OPINION REGARDED SAFETY, REPLY DID NOT SHOW CONCERN:

Dear Editor:

Perhaps I shouldn't waste my time trying to respond to Mr. Stevens' criticism of my opinion, but it is very irritating when someone accuses me of saying something I did not say.

Mr. Stevens apparently is like the 40% of KISD students who graduate not knowing how to read with comprehension.  I made several points that he evidently couldn't grasp.  For his edification, let me make them again.

First, the field at Rhodes Stadium is a football field; it was designed for that purpose and the fact that others use it was not addressed by me.  I am and have been for many years concerned with the safety of the football playing students who use that field.  Mr. Stevens can never be the mother of the quarterback watching from the stands having to hear her son's helmet hit the unpadded turf and to see his head bounce a few times when tackled.  Perhaps if Stevens could walk in my shoes he would understand my concerns.  [Recall that Mr. Stevens said he had a daughter enrolled in a KISD school. MM]

Contrary to Stevens' assertions, I did not criticize the redoing of individual high school fields to make them more playable but instead used the arguments of the athletic directors at those schools to support my claim that what is true for those fields is also true for the one at Rhodes Stadium:  they all need to be resilient.

If soft fields are preferred during the week by head coaches and are able to keep their grass covering with many groups using them five days a week, why would we not want to enjoy the benefits of that same surface on Friday and Saturday nights?  The only thing I would have done differently with regard to the individual high school fields as a board member was to have planned better so that the completion date for their repair would have coincided with the beginning of the football season, not its end. [Obviously that was a dig at the superintendent as it was HIS job to coordinate the timing of the enterprise!]

As for Stevens' statement that the "cost alone for maintaining a natural grass playing surface...would be astronomical," I would point out that the figures with regard to costs (including the 1993 replacement and the proposed one) show that the district could have saved 75% of the over $2 million that will be spent in less than ten years.  These figures were from the district and not something I fabricated.  As a matter of fact, the district could replace the sod every three weeks if it were necessary and still not spend as much as two layings of Astroturf!

For Mr. Stevens' information, since he's worried about my financial condition [and my lawn], I have plenty of money to pay taxes [as well as get my lawn mowed.] I have that money because I don't spend it on things I don't need--like $87 million high schools for people who don't even live here yet!  He also questioned my efforts at making change.  Those who know me know that I have spent all my adult life at neighborhood, local, state, and national levels trying to improve on the status quo with regard to everything from the way my own neighborhood looks to fighting the national School to Work agenda. [Still fighting that agenda!]

Over the last 21 years of writing letters to The Katy Times editor, I have noted that those who criticize what I have to say are usually trying to ingratiate themselves for one reason or another with someone in the school district.  The fact that Mr. Stevens never mentioned in his retort any concern for the safety of the students (the major point of MY letter) tells me a great deal about where he is coming from.

Mary McGarr

Katy, 77450