Whenever anything new in terms of public facilities is built around here, there is a sharp division amoungst the townsfolk. One group asks about where the money came from to build, and whether it should it have been spent. Others point out the benefits, either in educational value, or recognition for the town, or revenues gained.
The "Bubble" - the new indoor athletic complex, and the Ritacco center are two high-profile additions that generate this kind of controversy. Now we also see that money is needed to save the Planetarium.
It seems to me that the root of the problem -- political considerations aside -- is that on the one hand we have a large portion of our community that consists of retired folks, and they are conservative by nature. Living on fixed incomes, they are understandably reluctant to see tax money spent extravagantly.
The younger portion of the community views expenditures in facilities and programs as an investment in their children. It is a competitive world, and our children -- and the working community itself -- has to compete in the marketplace. And yet there has to be a limit to what a community can reasonably provide.
So the question is....can some middle ground be found? Shouldn't we be careful with public monies, make everything and everyone along the way accountable....but also be open to providing our community, and our children with the tools and experiences needed to more forward? Can we gain a competitive edge for our community -- or not?
No comments:
Post a Comment