A few observations, regarding the article in your March 7 edition, "Surplus schools could be sold to raise money." I can comment on many aspects of the proposed policy changes and drastic rent increases from many different perspectives. This letter is from a purely personal perspective, not representing any of the groups of which I am a member.

The Seattle School District presented our city with a building and maintenance levy, which we passed. That the district staff, superintendent, and board failed to include in that levy a request for funds to adequately maintain district buildings, is their mistake. The many non-profit educational organizations that use and maintain the vacant district buildings, and the tens of thousands of children served in these programs, should not under any circumstances bare the consequences of that mistake.

The current rent proposal forces these families and organizations to bare the direct financial consequences of that mistake.

The proposed rental revenue increases total less than .001 percent of the levy request, or of the annual Seattle School District budget. ($500,000 increases in rent revenues as compared to the levy total or district budget). It seems to me that the minimal financial benefit does not offset the loss of educational opportunities.

The public has already paid once for these school district properties, that's how the district acquired the properties in the first place. The properties were provided as places of education, not ever intended to be used as assets. When the district can no longer use them, the properties should revert to the public domain and we the public should not be charged a second time. If the state law doesn't currently allow for that, then we have legislators who can address that at our insistence.

Catherine Weatbrook

Crown Hill