To the editor:

Maybe it’s time to get the runaway costs of school construction back in the station and figure out where this train is going.

There’s the immediate question of why the new Blakely is so expensive, and then there’s the larger question of why they’re building more capacity there, when the district already has far more capacity than it can use.

First, Blakely costs: In its mailing to voters last year, the district cited two schools in Seattle and two in Issaquah as comparable in costs to the new Blakely. Had the district adjusted these figures for timing and capacity differences, it might have thought twice about those examples. With these adjustments, the new Blakely is 50 percent more expensive per seat.

Then there is the capacity issue. According to the State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Blakely enrollment stood at 415 students five years ago and has now dropped to 342 students. Why is the district planning a new building with 450 seats, with options to go to 600?

Enrollment for the district as a whole now stands at 3,885 students, while there is building capacity for 5,000 students, not including portables and the vacant south wing of Commodore. That’s a vacancy rate of 23 percent. Independent analysis indicates that closing one elementary school could save about $830,000 per year, enough to pay the salaries of all of the homeroom teachers in one elementary school.

The district actually considered this three years ago, but backed down in the face of protests from staff wary of change.

The overruns at Blakely could be a blessing in disguise, for they provide a face-saving reason for the district to now put the Blakely plans aside and think about the bigger issues of too many buildings and too many vacant seats.

ROD STEVENS

Bainbridge Island