Define ‘free’ land more responsibly

This letter is in response to Andrew Wellner’s article about “School Access to cost $8.4M” from Tuesday, May 6. Mat-Su Assembly member Cindy Bettine said it correctly. “We botched two land donations in two-and-a-half years.”

I think it is time for the assembly to back up and take a second look at the elementary school selection site in the name of “free” land. The $8.4 million cost to upgrade the new access road to the Ranch subdivision to get the new school on free land is not very free. A simple solution would be to give it back so as to avoid the cost of building the access road. The cost to record a quit claim deed is about $22.

Mr. Duffy, your quote, “we thought we could work it out,” puts many school children at risk! Shame, shame, shame. Has anyone else thought that school buses full of children, crossing very busy railroad tracks from Fairview Loop Road is NOT a good idea? And a school site next to the same busy railroad tracks is another BAD idea.

As I remember it, when the bond issue was voted on a couple of years ago, the search area was for south Palmer. This free land Mr. Turner donated was completely out of the school search area. Why did a school site with an inadequate road, crossing very busy railroad tracks and through a winding subdivision earn the maximum location points by the school selection committee? An ideal site south of Palmer in the Springer system in the center of the search area was passed over by the selection committee and received fewer location points.

Let’s get real about this “free” land and the selection site for a school that is not in south Palmer. Free land is not very free. When I voted for the bond issue, I did not know the assembly’s idea of south Palmer was to the west in an area called south Wasilla. Which map did Mr. Duffy and the Assembly use anyway?

Bryan Scoresby

Palmer