Archive for Friday, September 21, 2012

Pay to play

September 21, 2012


To the editor:

I see by the Journal World (Sept. 19) that the city has pretty well decided to build the recreation center. This project has gotten more complicated. If I remember, it started as a $13 million concept and has rapidly increased to about double the original cost in a very short time. Complicated projects seem to turn into costly and wasteful exercises.

Unlike the realistic needs of projects such as the eventual upgrading of the sewer system, police department and other public utilities, where we all benefit, this recreation center appears to be someone’s dream and is not really a realistic requirement for a community to function in its daily needs. Look, I am not against the building of this project as long as those who want this and use it will be the only ones who pay for it. But I am annoyed when developers and other officials seem to make a profit scheme from “want” projects such as this at the ultimate expense of the many taxpayers who will never use it.

Put this project up for a special vote. Instead of a standard yes or no vote for a public tax, the vote should be in the form of signing a yes or no contract to pay, so it will truly be funded only by those who will want it, use it and pledge to pay for it. If you get enough pledges to pay for it, then build it.  If not, exit the project and cut your losses.   


Kate Rogge 5 years, 5 months ago

Not that it will slow the City Commissioners down for a second. They don't care what tax burdens they place on Lawrence citizens as long as they get to play with KU and local developers for whom Lawrence is just one big dumb cash cow.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 5 months ago

Respect the taxpayers. Put the matter up for a vote in November. When it fails go back to the bankers,builders and real estate executives to ante up for their climate controlled building. This group of people believe a building such as this will be a great marketing device to sell more homes in spite of the fact that buying new homes is quite risky these days.

Not on the back of taxpayers please!

Richard Heckler 5 years, 5 months ago

Speaking of the risky new home industry. The following comment must be considered before doing extravagant projects. Brownback and Romney are firing more people as we speak.

The home building industry is still a high risk industry like it or not.

With people like Sam Brownback,Mitt Romney and the NOT GOP in general on the planet explains why buying a new home or a relatively new home has become dumb as hell! Buyers cannot trust this politically driven economy simple as that.

This ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance.

This ENTITLEMENT Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern.

Jobs,wages and property values are so much at risk it makes sense to sell and buy down = go restore an older home. Keep the mortgage wayyyyy down to something one might be able to afford with a lower paying job.

Basing the economy on housing starts is simply beyond reality. Republicans can put one out of house,a job,medical insurance and blow retirement plans in a matter of seconds.

Sam Brownback and Romney have done it again. Fired more people.

msezdsit 5 years, 5 months ago

Where is all the outrage from the me me me crowd that doesn't intend to pay for anything but what benefits only them immediately.

Our city commission has become little more than tax dollar spending groupies for the developers. They are completely star struck by these private businessmen who won't lift a finger without government funding. It would be nice if our elected official could get the developers hands out of their pants.

Liberty275 5 years, 5 months ago

Make it $10 at the door, and charge the same thing at the library.

jafs 5 years, 5 months ago


Public facilities aren't intended to function as "user pay" systems.

The point the letter is trying to make is that while the library may be a public facility, this proposed complex is not.

Liberty275 5 years, 5 months ago

I thought this new rec center thing was a public facility. If not, why are they even considering using taxes to pay for it. If it's private, the corporation can charge what they want.

If tax dollars are paying for it, it's no different than the library. Pay to play.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.