Answer to Hogg's "so much for public input"


I was at the city council briefing and heard the discussion about bond issues to be placed on the ballot. Sandy Carmany was on the right side of the WMS issue. Maybe others will be persuaded to keep their promises about maintaining this historic stadium. I think the actual phrase during the planning of the new stadium was "continue to maintain."

I have a few words to say about that. How can we continue to maintain something that we have not maintained, but have let slide into such disrepair that we are now told that it is only fit to be torn down?

I am in favor of spending more money on maintenance of all city property in our regular budget. One of the reasons that the tax rate did not increase last year (an election year) is that the council decided to put off routine maintenance of many city-owned properties. Of course, the Coliseum got new carpeting and Bryan Park got money to do work around the greens, and Downtown Greensboro, Inc. got money for whatever and city money was allocated to redecorate the area around the downtown park.

Because of this lack of maintenance of property for several years, the council is now asking for capital improvement bonds to do what should have been done all along. I hear much talk about "taking care of what we have," but little real effort to do it. One excuse is that the economy hasn't been doing as well as was expected, so money wasn't there to "take care of what we have."

Talk is cheap. Action isn't. Taxpayers will pay one way or another. Council will decide what we will pay for and how it will be financed. And the beat goes on, and on, and on.

No comments: