Regarding the $30 million bond proposal in 2011 – the opposition to this proposal was concerned about two things.
One was that the extra $22 million could be spent on anything and the size of the bond issue could be increased to $40-plus million without further taxpayer approval.
Check out the photo on page 8A in last week’s paper (Dec. 17). The fourth sign back “No Carte Blanche Bonds” and a sign in the background “$44 million.”
You must be a member to read this story.
Join our family of readers starting at $5 for your first month and support local, unbiased journalism.
Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.
Register to comment
Click here create a free account for posting comments.
Note that free accounts do not include access to premium content on this site.
I am anchor
Reader's note
Posted
John Rafenstein
Regarding the $30 million bond proposal in 2011 – the opposition to this proposal was concerned about two things.
One was that the extra $22 million could be spent on anything and the size of the bond issue could be increased to $40-plus million without further taxpayer approval.
Check out the photo on page 8A in last week’s paper (Dec. 17). The fourth sign back “No Carte Blanche Bonds” and a sign in the background “$44 million.”
The average citizen does understand government funding and, more importantly, unbridled government spending.
(Editor’s Note: The extra $22 million was for street-related expenses only, as detailed in the proposal, not “anything.” The bond issue amount, if approved, would have been restricted to $30 million in total funding to the town. Town officials could not have randomly increased the bond amount without voter approval. The $44 million reference, as reported here in 2011, was to the principal and total interest costs that would have been paid by taxpayers over the life of the bonds if the funding package had been approved.)
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here