Dear Editor, A week or so ago, I attended one of the cities
Community Conversations. On the surface, the concept looks pretty
good, after all, here is the city inviting the regular folks to sit
down and help plot the cities future. I have been a voting adult
longer than I wish to admit,
Dear Editor,
A week or so ago, I attended one of the cities Community Conversations. On the surface, the concept looks pretty good, after all, here is the city inviting the regular folks to sit down and help plot the cities future. I have been a voting adult longer than I wish to admit, and I can’t recall when any city has done that, so on the surface it sounds almost to good to be true.
I would have been much more thrilled about the concept if I hadn’t read the well-written propaganda that we were all mailed. Like any well written sale pitch, the points were well made and presented in a fashion that would persuade most readers to fear any reduction of services. After all, who wants brown parks and less fire and police protection.
As you may recall, the city listed many reasons why our budget deficit is so large, and why you and I must choose to either decrease services, add a small tax increase to maintain the current level of services, or choose larger tax increases to increase the level of service so we can truly enjoy our wonderful city.
Not one time did they mention in that mailing that some responsibility should be born by our elected officials who have squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past years.
So, off to the meeting I went. I was surprised that there were only nine others in attendance. The moderator gave us a brief lecture on what a “conversation” is, and is not, presumably so an argument leading to a potential food fight wouldn’t ensue. He then passed out some papers outlining the three above mentioned concepts regarding taxes/ services.
Some in the group were fairly passionate about keeping MH a small, and un-retail community. Others, like myself were opposed to increasing taxes without some accountability from the city. All in all, I left with the feeling that we had wasted our time, and that all of these meetings were leading to some semi-sinister post script. (Personally, I ‘d be ok with a tax increase if someone could prove that it wouldn’t get wasted).
I’ll admit that as an idealist, I believe that the elected city officials should be making the right decisions regarding how and where the cities money should be spent.
At no time should they be giving millions in tax concessions to developers and businesses when there is a budget deficit. City facilities, like the aquatic center and future indoor rec center, should be managed in a fashion that financially breaks even. If they do not break even, changes must be made in both management and fee structures to reach the break even point.
I also believe that those same officials need to stand up and take responsibility where responsibility lies. My concern with these “community conversations” is that our elected officials are afraid to make these tough decisions, and will use these meetings to blame any and all service reductions or taxes increases on you and I. I can already hear the rhetoric, “we’re just doing what the people wanted.”Â
Lee Schmidt, Morgan Hill
Meth Problem Needs More Attention
