August 06, 2010
Friday

After reading Mr. Dial's posting I can see where we are spending much too much in a tax base that will not support White Cliff's uses, bottom line is it is really expensive per square foot; renting for 5 years to collect some data would have been a better option in today's economy.

Not only White Cliff, but with another building, the North Tongass watershed for North Tongass Fire Department is another white elephant for tax and fire fee payers. Bigger is not always better and the data does not support the need to buy, especially with the current loss history. Does a fee just short of doubling double the fire protection? I wish it were that easy!

The final say on how to proceed with purchases needs to be at the hands of those that pay the bill; the taxpayer. Mr. Dial's proposals would boost some public trust as it seems that those with the checkbook need to be put in check at taxpayer's hands. When the power of those are not congruent with the taxpayers direction, then time to limit power in spending; then it is election time again. This needs to go to a public vote but with Mr. Dial, I would lower the amount on Item 1 to five hundred thousand with capital improvement projects specifically to building and land purchases.

Let's also not forget that the purchases are not incorporating detailed operating budgets which will add additional expenditures, we have to feed the elephant!

I vote against outlandish spending.

Ed Fry
Ketchikan, AK

Received August 04, 2010 - Published August 06, 2010

Related Viewpoint:

The Whitecliff factor By Rodney Dial

Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:

Webmail Your Opinion Letter to the Editor

SitNews ©2010
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska