The Oct. 26 edition of the Monitor’s article about the controversy over building the new middle school had an interesting statement. To build Rundlett in 1955, “two-thirds of voters in the March elections had to approve the bond to purchase the land and build the new school.” Today, the people opposed to passage of the two amendments cite as a reason the delays in getting voter approval to move a school or sell land. Despite needing voter approval before building Rundlett, the school was built. It appears this is a scare tactic. It’s also interesting that with all the negativity surrounding the condition of Rundlett, the Oct. 21 edition states that, “Several district leaders have floated the idea of making it the new home of the Concord Regional Technical Center.”

If the building is in a state of disrepair, why repurpose it to be another school? Another scare tactic? We disagree with Bill Glahn’s condescending observation that “most Concord residents either have no opinion on the issue, or if they have one, it is not based on a careful review of the facts.” Concord residents have historically been for preserving green space as evidenced by the conservation of many tracts of land in the city. I believe those people, like us, are appalled at the school district’s plan to unnecessarily destroy 24 acres of prime recreational land. When the board stops listening to its constituents, it’s time to constrain their power. Scott and I will vote yes on the amendments.

Cindy Rainie

Concord