To the editor:

I moved to Lindbergh Schools in 2009 from the Mehlville School District.

I was widowed with two sons who attended private schools at the request of their deceased mother, and my current wife was divorced and came from Chesterfield.

Our kids are now in college, so our decision to move here was not based on schooling our children in the Lindbergh district, but we realize that many people do move here for this reason.

We live in a neighborhood of about 40 homes, with at least 30 of the homes being owned by people who currently do not have primary school-aged children living in them.

Three homes in our subdivision have sold within the last year and all were on the market for less than 30 days.

The temptation is there to “ride the wave” and sell our house to a family that wants to have their children go to the Lindbergh district.

What if all 30 of the houses in our subdivision did this? With an average of 2.5 children per household, that could add about 75 children that would need to have a school to house them and teachers to educate them.

This is my understanding on why the school board is having to “scramble” to keep up with demand.

I attended a school board meeting last year and at the podium stated something like, “Please allow both sides to remember how good we currently have it.”

I am writing this to state this again.

Are the teachers a part of the success of Lindbergh Schools? From what I hear, they are, but I can also understand the school board’s position. My wife and I are both business owners, so we, along with most other professions, are not guaranteed a pay raise every year.

Each one of us needs to understand that life is not always fair and make a decision for ourselves what we do for a living and where we work.

I will say this — we did support the tax increases in 2010 and 2014, but would not support another one so soon again.

Jim Herzog

Concord