that advances the living standards of Americans and makes us more responsible citizens.  Following a globalist anti free-market agenda disguised as "Climate Change" is not.

3.Creating Worker Co-ops
This is a construct where central government gets their hands in the private sector economic engine, and need not be.  The best thing for our government to do at this time is get out of the entrepreneur's way and let business build and proliferate.  If anything, building constructs with government regulation will be a recipe to repeat government efficiency.

4.Growing the Trade Union Movement
Nothing wrong with having trade unions, so long as they are at the worker's discretion.  The individual knows far better than government their needs and requirements.  Forcing people do do anything breeds resentment.  If industry proliferates, there effectively is no need for unions as the competition for workers will drive higher wages.  To force higher wages where there is no market kills industry and jobs.

5. Raising the Minimum Wage
No one in the real world expects anyone to live on minimum wages.  The reason the wages are stagnated and low, are we have a vastly understated unemployment rate and a higher than reported lack of job participation.  Again, increase industry, and wages will rise with demand for workers.  Forcing more money from markets that are stagnated as well is a sure fire way to lose employment and depress the markets even further.

6.Pay Equity for Women Workers
This is a highly publicized and dicey subject.  There are some industries that pay women more as they are suited for it more than men, conversely there are industries the do the opposite.  The problem is not as wide spread as we are led to believe, but still exists in some cases, and a blanket policy is not the answer.  Again this is a case of Federal government over stepping it's Constitutional boundaries, and an issue that should be left to the states as they are much closer to the problem as it differs from state to state.

7.Trade Policies that Benefit American Workers
I agree as stated.

8. Making College Affordable for All
Greater focus on trade schooling would be a welcome alternative to full blown university accreditation's replete with prerequisites that aren't necessary for many people.  Hate to beat a dead horse, but if our economy were booming we wouldn't be having this discussion.  We could focus on the poor and under funded enrollment in college.

9.Taking on Wall Street
As Ronald Reagan said "In this present economy, government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."  The Wall Street power brokerage is deeply ingrained in our Federal government.  Before we can ever hope to clean up Wall Street, we must eliminate the tie to government that exists.  This is an epidemic that is  the crux of our economic dependence on Wall Street.  We need more private industry, less dependence on printed money supported Wall Street.

10.Health Care as a Right for All
Almost a carbon copy of the above, with the caveat that this too is not an area Federal government should be dabbling in.  This should be left to the States and getting the Feds out of our medicine.  If we had the discipline to remove government from regulating medicine, it would become more affordable as it was in the mid 1900's.

11.Protecting the Most Vulnerable Americans
All societies have the poor to contend with.  In the USA prior to government over reach, private sector benevolence surpassed anything the government does today, and with much more efficiency, and efficacy.  Government intrusion is the problem.  We can address benevolence in a much more accurate way at a local level in the private sector if we can break the bonds of big government.

12.Real Tax Reform
Without decrying "income inequality" or what ever personal belief one may have of the evils of their perception of our economy, one fact is accurate, and true, our method of taxation is a mess.  Again it has been authored by...you know who? And in similar fashion to anything else that government gets involved in.  A flat tax, or use (sales) tax, or anything that is a proportionate form of taxation that favors or gives no exceptions to anyone via cronyism is a welcome alternative.

The overarching theme you can see here is that with government trying to provide and force it's edicts on us, would be much more efficiently, and exponentially less expensive and offensive if done locally by the citizenry of America.  That is precisely what made America great in the first place.  Bottom line: we must preserve individuality and individual liberty if we are to bring our country back online and not commit the same mistakes history has taught us of the deaths of republics having been witnessed so many times over.

It's Not The System That's Broken...

Our country didn't amass it's greatness by chance. No, it didn't always rape and pillage other less developed countries for their resources either. We used to actually encourage free democratic society where there wasn't any, and help it where it was weak.  Our system of government as aptly described in detail in our Constitution, works supremely as evidenced by the great success a glance back at history will clearly reflect.

So what has changed that makes some young people (and some older that should know better) ready to give up their birthrights and follow two-bit socialist snake oil salesmen? Is it their rhetoric of socking it to the rich, and empowering government even more and thereby promising prosperity for the middle class? Common sense and history should send the red flags a flying. Especially with the real-time demonstration we have of how corrupt, and closely connected government is to big business these days.

The true nature of our problem is moral decline in a country that used to hold to a moral and ethical standard that was modeled by our Creator, which is at the very heart of our nation's founding. The level of virtue was first kept at a personal level, which bled over to corporate and government bodies.  Almost since it's inception there have been forces at work trying to use our legal system to evict God from the United States. In my lifetime it has been evidenced at an accelerated rate since the early 1960's.

In the absence of personal virtue, and the ensuing amoral atmosphere, people are inclined to try to legislate behavior at every turn to compensate for the lack of a personal moral compass. They believe a law for everything is the answer. The trouble is with a morally bankrupt government, the law enforcement is subject to the benefit of the enforcer, not the people demanding the law.

The abandoning of morality and a declining society is a historically repeated and identifiable cycle shown by the demise of the Greeks, Romans, and even more recently, Soviet Russia, to name a few. With the absence of a moral foundation, such as Biblical Christianity, there is no suitable source from which to draw virtuous behavior. The result of a moral vacuum is the need for more and more laws to replace lost personal virtue, and a society that searches for a new system of rule that "works" which historically ends in a worse system, loss of freedom, and societal decline to the point the country, or people are absorbed or taken over by a more powerful one, purely because the root problem was never dealt with.

I digress, the very laws and ideologies that we chase after to put in place are supposed to be maintained and implemented by the same corrupt government that has empowered corporate injustices in the first place. Politicians these days are primarily engaged in staying elected, and self aggrandizement. To give them more power, is not the correct remedy to our predicament. Making them as insignificant as possible is. But doing so would be all for naught if we as a people don't have a moral and virtuous personal life. Evicting our Creator from a country that was founded for His sake and His principles will only serve to move us in a direction of decline, no matter what we may try.

The answer: Immersing yourself in His Word, stand strong and boldly for His principles, always in love and humility, and not wavering. The most important, is having and maintaining a personal relationship with our risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and praying to Him daily for our falling nation. If the majority of people would do that, we could see revival like in the days of Nineveh.  If only a minority participate, we must still stay vigilant, and take as many with us to an eternity with God as possible.

Do you really?

The law protecting religious freedom in Indiana is being grotesquely misrepresented in the media, and in some liberal circles.  Allow me to clarify:
Before I do just that please allow me to ask two questions of you.

1. Do you want to eliminate discrimination in our society?
2. Do you really?

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was sponsored by Chuck Schumer in 1993 and enacted by Bill Clinton after its passage.  It has nothing to do with discrimination, and all to do with preserving religious liberty.

The angst you hear from celebrities, the press, and liberal politicians, even Mrs. Clinton, is not directed at the practice of all religions, it is directed at Christianity.  Christianity believes The Bible as God’s Word, and is clear on what is and isn’t disobedience to Him.  It’s called sin.  Among the sins listed is homosexuality, again amongst others.  One example is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God".

To be clear, nowhere in the bible does it condone, or instruct the believer to socially discriminate against others.  The Bible does say to be in this world, but not of this world system.  Jesus also said:  “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…”
What the RFRA act Bill Clinton enacted does, is allow a citizen’s religious beliefs to remain sacred.  And if, for instance if two homosexuals approach a caterer, or preacher, or such to perform or host their union ceremony, they can decline.  The homosexuals can still pursue their union elsewhere.  No discrimination, they are free to act as they want.

The only suggestion of discrimination in this situation is coming from the bill’s opponents, and criticizers, which I find very strange as they also seem to be claiming to be against discrimination, but are perfectly willing to incite discrimination toward religious belief.
If you are someone that thinks I am wrong, I would refer you to questions 1 and 2. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter”.  Isaiah 5:20

DM 

Spirited Debate is Great!

I love the spirited debate on Facebook.  I have had some of the most vigorous debates with my friends on Facebook, the kind that makes you dig and dig for truth.  I have never formally learned the art of debating, and hence, my colleagues on FB probably do face plants in the palms of their collective hands as we discuss the topics at hand.  I have come to use my own brand of understanding a given subject, which admittedly is probably flawed, but for the most part, has served well these 56 odd years.

To me when looking a  political issue, I realize that the elected officials we have in office have little time to become an expert on any one given topic, yet the preach their stance as if they had invented them.  Given this understanding one has only to look at the motivations they have to promote any given issue.  

For instance, the Global Warming debate:  Any thinking person should realize that no matter what is happening with regard to weather patterns, temperature, or even the spheres of atmosphere, we humans have not been keeping track of the patterns of weather, or the atmosphere for long enough to pronounce such drastic judgments and propose to inflict so much hardship on our own species, all in the name of “saving the earth”.  I have read several accounts of the evidences that warming and cooling trends have probably happened long, long ago before man had become industrialized, and there is probably something credible found in the claims, just as today’s Global Warming scientists claims.  

But to me, using the common sense approach, and my understanding of scientific discovery and study, the “science” we are akin to today surrounding the GW movement, is not based on the study of any phenomena, as much as it is the defense and promotion of a particular view.
Again, back to the politicians and their motives… When an idea like the theory of GW is first postulated, it is naturally looked at skeptically, as is any theory thrown out for consideration, as that is my understanding of science. That it is the strengthening of a theory by the systematic tearing down of it by coming at it from all angles to attempt to disprove it that makes it become a strong working scientific hypothesis.  So we come to the politician test:  How does a theory all of a sudden become gospel to the scientific community?  What would make a portion of the scientific community promote the theory of GW and abandon the act of looking at it objectively and scientifically to the point, that they and one political party are nearly synonymous on their pursuit to make GW a real truth?

I think the answer lies in the science of human behavior, rather than in Global Warming.  As I have made reference to many times before, this is not America’s first climatic rodeo.  In the last century there were at least 56 different major newspaper headlines declaring the onset of either an ice age or melt down from the early 1900’s to present.  The current craze of “climate change” wasn’t very popular until the news media realized that by promoting and demagoguing something as omnipresent as the weather, they had a cash cow that had massive shelf life.  The political scene soon found their piece in the part of promoting it by doing what they do best:  promoting a system of taxation and control to save us from the unproven theory.  Then the need for more ammunition for the movement, and the government grant money began flowing, and the government did again what they are good at: spending our money…  So in a scientific sense it is far more profitable to find in favor of GW than against it.  And, “viola!” we have the current fervor of today, and the thousands of willing tools in the citizenry that help carry it along for the media and geo-politicians.  What a perfect vessel for all…  All except the average person that has to pay the bill for an imaginary crisis.

But I digress, that is why it is vitally important to discuss the dynamic of what makes a theory or policy work, not just post a link to a new site and quote a headline.  If raising taxes on the populace is the formula for a robust economy, than let’s discuss how that happens.  If the Tea Party is really a racist bunch of terrorists, let’s cite examples and discuss their ideology.  My recent favorite is to list negative things that happened during a president or whoever’s term, and attribute them to the given individual’s policies, regardless of how much good, was done, even if it surpassed the negatives in their term, or even ignoring the possibilities that the negatives came as a result of previous policies enacted before their tenure.  These and other statements given, with no working dynamic to illustrate why, are a sad testimony to our culture.  If we demanded of ourselves that we understood why we believed, what we believe, rather than riding the emotional roller coaster, and public opinion, I believe we would reduce the current division, and actually heal our land to a certain degree.
Imagine if we had a nation of concerned rational people that thought for themselves, and not being content to be “first stage” thinkers, imagine how prosperous we could be.  Imagine how utterly unimportant and unnecessary a big bloated government would become…