Letter: Actually, buying a house for the superintendent was a wise business decision
I’ve read several of the opinion pieces regarding the Park City Board of Education’s purchase of a house to be used as part of the wage package for the school superintendent, and they all seem to be negative. Let me point out a big positive. I’ve seen employer-owned housing used as part of a wage package many times in the business world, especially when sending employees overseas to expensive locations, and every time it proved to be an excellent financial decision. I’d like you to imagine a house purchased for the superintendent back in 1997, the year I moved to Park City. I clearly recall looking at homes in Jeremy Ranch where there were plenty of great homes in the $400K range. If the PCBE would have made this move back in 1997 the $400K home would now be worth over $1M. A nice asset bump. If you were to give the superintendent a higher base wage rather than the housing, you would increase the cost of many aspects of the superintendent’s position such as future salary raises, vacation pay, pension funding, etc. These costs continue to rise with time and multiply versus the house that gains in asset value over time. My experience with employee housing is it an excellent business decision. The heated driveway is interesting, but if the superintendent has to pay the monthly energy bill it is trivial.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
A reader argues in a letter to the editor that people who ride e-bikes are friends, not foes and have as much right to the trails as other bike riders.