There is no disagreeing with Katrina Lande’s observation that a new high school track is long overdue (“A new track is essential and overdue,” Aug. 26).  But the stadium field and gym are hardly acceptable either.  These facilities are as run down as the old cinder track.

The unavoidable problem is that we have gone too long without adequate investment in our high school athletic facilities, which are extensively used by school and community athletes. The gym is over 50 years old with crumbling locker rooms, disintegrating bleachers, a worn- out floor and large areas inaccessible to disabled people.

The stadium field turns to muck after the first heavy rain, endangering our athletes. Our kids are at a competitive disadvantage because most schools play on turf. When our field sports athletes make the playoffs (hooray!), they are not allowed to host a home game because we lack a modern turf field.

After decades of neglecting our high school athletic facilities, the bill to fix the problem is high, but this is hardly surprising.  These costs can be scrutinized and trimmed. For example, why spend more than $1 million dollars to replace an uncovered grandstand with another uncovered grandstand?  Does it really make sense to install another high maintenance, fragile grass field when nearly every other school district and municipality in the state has switched to turf fields?  Why worry about re-orienting the field at great expense?

With the pending school board elections, we have an opportunity to debate the merits of the school district’s plan and each candidate’s position, especially the incumbent board members. Rather than rushing a plan through to avoid the upcoming election, the current board needs to respect this process.  Whoever we elect will be asking us to pay for any new athletic facilities. We have the right to evaluate and provide input on those plans.

— David Hackett