Parents and others claim that these “upgrades” are for the students, but to me, this argument is only valid if students’ futures somehow hinge on their ability to play sports or an instrument when it’s dark outside. Frankly, I don’t buy it and I’m shocked at the number of parents and other lights supporters who do.
It’s clear to me that installation of stadium lights benefits the SDUSD more than it does the students due to the Civic Center Act, which allows outside organizations to rent school buildings and grounds.
The SDUSD collects usage fees for the non-school use of school property, which goes back to the SDUSD coffers for their use, not directly back to PLHS. This information is publicly available, yet the Beacon has conveniently failed to educate their readership about it. Why is that?
— Editor’s note: The Beacon has not, and will not, take an editorial position on the proposed permanent stadium lighting at PLHS and, in the interest of balance, has quoted sources in previous stories stating the money derived from possible stadium redevelopment may not necessarily return to the school.