12-12-2007, 02:16 AM
I guess what my concern about all this is these funds were set up for a specific purpose. It appears that little of it was spent on the designated purpose. This appears to be based on funds coming in at a rate greater than the need. The funds are growing way beyond any conceivable need as originally earmarked. Rational thinking would be to use the funds in a manner consistent with the original objective but not so tightly defined so as to create a fund with no chance of disbursement.
But, in reading the article, a request was made by impacted residents for funds to purchase hot water heaters. The Councilmember quoted, said she would rather see the money used elsewhere. Even if water heater were not an originally approved expenditure, isn't it more reasonable to spend some of the money on those who had to relocate before spending it on anything else? It's not like they are asking for new televisions and cars, they asked for hot water heaters! That is so much closer to the original intent and to have read that a Councilmember dismissed the notion and would rather see the money spent elsewhere, well I'm starting to get a whiff of the beginnings of the “C” word.
But, in reading the article, a request was made by impacted residents for funds to purchase hot water heaters. The Councilmember quoted, said she would rather see the money used elsewhere. Even if water heater were not an originally approved expenditure, isn't it more reasonable to spend some of the money on those who had to relocate before spending it on anything else? It's not like they are asking for new televisions and cars, they asked for hot water heaters! That is so much closer to the original intent and to have read that a Councilmember dismissed the notion and would rather see the money spent elsewhere, well I'm starting to get a whiff of the beginnings of the “C” word.