The White Cliff Factor
By Ed Fry
August 06, 2010
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
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.
Received August 04, 2010 -
Published August 06, 2010
Whitecliff factor By Rodney Dial
Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
Your Opinion Letter to the Editor
Note: Comments published
on Viewpoints are the opinions of the writer
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.
E-mail your letters
& opinions to firstname.lastname@example.org
Your full name, city and state are required for letter publication.
Stories In The News