I believe strict adherence to what the Constitution says is the duty of Government.
Some believe, as I do, that the Constitution establishes that the 1st priority of Government is to provide for public safety and the necessary infrastructure to support a city. Most of the candidates are saying the same thing.
So then you ask, what the difference between the candidates?
The difference is their definition of "Infrastructure".
I define it as Streets, Sewer plants and lines, and maintaining our current facilities.
Some other candidates believe that money needed for that infrastructure should be reduced to pay for $6.1 MILLION in expansion of parks. They also think that it's OK to allot $300,000 for TWO new concession stands. We don't even have the funds to maintain the parks we have now. And they want to create more maintenance cost demands.
I have suggested in the past to contact local restaurants and service clubs to see if they would be interested in building concession stands, in exchange for their rights to sell at events. Most in power seems to like that idea. And expending $6 MILLION on parks will create a NEW HUGE cost for maintenance.
If we spend $6 MILLION on park expansion, we'll never get caught up on the major street repairs we need to do.
Spending on nice to have's, should only be done after the immediate and necessary needs have been met.
|
