I went to a basketball game at the Canon City Middle School, and they had several buckets out to catch water leaking from the ceiling. For the sake of argument, we’ll assume it’s because the roof is leaking, which is probably a safe assumption.

It is perfectly predictable that the roof would leak. All roofs will eventually leak. Roofs last a certain amount of time, and then, they fail. This is why any competent homeowner and building owner has funds set aside for roof replacement, and other maintenance items that we all know are coming eventually.

The original building of the middle school is over 100 years old, while the gym, I’d guess, was built sometime in the 1970s. That’s practically brand new as far as most buildings and homes in this area are concerned. A building built in that era is well-built and functional, assuming it’s properly maintained, which, as we now know, is not a safe assumption.

The problem is that the original portion of the junior high hasn’t been well maintained. They have done a poor job of maintaining it, so they want to tear it down. Granted, a 100 year old building may have issues that come up, and may not be built to modern standards, but when I went there, it was a nice building, and even as a kid in my early teens, I appreciated the antiquity of it.

The irony is that they have shown themselves to be incompetent at maintaining that building, so the voters have chosen to raise taxes so that they can tear it down, and continue their incompetence. Their incompetence has been rewarded. Why anyone thinks they’ll be able to maintain the next building is beyond me.

It’s possible that the roof in the gym just recently started leaking, and they’re diligently seeking bids for its replacement, for which, they have adequate savings. But it’s also possible that it is evidence that they’re also incapable of maintaining a building built much more recently, and that they’re incapable of budgeting for large expenses, even if they are to be expected.

But why bother budgeting or properly maintaining a relatively young 40 or 50 year old building when they can use the water damage to show that taxes need to be raised? All they have to do is show people the water damage, say there are no funds for its replacement, and covetous voters will gladly spend other people’s money to fix it. That has proven to be a successful strategy for them.

Should we be embarrassed that past voters are so cheap that they’ve inadequately funded education, or that we’ve elected and hired people who are incapable at maintaining nice buildings?