When Greensboro gets through the current budget problems, there are certainly things that can be done to avoid more problems in the future.
The Greensboro City Council must approve all bond issues placed on the ballot for voters to approve or not approve.
Previous councils are primarily responsible for the budget problems facing Greensboro today.
I know it is early to start talking about this, but I have been saying it for many years. Here I go again.
Please remind the current council members to review these suggestions before adding more spending for Greensboro taxpayers in the future.
Some questions to ask before putting bond issues on the ballot and before voting for or against them. ! ! !
Is tax money currently being spent wisely?
How will the proposed bond money be spent?
What are the restrictions on spending certain bond money?
What is the actual texts of the proposed bond issue?
Will the bond issue money be supplemented by general revenues?
Will some of the projects be worked into the general budget, even if not funded by bonds?
What is the proposed timetable for selling the bonds?
How long will it take to pay-off the bonds?
Who is providing space for public forums to promote the bonds?
Who is speaking at public forums and how are they chosen?
Why are bond issues promoted on city-county operated television?
I am not encouraging anyone to vote only on pocketbook issues, but a thinking public cannot continue to reward bad spending decisions by increasing the allowance of government. Think about it.
Showing posts with label bond issue issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bond issue issues. Show all posts
Bond Issue Issues
-----
I am not satisfied by media reported reasons to vote for or against bond issues on the November ballot. Some of these reports resemble news releases for new products on the market or one-sided public relations announcements from corporations or celebrities.
The famous Roman Forum was a public meeting place and marketplace. So, I suppose that a place to sell an idea or a slate of bond issues is a function of a marketplace; therefore, one function of a forum. A marketplace is where people pick and choose what they will buy from among the many offerings.
There are several forums about the eleven proposed bond issues. Are speakers from both sides of the issues being invited to speak? Will different opinions be expressed? Will questions be answered accurately? Will moderators be neutral? I truly hope so.
If there are speakers for the eleven Bond Issues on the ballot in Guilford County in November, should there also be speakers against some of the Bond Issues? Everyone has a vested interest in these outrageous expenses being proposed. Some of them are only necessary because of irresponsible monetary and fiscal policies of government. Some are wants, not really needs of our area. Some can enhance the quality of life here, others will not.
.
Whether to authorize or not to authorize Municipal Bond sales (borrowing money to be paid back by tax revenues) should be decided by a well-informed public, based on the good of the community as a whole, as well as personal interest.
If you want to pay more taxes for a project that you think would benefit our community, then do so. If there are others that you feel are essential services that should be provided by government, and you think that there is no good way to fund them under current tax rates, then vote for those bonds.
Some questions to ask before voting:
Is tax money currently being spent wisely?
How will the proposed bond money be spent?
What is the actual texts of the proposed bond issues?
Will the bond issue money be supplemented by general revenues?
Will some of the projects be worked into the general budget, even if not funded by bonds?
What are the restrictions on spending certain bond money?
How long will it take to pay-off the bonds?
Who is providing space for public forums?
Who is speaking at public forums and how are they chosen?
A forum about bond issues should be a place for taxpayers to exchange their views and receive relevant information. A forum should not be a session where citizens are force fed reasons to vote for tax increases by representatives who have vested interests in some of the referendum issues at hand or a coalition of such groups.
I am not encouraging anyone to vote only on pocketbook issues, but a thinking public cannot continue to reward bad spending decisions by increasing the allowance of government. Think about it.
forum
A public place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
coalition
An alliance or union, especially a temporary one. A temporary alliance for combined action.
vested interest
A personal stake or involvement in an undertaking or state of affairs, especially one with an expectation of financial gain. A person or group having such a personal stake or involvement.
I am not satisfied by media reported reasons to vote for or against bond issues on the November ballot. Some of these reports resemble news releases for new products on the market or one-sided public relations announcements from corporations or celebrities.
The famous Roman Forum was a public meeting place and marketplace. So, I suppose that a place to sell an idea or a slate of bond issues is a function of a marketplace; therefore, one function of a forum. A marketplace is where people pick and choose what they will buy from among the many offerings.
There are several forums about the eleven proposed bond issues. Are speakers from both sides of the issues being invited to speak? Will different opinions be expressed? Will questions be answered accurately? Will moderators be neutral? I truly hope so.
If there are speakers for the eleven Bond Issues on the ballot in Guilford County in November, should there also be speakers against some of the Bond Issues? Everyone has a vested interest in these outrageous expenses being proposed. Some of them are only necessary because of irresponsible monetary and fiscal policies of government. Some are wants, not really needs of our area. Some can enhance the quality of life here, others will not.
.
Whether to authorize or not to authorize Municipal Bond sales (borrowing money to be paid back by tax revenues) should be decided by a well-informed public, based on the good of the community as a whole, as well as personal interest.
If you want to pay more taxes for a project that you think would benefit our community, then do so. If there are others that you feel are essential services that should be provided by government, and you think that there is no good way to fund them under current tax rates, then vote for those bonds.
Some questions to ask before voting:
Is tax money currently being spent wisely?
How will the proposed bond money be spent?
What is the actual texts of the proposed bond issues?
Will the bond issue money be supplemented by general revenues?
Will some of the projects be worked into the general budget, even if not funded by bonds?
What are the restrictions on spending certain bond money?
How long will it take to pay-off the bonds?
Who is providing space for public forums?
Who is speaking at public forums and how are they chosen?
A forum about bond issues should be a place for taxpayers to exchange their views and receive relevant information. A forum should not be a session where citizens are force fed reasons to vote for tax increases by representatives who have vested interests in some of the referendum issues at hand or a coalition of such groups.
I am not encouraging anyone to vote only on pocketbook issues, but a thinking public cannot continue to reward bad spending decisions by increasing the allowance of government. Think about it.
forum
A public place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
coalition
An alliance or union, especially a temporary one. A temporary alliance for combined action.
vested interest
A personal stake or involvement in an undertaking or state of affairs, especially one with an expectation of financial gain. A person or group having such a personal stake or involvement.
Who Remembers ? ? ?
-----
Does anyone remember the transportation bonds that were approved in 2000?
Was some of that money used to purchase the Ice House?
I know that some money from that bond issue was to be used to provide parking and office space for the transportation department. Some of it was also supposed to be used for street scape work on Church Street. I believe some of the money (for church st.) is being spent for the mess out on Friendly Ave. which is costing more than estimated.
Were fire station bonds passed in 2000? I know they were on the ballot. If so, has all of that money been spent? I think I heard something about it at a City Council briefing last year.
Another thought about the fire stations. Where will the money come from to train and equip additional people to man these new stations. And the maintenance costs - Will this be from another bond referendum in another non-city-council-election year or from the general fund?
Police and fire protection are essential services that should be provided with tax money. Our police and fire departments and our emergency medical response people are doing a wonderful job and should not be slighted in city budget decisions. The City of Greensboro should not have to borrow money (issue bonds) for essential services.
Does anyone remember the transportation bonds that were approved in 2000?
Was some of that money used to purchase the Ice House?
I know that some money from that bond issue was to be used to provide parking and office space for the transportation department. Some of it was also supposed to be used for street scape work on Church Street. I believe some of the money (for church st.) is being spent for the mess out on Friendly Ave. which is costing more than estimated.
Were fire station bonds passed in 2000? I know they were on the ballot. If so, has all of that money been spent? I think I heard something about it at a City Council briefing last year.
Another thought about the fire stations. Where will the money come from to train and equip additional people to man these new stations. And the maintenance costs - Will this be from another bond referendum in another non-city-council-election year or from the general fund?
Police and fire protection are essential services that should be provided with tax money. Our police and fire departments and our emergency medical response people are doing a wonderful job and should not be slighted in city budget decisions. The City of Greensboro should not have to borrow money (issue bonds) for essential services.
Tom Phillips on Bonds
-----
In a Radio Interview this morning, City Councilman Tom Phillips was asked about the proposed bond issues to be included on the November 2006 ballot. The proposals presently being considered will apparently exceed $20 million.
Phillips said that there are lots of worthwhile projects being discussed, but the only one he feels is necessary is the one for building new fire stations. He said that he was "really disappointed," adding in jest that he had been pushing for a city council helicopter that has been talked about for many years.
An olympic size swimming pool has been proposed as part of a YWCA building project. This is the same pool that failed to pass in the last bond referendum. It has been moved from being a YMCA project to being a YWCA project. Mr. Phillips suggested that if the city is going to pay for the pool, and the citizens want the pool, it should be owned and managed by the city.
One place that has been suggested for the pool is close to the Coliseum. Phillips said, "Matt Brown knows a whole lot about swimming pools. He has experience and knows exactly how to make a project like this successful."
Phillips has apparently discussed this possibility with the Coliseum management and with Greensboro Parks and Recreation Dept. because he said that P&R does not want to manage a tournament-type pool, so the logical place for it is at the Coliseum with Coliseum management.(That is if the bond passes for $7 million to build the pool and $2 million for land, and if the citizens want to take on the cost of operation of the facility.)
In a Radio Interview this morning, City Councilman Tom Phillips was asked about the proposed bond issues to be included on the November 2006 ballot. The proposals presently being considered will apparently exceed $20 million.
Phillips said that there are lots of worthwhile projects being discussed, but the only one he feels is necessary is the one for building new fire stations. He said that he was "really disappointed," adding in jest that he had been pushing for a city council helicopter that has been talked about for many years.
An olympic size swimming pool has been proposed as part of a YWCA building project. This is the same pool that failed to pass in the last bond referendum. It has been moved from being a YMCA project to being a YWCA project. Mr. Phillips suggested that if the city is going to pay for the pool, and the citizens want the pool, it should be owned and managed by the city.
One place that has been suggested for the pool is close to the Coliseum. Phillips said, "Matt Brown knows a whole lot about swimming pools. He has experience and knows exactly how to make a project like this successful."
Phillips has apparently discussed this possibility with the Coliseum management and with Greensboro Parks and Recreation Dept. because he said that P&R does not want to manage a tournament-type pool, so the logical place for it is at the Coliseum with Coliseum management.(That is if the bond passes for $7 million to build the pool and $2 million for land, and if the citizens want to take on the cost of operation of the facility.)
Answer to Hogg's "so much for public input"
David,
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
