To the editor:

In the ongoing discussion of city resource allocation there is a nagging question. Many of us were not here for the referendum that set in play the annual resource commitment to public recreation. There are opinions that the commitment was sold on a specific set of needs. I have also heard the opposite. There is also an opinion that the open-ended nature of the commitment was not intended.  

Whatever the case, now that the original resource target list is exhausted, it would seem prudent to revalidate that commitment with the current set of taxpayers so as to clarify intent. We could easily add this topic to the fall election extravaganza.  Perhaps we could even provide a choice among tax reduction, public safety and further public recreation. The latter two with some form of sundown clause.  

Now I do not wish to look a “gift horse” in the mouth when it comes to the new “Olympic Theme Park” (or whatever it is), but it does seem as if we are so enamored in chasing private resources, we are failing to perform due diligence on the public resources to  be committed.  How about we do the truly democratic thing and offer the voters the choice? After all, it is not as if we have not been diligent in resource allocation to future development however such allocations are identified.