I am responding to Trudy Burris' letter explaining her "no" vote for the Richland bond. I work at Lewis & Clark and would like to assure her that, of course, the district has done its best to care for these old buildings. However, at this point any fixes merely postpone the inevitable. Her logic comparing a school built 40 years ago to a house the same age is flawed because the basic needs of homeowners have not changed, while schools are addressing needs (like classroom computers) that didn't exist when they were built.

For example, our school has a shortage of electrical outlets. Since the floors are concrete and the walls are cinderblock, there is no way to go into or under them to retrofit the buildings. The classrooms that were built without walls is another problem. It is not possible to just go in and build walls, as the heating and air conditioning units don't vent into all the rooms equally. The same issues prevent going in and adding new duct work.

People who want to vote "no" will find a reason to do so, but please don't use those examples for reasons.

DAWN HANSEN, Kennewick