Letter intended to spur controversy?
Wow, yet again we have someone from outside the community assuming that things in Columbiana are run like some sort of hick-town. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly someone can take up “the cause” when there really is none, just to stir the pot? However, not all blame is on Mr. Griffen.
In today’s litigious society it falls on the original Shelby County Reporter to add some meat to an otherwise “feel good” story.
One should assume that common sense and proper channels would be followed to erect a permanent structure on school property.
However, today we have to go above and beyond to the point of ridiculous to gain approval to do anything for our schools, especially a permanent structure.
Quite frankly, Mr. Griffen sounds as though he is either looking for a lawsuit or encouraging one with his questions: “Who designed it? Was that person qualified? Was a building permit required? Was one obtained? Was the tower inspected? Is it properly braced? Are the handrails sufficient and of proper height? Are unauthorized people (especially young kids) barred from climbing on it?”
Who in their right mind thinks school officials would allow such a structure to be built without following proper procedure? Possibly not for the safety of children but to protect their own job, any school official is going to require proper designs, permits etc. be followed?
If these are real concerns from someone within the community, such as someone who actually has a child attending school in the district, a phone call to the band director, principal or school board member is the proper place to ask these kinds of questions.
To do so in a public forum is irresponsible and just trying to stir-things up. Of course, the Shelby County Reporter is not without concern here.
How on earth did this letter ever make it to print? These are facts a reporter should ask when researching any article.
Was this just “titillating” enough to the editor to print? Is there an agenda to spice things up a bit just for the sake of controversy?
Was the editor even aware this had already been addressed online from the original article? Was the editor even aware there was an original article?