No, argue east Cobb plaintiff Pete Borden (a regular MDJ guest columnist, now on hiatus) and his lawyer, Tom Harper. And Cobb Superior Court Judge Watson White gave their argument at least a measure of validation last week when he agreed with Harper's motion for an "interlocutory injunction" - in effect, a restraining order putting on hold any progress toward the installation of such fields.
Borden's lawsuit argues that SPLOST spending is limited to education facilities and that athletic fields do not qualify.
Attorneys for the school system rebut that they do. They add that the plans for spending between $8 million and $11 million on the turf were clearly spelled out in the system's SPLOST spending plan approved by voters in 2008, which is true enough.
There are plenty of arguments for installing the turf: a purported savings in upkeep costs as compared to natural-grass fields, its flexibility for a variety of sports (and even academic classes, according to some advocates), its attractiveness, the fact that it never gets muddy and more.
Likewise, there also is no shortage of criticisms of artificial turf: a purported higher risk of injury, the costs of cleaning it on a regular basis, its potential for harboring staph and other germs if not cleaned, the tendency of such turf to result in a much hotter playing surface than grass and so on.
As for the legality of spending SPLOST dollars on artificial turf, that's ultimately up to the judge. If he should decide in the school system's favor, the system should indeed install the turf. After all, that was what was promised to the public, and what voters agreed to via the referendum - even though the 9 percent turnout was miniscule that the votes of athletic booster club members and system employees could well have been decisive.
This is not a case akin to the plans by an earlier Cobb school board to spend $100.8 million in SPLOST II funding to equip each middle and high school student with a take home laptop computer, the board's justification being that the SPLOST question approved by voters had promised to spend part of the money to "refresh" the system's technology. But that line of reasoning was ultimately shot down by Cobb Superior Court Judge Lark Ingram.
Yet even if a judge decides that spending SPLOST dollars on artificial turf is legal, is this the best time to spend that money? The Cobb school district is facing the direst budgetary landscape since the Great Depression and Chairwoman Lynnda Crowder-Eagle reiterated this week that "all options are on the table" - including furloughs, layoffs and even closing schools. Yes, it might be legal to spend SPLOST on football fields, and it's true that the SPLOST dollars are restricted and cannot be used to pay for salaries and the like, but public perceptions are crucial in terms of support for our schools, and for the board's hopes of someday passing a follow-up SPLOST.
The better course would be for the board to delay installing the turf until the end of the current SPLOST program, by which time the economy - hopefully - will have woken back up and the system's budget outlook has improved.
Follow us on Twitter!
My point is that the BOC cannot adequately manage the day to day operation of the school district but can always come up with a far fetched plan to throw money away on unneeded goodies.
And I vote in every election and have since I was eligible. And I have always voted against any Splost. So I have the right to complain which is more than I can say for a vast majority of people in Cobb who are to lazy to go to the polls.
SPLOST funds cannot be used to solve the current budget shortfalls... that would be illegal!
And, your reference to the laptops is also an old ploy... like if I said here, "reports of MDJ's association with former editors of the USSR's Pravda propaganda publication are unproven as yet."
Play fair, MDJ!
I didn't want to pay more taxes then and I don't want to pay more now.
I have two children that are getting a new school in this SPLOST and I still voted no. I want to keep the money that I earn.
They are planning to layoff teachers and possibly close schools but at the same time spend $11 million to make football fields pretty.
If you look at the number of students that will be impacted by layoffs and school closings versus the number of football players that will get to play on the new turf, it is easy to see that sports is more important to the BOC than the education of the majority of the students.
Wrong answer BOC, we will remember this at election time.