The purpose of this letter is to question the content of an advertisement for lots that appeared in the Jan. 3, 2019, edition of the The Jessamine Journal, bottom left of page A10. I was unable to determine from the advertisement the source of the material contained therein, as no name or business affiliation was listed.

The ad contains specific information about the number and size of lots, foundation options and general description of the location and utilities available.

Also listed was the starting point for the price of lots and contact telephone numbers. All of this was reasonable and appropriate.

What is not appropriate is wording of the closing sentence which reads, “Located in the desirable west school district.” I must conclude from this ad that the person paying for this ad has determined that the east school district is undesirable.

I’m left with the question why one school district is considered desirable while another is not? Is this the result of one district fielding a better teacher corps. Is one plant site better than the other? Has one district been better funded than the other? I suspect the real reason is less than a subtle bias.

If my suspicion is founded, then action is required to correct the person or business placing the ad.

Equally important, The Jessamine Journal is responsible to filter out bias in editorial, news and ad content that can be needlessly harmful to individuals or groups.

Such is the case at hand by allowing one school district to be fronted as a marketing ploy by describing one district as desirable is done at the risk of harm to students, staff and teachers of the district that is not advertised as desirable.

Ron McBride

Nicholasville