Sunday, September 16, 2007
Are the trailer owners being given the opportunity to buy the land underneath for fair market value or below market value? If it's fair market value, then I have no quibbles, but it may be more than they can reasonably afford, which sort of defeats the purpose. If it's less than market value, then the community is subsidizing the transaction. I'm okay with this because I support affordable housing any way we can get it, but the last thing I'd want to see is someone getting the land at below market value now, then selling it at market value sometime in the future. If they are getting a special deal at the public's expense, I'd expect some sort of deed restriction put in place to ensure that it stays affordable over the long haul.
a facility that will last
We build a school that is, in theory, supposed to last 20 50 years. Why would we ever consider changing anything? The voters of our district enthusiastically endorsed this project. I think that our community deserves a facility that will last. It seems unfathomable that we would be quibbling over important improvements that in the grand scheme of things are minor compared to the overall cost of the building. It's time for the BOE to dip into our (yes, these are our tax dollars) reserves to cover the shortages. What is the "value" of a school that is not built as designed and approved?
Off-leash park idea won't make better dog owners
This off-leash park idea is a farce. Does anyone really think this is going to make responsible dog owners out of the people who currently ignore the leash law? How many times do you see the owner of a dog who is doing their daily look around to see if anyone is watching before deciding to pick up the result, with some just arrogantly walking away? I know, too often. Walking the core trail nearly every day, we see numerous owners with their dogs wandering along off leash and under no voice command.
Rest in peace, Brianna
Rest in peace, baby girl.