Advertisement

Discussions

Reader comments

On Editorial: Tasty or hasty?

Comments

nativeson 2 years, 1 month ago

All the stakeholders in this project are above board, but they are representing their perspective organizations. The City must do the same. If the long-term financial commitments are not fairly distributed between the parties, then the City Commission must be willing to walk away at least for the time being to get a more balanced arrangement. This project has taken on a life of its own. It needs leadership to make it fair for the taxpayer.

George Lippencott 2 years, 1 month ago

Let we understand this. In 1994 some percentage of the 60K population voted for a sales tax with a fair amount of specificity provided by the then “lawgivers”. Nobody noticed that there was no sundown clause. Now the current “lawgivers” argue that the current 85K population (wonder how many actually were here and voted in 1994) are bound by the 20 year old vote even though there is an undercurrent seeking a new one.

Are our lawgivers convinced the voters actually support this initiative or are they afraid of the opposite and are intent on approving it with a hand wave to public opinion? I thought I lived in a progressive participatory city? (Are we not a blue dot in a red sea?) How can we argue about cuts in social services at the state level when our apparent highest priority is an additional recreation facility?

nativeson 2 years, 1 month ago

I agree with the assessment that the 1994 sales tax should be revisited. That was almost 20 years ago with a number of issues that needed to be addressed at the time. The most recent sales tax for transit and infrastructure does have a 10 year sunset provision.

I also believe that the community has support and opposition to the proposed Rec Center. In the end, the commissioners must determine if they really believe that the probability of the net cost to operate the project can be funded by resources already earmarked. My concern is that we will be looking to take away from other services in the future due to an unforseen net cost.

minimadoff 2 years, 1 month ago

Its a Ponzi. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are abnormally high. Perpetuation of high returns require an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep it going.

In this case the investors are the taxpayers of Lawrence.

Thomas a.k.a. mini-Madoff will crush the hopes and dreams of everyday citizens to fund to his lavish lifestyle.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.