Bond issue

To the editor:

This letter is in reference to the bond issue before the voters. It seems as if nothing changes with regard to government spending.

We complain about the federal government and its spending and yet we do little to curb it at the local levels.

The issue, of course, is how to keep the money flowing once it has started.

I have heard the same basic commentary over many years and that is, “Well, the public is used to spending this amount of money. Let’s find some new project to insure the flow because once it is stopped, it is much harder to get it started again.”

It is a little ridiculous to think we have to spend over $3 million to fix a leak. I am sure there are other methods available (no tar); after all, there are many stadiums around the country built like ours.

If the new structure being proposed really was something warranted and needed by the public, it might be easier to swallow.

The same arguments are always proposed: “It will only cost you $____ per year on your property taxes. It is for the public good. Do it for the kids.”

Don’t get me wrong. I am not against improvement or nice things. I just think it would be nice for governments to leave some money in the pockets of the constituents.

If the bond goes through we have just added more to the equation: the leak still hasn’t been fixed and now we will have added another structure to maintain plus the custodial staff to take care of it.

The initial cost of something is never the total cost. With interest rates the way they are, I think this is a poor time to “fix a leak” in this fashion.

Daryl Enos
Marion