Published: Monday, June 4 2012 7:00 p.m. MDT
With our economy on life support is it really wise to burden the taxpayers in
Draper with additional debt when many of them are stuggling just to keep their
heads above water?When money is tight it is prudent to prioritize
our needs. Our wants should be way down the list.
I take the opposite tack then the previous commenter. When the economy is in
the tank is the best time to do something like this. Wages are low, building
materials can be obtained at a much lower cost than when the economy is booming,
and more contractors will bid at better prices so the tax payer gets burden with
a lot less debt over time. In addition it will create jobs and spark additional
@John S. HarveyThat is the sort of logic that would lead a person to
buy 50 pounds of bird seed just because it is on sale despite not even owning a
bird. Just because current economic conditions might make it cheaper than it
would be otherwise doesn't change the fact that building it costs more than
not building it. In otherwords spending a bunch of money is still spending a
bunch of money. I don't live in Draper so I don't have any
real dog in this fight other than knowing a sham when I see one.
The residents of Draper have been paying taxes and asking the County for a
recreation center for a decade, but the county has decided all of the ZAP tax
money should go to the west side. The next chance to even be considered for a
rec center is 5 years or more away.This would be a great thing for the
community to have a recreation center. The businesses in the city have made
arguements but as a resident I would be more than happy to pay the $8 per month
for a recreation center in our community.
Two problems. First, 2016 isn't five years away and, second, you
wouldn't actually be paying $8 a month for a rec center, but $8 a month for
20 years just to build the rec center. After built, it will need to be
maintained. This means either high fees for use, or subsidies, or something in
between. Not to mention local business will be taxed at about twice the
residential rate, and those costs will be rolled along to consumers. And
to echo Duckhunter's point, $29 million for needed improvements in a down
economy might make sense, but $29 million for a luxury doesn't make sense.
(And I do consider this a luxury when Dimple Dell is less than three miles
away.) It's like spending $1000 at Brokestone because you "saved"
30%. Sure, it's more than it might have been otherwise, but you still
didn't need any of that junk.
I also take issue with the mayor and council claiming they are being bullied.
What, by having people strongly disagree with them? If they were getting
personal threats or the like, fine, by all means let's not bully our
leaders, but pointing out the flaws in their plan seems like responsible
citizenship. It makes me wonder why the mayor and council are pushing so
hard for this in the first place. All of the information sent out has been very
biased. Why are they advocating for a side? Why not just present the voters with
a list of pros and cons and let us work it out? They might point to the
survey they commissioned, but the survey was flawed. You could've just as
easily asked, "Should we charge $29 million dollars in property taxes to
build a recreation center and use additional tax funds to subsidize its
operation?" and the poll numbers would've been very different.
(I'm not saying that's a good question; only illustrating how the
question can lead the numbers.)
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments