Monday, December 29, 2008
Tale of two cities
Today's front page brought an interesting (and inadvertent) contrast in city governance over the last two years. Former Commissioner Janet English passed away. That story recalls a different time when the buzzword was "progressive." The current commission, faced with revenue shortfalls, uses the buzzphrase "core services" as they make cuts and refocus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The entire world is in a different place right now. I bet if you checked everywhere those words were then and are now the "buzzwords" I also find the fact that today's city commission do not seem to be yes people to the city manager but they actually ask questions and do not rubber stamp everything which has happened in the past. I do think our current city commission will be "progressive" but right now times are tough and tough decisions have to be made.
I know they voted down Lowe's but if you had really studied the Lowe's proposal it was not going to be a good thing for AC for a long long long time. Perhaps the next place that wishes to move in will be better for AC and all of us.
Post on 12/31/@ 6:08am
Thoughtful comments.
Good job evaluating the actions of the commission. I can say we have subtle differences of opinion. However, I agree they are acting with an awareness of the times.
Some maintain that when times are tough you hunker down and weather the storm (mixed metaphor). Others hold that tough times are when government is at its best to move forward prudently - example: the Paris Park pool would have been a huge burden to local tax payers had it not taken advantage of WPA funds. There are a few other projects that reflect the local government choosing to go forward and generate jobs rather than cut them during the depression era. That was then. This is now.
I do view the counsel as acting on their best judgments, with due diligence and integrity. They owe the citizens that and they have made good on it.
Tale of two cities...Winfield schools worked with the college to get a new stadium We refused to work with the college and were told we couldn't. Never mind they did so in Coffeyville as well. Now we have two facilities for tax dollars to support. Great use of tax dollars and great way to snow the public.
What were our school leaders thinking? We get to foot the bill for a stadium that in 2002 would have cost us pennies compared to this AND been build on land by the high school with the college. Of course, we didn't need it then and now we foot the bill. Thanks so much USD 470 for your intelligence.
I wouldn't put Coffeyville in the same instance as Ark City. I lived in C-ville during the football stadium fiasco. The stadium was built and funded by the city using financial kickbacks from the refinary for power consumption from the city's power plant. It also raised everyone's taxes, without asking for populous vote, when the refinery stop putting in as much money. You all complain about the hospital being built out in the middle of nowhere; C-ville's stadium is 2-3 miles from the high school and the college, on top of th ehighest hill around. They have had to replace the roof of the pressbox and "fancy" seats at least 6 times in the last 7 years due to high wind damage. Anybody who had lived in C-ville for a few years knows it windy all the time on Big Hill. You all complain about the AC city government now; you should have seen C-ville's in the late 1990's. Makes AC's city government look like angels.
I agree, however, that one stadium built by two tax funded institutions makes more sense as they did in Winfield. Having a double stadium doubles our tax burden. Ironically, the ones that said we didn't need it in 2000 were the ones that begged us to pass it in 2008. If Winfield could work together then why couldn't we?
One things about the FB stadium..well two things. One it's part of a much larger bond issue. Two CCCC does not have a FB program nor do they have any interest in starting one back up.
Post a Comment