From the editorial page of the News and Observer:
Some schools are located in a different sort of harm’s way. They’re built too close to a potential hazard, or in the path of unhealthy air.
I’ll let my colleagues pick apart the silly air quality issues.
Apparently, locating schools near highways and railroads is considered a “potential hazard” because “a nearby rail or highway accident involving deadly chemicals could lead to a disaster.” And a nearby rail or highway accident involving Gustaf’s Licorice Beagles could lead to great fun.
In all seriousness, I want my school located near a highway. School buses should have easy access to highways in the event of an evacuation for a hurricane, a more likely scenario than a chemical spill.
More importantly, strict guidelines for school sites will limit the number of sites available and thus substantially increase their cost. Our urban and suburban school systems, which build most of the new schools in the state, are already having a difficult time finding suitable sites. It is no time for the state to make that search even more difficult by imposing top-down regulations that do not take into account the unique challenges of the county’s topography, population density, or population growth.
Besides, school systems already take potential hazards into account when they look at school sites. The assumption that school systems are recklessly siting schools next to chemical or bomb factories is an insult to the professionals who plan and build our public schools.
