The
debate for re‑authorization of the Home
Rule option is simple. The Home Rule option
allows
the town to borrow unlimited amounts of money
secured by all property owners in the town,
while the other state‑authorized options
require a certain amount of restrictions and
limitations on how large a debt a municipality
can responsibly assume, based on population
numbers.
Indeed,
the key issue is fiscal responsibility. How
responsible is it for a town of 4,865 citizens
to assume a massive debt in the tens of millions
of dollars, for what‑ever reasons given
for these
expenditures
or whatever creative repayment methods are used
to justify these loans. In the end, the homeowners
are holding the IOUs.
The
town’s arguments are that without Home Rule,
its hands will be tied. It will not be able
to
provide
the services needed and it will be required
to borrow money to make up the differences in
allowable expenditures. The fact of the matter
is, that the amount of borrowed money needed
to operate the town as it currently operates
is nowhere near the amount of borrowing that
has just been obtained–over $30 million and
counting.
How
does the town expect to repay all of the proposed
loans?
Development.
Not the kind of development the town has historically
pursued, but high‑density projects. In
order to pay for multimillion dollar water companies,
infrastructure, operations, sewer/ waste water
facilities, land purchases and other development
costs, we will be locked into
becoming
slaves of development. Once we enter this self‑perpetuating
cycle of development, our hands will certainly
be tied. With the complexity of all these proposed
mega‑projects, it is
difficult
to envision a successful outcome, given the
mess that the ‘StreetScape’ project has been.
It
is time for some fiscal restraint and responsibility,
stop the ‘Blank Check’ spending. Vote no on
Prop 400.
John
Vannucci
Creekers
for Fiscal Responsibility
