Readers Respond to Three Stalled School Projects

Still having nightmares after all these years about that term paper you didn’t finish? Put yourself in the slippers of Portland Public Schools administrators, who haven’t broken ground on three construction projects pledged since 2020 to the Black community. Last week, WW broke the news that PPS had placed the relocation of Harriet Tubman Middle School on indefinite pause. (The air quality of a school next to a highway remains a concern, but the district can’t find a place to move it.) Then reporter Joanna Hou looked at the growing costs of stalled projects at Tubman, Jefferson High School and the Center for Black Student Excellence—which remain in limbo even as the school district pitches voters on a $1.83 billion bond (“The Cost of Waiting,” WW, Jan. 29). Here’s what our readers had to say:

Ben, via wweek.com: “If air quality is a concern in PPS schools, maybe they should have kept the air purifiers that went to L.A. Don’t get me wrong, that was a great gesture, but let’s take care of Portland students first.”

PNWBorn77, via wweek.com: “If the district could build around and modernize Lincoln H.S. while their students were still in attendance, why can’t the same be done for Jefferson with less than a third of the student population? Wouldn’t that save a lot of money?

“PPS hasn’t been able to properly manage their money for decades, all while they pay ridiculous six-figure salaries to their administrators. They are facing a $40 million budget shortfall and will be cutting 228 positions in 2025. How exactly do they calculate for future higher enrollment numbers when they can’t even budget properly for staffing now? Parents are leaving PPS and Portland for a reason; it’s a sinking ship and the district doesn’t have any real plans to restore giving students a decent education!”

ratfishtim, via wweek.com: “The School Board has failed to explain how much it would cost to operate the proposed Center for Black Student Excellence, how much it would cost to transport students, and so on. You can build a building, but then you have to pay to operate, heat, maintain, staff it.

“Wouldn’t it make more sense to develop programs that served targeted students in multiple schools throughout the city? You know, where the kids actually are?”

ProfessionalCoat8512, via Reddit: “I’ll be voting no on any new taxes or bonds as long as I live here.

“Portlanders are outrageously taxed and with our costs having increased 40% it is getting difficult to get by.

“I mean, I know everyone in Portland has a side hustle making ceramics, candles or sex work, but at some point there isn’t enough time in the day to take on another side hustle.”

NO NUKES IS GOOD NUKES

In response to Nigel Jaquiss’ article on nuclear power [Murmurs, WW, Jan. 29], Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility has many concerns:

• Nuclear energy is notorious for cost overruns and years of delays. The typical time for planning and construction of a nuclear plant is 10 to 15 years. 
• Nuclear is by far the most expensive source of energy.
• A permanent repository for radioactive waste does not exist in the U.S.
• Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are an unproven entity since none have been built in the U.S.
• SMRs are hardly small, typically measuring 76 feet in height and 15 feet in diameter.
• Uranium mining is usually done on Indigenous lands, exposing workers and communities downwind to ionizing radiation causing cancer. 
• SMRs are touted as “clean energy” by the nuclear industry. The reality is that uranium mining, construction of reactors, transportation of equipment and fuel, and site prep all require large amounts of energy from dirty fossil fuels. 
• A 1980 Oregon referendum banned construction of commercial nuclear reactors unless the U.S. has a high-level nuclear waste repository, and only if it receives statewide voter approval.
• Nuclear reactors are at risk of malfunction and radiation leaks, such as disasters at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima.
• Radiation risks make nuclear reactors uninsurable except by national governments.
• Climate change cannot wait 10 to 15 years for the development and construction of new nuclear reactors. Time is running out on our climate as we have witnessed with wildfires, heat domes, severe storms, flooding, droughts, and rising sea levels.

Andy Harris, M.D.Board of Directors, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

Letters to the editor must include the author’s street address and phone number for verification. Letters must be 250 or fewer words. Submit to: P.O. Box 10770, Portland, OR 97296Email: amesh@wweek.com