Ben Anderson ("Does GUSD really want the bond to pass?" July 22) states that passage of the bond does not require the school district to complete projects. Does he seriously think that the school board's intention was to start and then not finish facilities? He is apparently worried about Christopher High School, but the objective is clear. The approved ballot statement begins with "To complete Christopher High School," and there is language in the proposition's text confirming that new bond funds will be used to complete CHS.

There is good reason for this. Gilroy High School was built to house 1,800 students; presently there are 2,500 students on the campus. Overcrowded classrooms affect students' ability to learn to their full potential and teachers to teach to their full ability. Estimated construction costs for CHS are $99 million, but in a growing district like GUSD - 168 new students per year for the past 10 years - we can anticipate other facility needs, including a new elementary school.

Mr. Anderson substantiates his fears by referring to the district's "dismal track record of finishing projects on time and on budget, hence needing a new bond." He is incorrect; new funds are needed for new needs, such as increased enrollment and the aging of facilities - $115 million of the new bond funds will be used for projects never before funded, including the final phase of Christopher High. The remainder will be used to cover the budget shortfall due to the economic slowdown, resulting in decreased developer fees, decreased state revenues, and the district's current inability to sell land in the current market earmarked for this purpose.

GUSD commenced a Master Facilities Plan in 2002 with the passage of the Measure I bond. That $69 million bond served to leverage funds from a variety of sources, including matching state funds. Most recently, the state allocated $37 million dollars in matching funds for CHS. Every campus in the GUSD system has been touched by the facilities plan. The list is long and includes two elementary schools, a student center, library and football-track complex at GHS, multi-purpose buildings at Glen View and El Roble, and classrooms.

Have problems occurred along the way? Of course. With the magnitude and scope of these projects, as well as variables beyond our control such as weather and cost escalation, one would not expect otherwise. However, projects have been completed on time, and students and community groups who use our facilities are reaping the benefits.

Mr. Anderson questions the district's true motives. Without reference to one official document or school board meeting, he has pulled out of the proverbial hat the theory that GUSD really doesn't want to pass the bond. This is not only untrue but also insulting to the people from all segments of our community who are rallying behind the new bond initiative for the sake of our students.

Anderson offers two pieces of "proof" to support his conspiracy theory. First, he has received no advertisement from the school district as he has from the City of Gilroy regarding its library bond issue. The school board was recently forced to cut over $4 million from its budget. I cannot justify using district funds so needed by our students on campaign advertising. I will leave that to the independent committee of distinguished Gilroyans that is planning to secure funds and run the bond campaign.

Anderson's second piece of proof is AB 2173, a bill designed to address deficiencies in the developer fee program. Anderson has made a giant leap that we want the bond to fail so we can qualify for one of the bill's prerequisites, a failed bond. He has ignored the reported fact ("Bill could mean more money for schools" July 11) that GUSD already qualifies because of its debt obligations. AB 2173 has not yet passed. Moreover, developer fees can only be collected if there is development. Even if the bill passes, the amount collected wouldn't come close to covering costs. It would be irresponsible to rely on a bill that may or may not pass and may or may not generate funds due to its dependence on the vagaries of the economy.

Mr. Anderson anticipates a "more flustered" school board. Voters may not agree with the board's decision to place a facility bond on the ballot, but the spending of taxpayers' money was not taken lightly. An independent facilities needs report and voter surveys were commissioned. Staff provided a full accounting of facilities budget issues and an analysis of all options. Flustered? This was a very focused and serious group. The Board of Education spent countless hours doing its homework. It's unfortunate that Mr. Anderson did not do his.