Public Purposes
R-05-15
The above was an eminently worthwhile resolution on last night’s agenda for the City Council of New Albany.
The resolution would have authorized the purchase of fire-retardant suits for members of New Albany’s narcotics squad. The much-desired crackdown on neighborhood meth labs has put NA’s finest in peril without these suits. Once the need was presented to council, there was universal agreement that we should purchase these suits for the squad.
The resolution did not pass. Mr. Coffey, who was destined to introduce the resolution, pulled it for consideration without presenting it.
I know…you expect me to crack on somebody here.
The new Friends of the New Albany Police Department is a charitable organization whose purpose is to raise money for discretionary items needed by the department that may or may not rise to the level of a public purpose, and to preserve the history of the department.
Word on the street is that Messrs. Coffey and Price made a donation to the “Friends,” funneling it through some unnamed neighborhood association, that, combined with other Friends funds, will cover the full expense of these suits.
Which prompted the funniest moment of the night when CM Mark Seabrook prepared to introduce a resolution to pay for the flood-caused repairs to Clark Street.
Seabrook quipped, “Before I introduce this resolution, is there anyone out there who wants to pay to repair Clark Street?”
By the way, that resolution wasn’t introduced, either, but not because a benefactor stepped up to relieve the city of responsibility for this clearly public expenditure. The city is just waiting for the final bill, which is estimated to be around $17,000. New problems were found and fixed, and it looks like money well spent; likewise, this resolution should pass on a show of hands when it becomes ripe for action.
I heard about the Friends several weeks ago and I support their goals and their formations. I even suggested they create a public membership that will create a bond between the department and the citizens it serves.
Not to diminish the gesture made by the two council members, but what, exactly, about this purchase required charitable donation? Why shouldn’t you and I help pay for required law enforcement equipment, too?
Is this a sincere gesture by the members? It’s undoubtedly boorish to criticize it, but it’s in no way inappropriate to question it, especially if it is intended to be used in a political campaign to privatize this, that, and the next thing.
There are public purposes involved here. The public, through city taxes, should bear the burden. While I’m no less grateful for the gift, I deplore the underlying idea that this isn’t something the taxpayers should pay for.
What’s next? What is the next public purpose that CM Coffey will oppose funding for (no doubt citing the precedent of the fire-retardant suits) and call for some private entity (the YMCA?) to fund expenditures, investments, and even bonds that should, by all rights, be assumed by the taxing authority and its citizens.
That’s yet another example of demagoguery, of appealing to people’s worst instincts.
After all, I don’t drive on Clark Street. So far as I know, I don’t know anyone on Clark Street and I have no relatives on Clark Street. Why don’t the folks on Clark Street pay for it? They’re the ones who benefit from it. If they point out that other people drive on it, let them erect a gate and toll booth to raise additional revenues. Let some benefactor step in and pay for it.
That is the opposite of communitarianism. That is an idea from the pits of hell. Yet that’s the ultimate end of ideas that go something like this:
“The city’s taxpayers are overburdened. Even though police officers who enter into dangerous situations need protection, even though shutting down meth labs is a public purpose, even though my constituents are demanding we get rid of meth labs and slumlords, I think somebody else should pay for it.”
Here’s my response: No matter that you think that’s what will get you re-elected, I’m here to espouse the cause that such demagoguery will be exposed and the people who find such to be the cowardly response of a politician without vision will vote your ass out of office.
------------------------------------
Randy Smith, destinations@sbcglobal.net
The above was an eminently worthwhile resolution on last night’s agenda for the City Council of New Albany.
The resolution would have authorized the purchase of fire-retardant suits for members of New Albany’s narcotics squad. The much-desired crackdown on neighborhood meth labs has put NA’s finest in peril without these suits. Once the need was presented to council, there was universal agreement that we should purchase these suits for the squad.
The resolution did not pass. Mr. Coffey, who was destined to introduce the resolution, pulled it for consideration without presenting it.
I know…you expect me to crack on somebody here.
The new Friends of the New Albany Police Department is a charitable organization whose purpose is to raise money for discretionary items needed by the department that may or may not rise to the level of a public purpose, and to preserve the history of the department.
Word on the street is that Messrs. Coffey and Price made a donation to the “Friends,” funneling it through some unnamed neighborhood association, that, combined with other Friends funds, will cover the full expense of these suits.
Which prompted the funniest moment of the night when CM Mark Seabrook prepared to introduce a resolution to pay for the flood-caused repairs to Clark Street.
Seabrook quipped, “Before I introduce this resolution, is there anyone out there who wants to pay to repair Clark Street?”
By the way, that resolution wasn’t introduced, either, but not because a benefactor stepped up to relieve the city of responsibility for this clearly public expenditure. The city is just waiting for the final bill, which is estimated to be around $17,000. New problems were found and fixed, and it looks like money well spent; likewise, this resolution should pass on a show of hands when it becomes ripe for action.
I heard about the Friends several weeks ago and I support their goals and their formations. I even suggested they create a public membership that will create a bond between the department and the citizens it serves.
Not to diminish the gesture made by the two council members, but what, exactly, about this purchase required charitable donation? Why shouldn’t you and I help pay for required law enforcement equipment, too?
Is this a sincere gesture by the members? It’s undoubtedly boorish to criticize it, but it’s in no way inappropriate to question it, especially if it is intended to be used in a political campaign to privatize this, that, and the next thing.
There are public purposes involved here. The public, through city taxes, should bear the burden. While I’m no less grateful for the gift, I deplore the underlying idea that this isn’t something the taxpayers should pay for.
What’s next? What is the next public purpose that CM Coffey will oppose funding for (no doubt citing the precedent of the fire-retardant suits) and call for some private entity (the YMCA?) to fund expenditures, investments, and even bonds that should, by all rights, be assumed by the taxing authority and its citizens.
That’s yet another example of demagoguery, of appealing to people’s worst instincts.
After all, I don’t drive on Clark Street. So far as I know, I don’t know anyone on Clark Street and I have no relatives on Clark Street. Why don’t the folks on Clark Street pay for it? They’re the ones who benefit from it. If they point out that other people drive on it, let them erect a gate and toll booth to raise additional revenues. Let some benefactor step in and pay for it.
That is the opposite of communitarianism. That is an idea from the pits of hell. Yet that’s the ultimate end of ideas that go something like this:
“The city’s taxpayers are overburdened. Even though police officers who enter into dangerous situations need protection, even though shutting down meth labs is a public purpose, even though my constituents are demanding we get rid of meth labs and slumlords, I think somebody else should pay for it.”
Here’s my response: No matter that you think that’s what will get you re-elected, I’m here to espouse the cause that such demagoguery will be exposed and the people who find such to be the cowardly response of a politician without vision will vote your ass out of office.
------------------------------------
Randy Smith, destinations@sbcglobal.net
posted by All4Word at 1:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home