12-12-2007, 04:01 AM
Any confusion is coming from the Council. They are the ones co-mingling the funds by using the $2.2 million figures in its entirety. They started throwing out that numbers as if it's once huge pot of money to make it seem like so much is just sitting around. They knew it was different funds. They should have broken it out into the two individual funds and for what purpose, but instead they wanted the populace to see that huge dollars just sitting around. It wouldn’t have had the same awe effect if they said it was different funds and the value was individually smaller. They wanted people to see one pot of gold. They have to accept what they placed in motion. They can't have it both ways.
Now as for the request, that’s what's in the article. The Councilperson said the request was on behalf of those forced to relocate because of the plant. If that's not an accurate statement, that’s the fault of the Councilperson and/or the reporter. But if it was from those impacted, what does it matter which fund paid what, isn’t the request reasonable use of the funds and more inline with its intention?
Regardless, the funds were set up to deal with issues surrounding the plant, the residents who had to be relocated, and any community impact. Before any money is reallocated for roads, parks, or trips to look at incinerators, first spend the money on those who were originally impacted and for community needs specifically impacted by the plant. If after all those impacted have been satisfied with their needs, change the law to remove any further funding since there's no further need as they got their fair share. But to hear that there is a need for basic items from the targeted group for the funds, and the Councilperson would rather spend it elsewhere?????
Oh, and I don't disagree using the funds for other purposes. If it has no further strategic use as originally designed, get it into community circulation. If the entire purpose of all the various funds is no longer applicable, change the law to address larger community needs. I'm often accused (I accept it as a compliment) of using politicians for target practice. That true because they often walk around with their own handmade bull eyes they hung on their own backs.
Edited by - bob orts on 12/12/2007 08:11:02
Now as for the request, that’s what's in the article. The Councilperson said the request was on behalf of those forced to relocate because of the plant. If that's not an accurate statement, that’s the fault of the Councilperson and/or the reporter. But if it was from those impacted, what does it matter which fund paid what, isn’t the request reasonable use of the funds and more inline with its intention?
Regardless, the funds were set up to deal with issues surrounding the plant, the residents who had to be relocated, and any community impact. Before any money is reallocated for roads, parks, or trips to look at incinerators, first spend the money on those who were originally impacted and for community needs specifically impacted by the plant. If after all those impacted have been satisfied with their needs, change the law to remove any further funding since there's no further need as they got their fair share. But to hear that there is a need for basic items from the targeted group for the funds, and the Councilperson would rather spend it elsewhere?????
Oh, and I don't disagree using the funds for other purposes. If it has no further strategic use as originally designed, get it into community circulation. If the entire purpose of all the various funds is no longer applicable, change the law to address larger community needs. I'm often accused (I accept it as a compliment) of using politicians for target practice. That true because they often walk around with their own handmade bull eyes they hung on their own backs.
Edited by - bob orts on 12/12/2007 08:11:02