I’m back from my vacation. It was inevitable. At some point the fun just has to end and you have to get back to work.
Not too much seems to have happened while I was gone; I checked in on the Tribune online and with various local contacts via email.
There wasn’t much new but the bond issue is still front and center. I hate writing about it and had hoped it would just go away. And it looked like it might do just that when I surveyed City Council members right before I left; but the worm appears to have turned and it is very much alive again.
First, the topic bores me to tears. I worked for the financial/business media for decades and another story about interest rates, collateral, sinking funds and the like just isn’t as captivating to me as the new Kurt Andersen book, “True Believers,” for example.
Second, as mentioned in earlier posts, I have mixed feelings about the “One-stop” building idea. If done right it could be a big plus to the city.
And third, I like the Mayor and support most of what he’s done since taking over in January. He has been a big supporter of gregg’s gardens, he committed a good amount of money to the demolition fund, and he worked with the Attorney General to shut down the massage parlors.
But I think he is wrong about this building. The editorial in today’s Tribune sums it up pretty well and if you really want to get into the weeds you can also download a PDF of a memo written by Bette Daily, a Warren resident who returned home after retiring from a long business career. She makes a strong case. BetteDaily_bond issue
Wednesday evening’s Council meeting could see this come to a vote although I doubt it. It is sure to be the talk of the evening however.
Is this Tom’s sister? Quite an indepth and thoughtful report.
yes, she is. it’s gotten broad distribution around town.
Hi Dennis –
I’ve followed your reporting on the new one stop Taj Mahal. I’m glad that you continue to highlight this. This type of thing really bunches my undies. I wrote a long screed blowing chunks all over everyone that even entertains the thought that this whole thing is right, but I disregarded that after I went “down in the weeds” to read what Bette Daily had to say. Nice piece. I presume that it is factually mostly correct, and I hope it gets the traction up there that you seemed to say that it is.
The irony that your city has to pull teeth, and grind the process wheels practically forever to get a few paltry matching dollars for the effort to tear down the slum that is engulfing your city from within, or to bring the hammer down on the homasters, all the while being submitted to the scheming from the wannabes to massively borrow their way out of a grim future, is just too much. Par for the course these days, I guess.
Well, no one said it would be easy. I do take a somewhat different view. The dollars raised for demolitions weren’t paltry by local standards and they couldn’t be borrowed the way money to build a building can be. The people behind the bond issue are good people who believe the building will be a catalyst for growth. While I think there are better ways to achieve that goal I believe they are sincerely trying to do what’s best for the city.