While I’m pleased that the school district plans to upgrade its athletic facilities, I have serious reservations about the structure of the district’s current improvement packages (“School board aims to limit spending on next phase of construction at high school,” Aug. 19).

In particular, I object to the district’s plan to build a new track only as part of larger, more expensive upgrades. These packages will cost much more than a track alone and will thus make its construction much less likely.

While other facility improvements may be desirable, they are not strictly necessary at this time. The stadium is functional and compliant with safety standards, as is the football field. In contrast, a new track is not only necessary, but also years overdue.

If the district offers a new track only as part of more costly upgrade packages, it will dissuade voters from approving any upgrades at all, leaving the track in its defunct and unsafe condition.

The district should offer a “new track only” option, which would be affordable and would finally bring the track up to required standards.

It is blatantly unfair to force our track athletes to use a non-compliant facility on which other schools cannot compete, while all other teams have facilities that, while perhaps not ideal, are safe enough to allow home games. Would the district allow its fields and tennis courts to disintegrate and force the football, soccer, baseball and tennis teams to practice on gravel or in a parking lot? Would it force them to play every game off-island? I think not. Yet this is exactly what the district is doing to its track athletes. It is simply not acceptable.

The track must be rebuilt without delay, and the district is absolutely responsible for making this project an attractive, affordable option for voters.

— Katrina Lande