So far, the best reason I have heard to build a new Library is that Town Hall needs a bigger building in which to store their collection of Consultants' reports. (I hope they save a special place for the Consultant who thought it was a good idea to spend $3.5 million to renovate Town Hall and reduce the amount of space usable by Town employees!) The latest farce is the employment of a consultant to determine how residents feel about building additional recreational facilities.
It's no secret that the Town needs more space -- the constant beating the fields take is second only to the constant beating the School Department takes for their poor condition. The reality is, if the schools are spending money on fields (or pools), they aren't spending money on academics. It's that simple.
If an outside group wants to use a school field they need to pay for their share of the maintenance. It's an old argument that that taxpayers shouldn't be expected to fund private group use of public facilities out of the school budget -- especially if these non-profits manage to find ways to pay some of their "volunteers". If a group decides some of its people deserve to be paid -- than they should damn well be paying for the use of taxpayer-funded facilities.
For more details -- see the Mass Attorney General's Office online database of non-profit organization tax filings at: www.charities.ago.state.ma.us,
Just for old-time's sake, I looked up one particular group that has always benefited greatly from the use of school-funded facilities -- and -- sure enough, the nastiest, most foul-tempered little troll who constantly fought against any usage fess was ... wait for it ... the highest paid "volunteer" listed on any of the tax returns. When asked about her group's ability to pay, the Troll had sneered. "I'm not showing you our tax returns!" She was too stupid to realize they were already available online.
But that's an old argument -- and we have already seen that few really give enough of a damn to speak-out on the issue. This "new study" will show two distinct groups: (1) People who want more facilities and (2) Everybody else who won't show-up.
At the risk of sounding cynical, I suspect there may be a "solution" all ready to go -- just waiting for a consulting "study" to justify it! And, I suspect the consultant is not going to be the only one making a grab for my tax dollars in this deal!
So let's not pretend.
2 comments:
Brother Bob it looks like some of the chickens are getting ready to lay a few eggs. I like mine scrambled with a little butter. The Foxes are in the hen house once again waiting for an easy meal. Have you noticed that we the tax payers may well get to pay another bill, so that others can profit and realize some monetary gain. Or is it my imagination in reruns?
It is ridiculous and practically criminal that those in charge of town resources do not see the necessity or the benefit of developing a much needed revenue stream from field use for "non-profit" groups that use them. No municipality can hope to achieve any form of sustainable government without being rational where this is concerned, be it fields, buildings, etc. The days of government "subsidies" at the local level are gone!
Bob is right about this. The SC he served on tried to do something but to no avail. It will take strength and real courage to stand up for the average tax payer in this. It disgusts me that people think it is OK to take money for themselves but stiff the town. The arrangements of care taking instead of payments are too complicated and in my opinion not appropriate. It has to be about recovering costs. Any of these groups can find, build, and fund their own fields. They certainly have the clout to do so. I hope this gets resolved in the near future. This travesty has gone on long enough. But sadly it will like just be more whining and threats about moving from citizens and more circle talking from those in authority to create good policy.
Post a Comment