Has anyone ever heard of this guy? And has he ever heard the phrase "brevity is the soul of wit"? I fell asleep after the 123840th paragraph.
Thursday, September 25
Opinion: Student parking fees unnecessary
Also in this week's Pike County Courier, a column (?) by a Dingmans Ferry resident about student parking fees and the excessive "greed" of our school district.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I do think it is a bit outrageous for students to pay this exorbitant fee. It is a drop in the bucket for the school district, but a real burden for students.
The author makes a valid point, though a bit winded.
I don't know anything about the parking fee, but:
- $50 for a year seems reasonable, (compared to insurance and fuel).
- Economics 101: With a limited good (parking spaces) a market is an efficient way to distribute that good. An alternative to fees is a lottery, while making everyone equal, it may be inefficient and not distribute the spaces to those that desire them most.
- The school can search your car under "reasonable suspicion" at any time while on campus. It is good to to be reminded that you have diminished rights on school property.
- Can students get one pass and car pool? That would seem to be a green and economical solution: sharing a $50 fee.
- The district might consider earmarking the fees for some specific purpose. I agree that the district is not likely to be motivated by the money here.
The point about the parking fees is somewhat well taken, but the points about how the school is only good for sports, how the police officer stalks people at Wal-Mart, how it's wrong that a student's car can be searched for drugs, and so on – not so well taken.
Parking at high school is a right? No. Driving itself isn't a right. Driving is a privilege. Maybe if more people viewed it that way we'd have fewer accidents and less pollution.
Frankly, the parking policies aren't for money and control, which I gather from the convoluted column is the point of Pycik's column. We know that isn't the case. The parking policies exist to act as a drug deterrent and because there are limited spaces in the parking lots - that the taxpayers complained about being constructed and funded with their own money. (Which is a valid argument in my mind, since regular and activity busing is offered.)
All this column has accomplished is a chance for the commenting trolls to whine and moan about opinionated hearsay that should instead be accurately and fairly reported on.
Maybe I would take his points seriously if there was any indication of who this person is. What gives him credibility? Is he a volunteer for the school who has had kids go through K-12, or is he just a disgruntled weekender? Readers have no way of knowing.
The parking fees are meant to provide students the opportunity to reserve a space. There are too many "able bodied drivers" and not enough spaces, so the parking stickers were brought about to ensure that students were able to park on campus. Nowhere does it say that students need to drive to school. If we want to get technical the school need only provide enough parking spots for staff, and therefore all the major additions made to parking lots have been funded by, oh yeah the taxpayers. So why is this greedy to have the school recover some of the money that goes into, I don't know, maintenance and paving, plowing, and painting. Does this delusional columnist think these services are free? What about the cost of the maintenance staff that regularly clean the aformentioned lots? People love to complain about things which they know nothing about. The district's policy has little to do with greed, open your eyes.
Post a Comment