LEVY IS NOT HER CONCERN
I am writing in regard to the front page article in Tuesday’s Courier concerning the Findlay City Schools safety, security levy.
I would like to know why is it always the property owners who are responsible for anything concerning the schools?
Especially when there are those who do not have kids, do not want kids, and those who are senior citizens and are on a fixed income.
Why can’t there be a set amount levied on the parents who have kids in school, as well as to those who have multiple kids and rent. That way it is fair and only those who have kids pay for it.
Lastly, I have nothing against kids as long as they go back home, and no, they are not my future. I am solely responsible for my future.
Therefore, I am voting “no” on this issue and urge others to do so who are tired of paying taxes on these types of levies that do not concern them.
COUNCIL IGNORED ZONING’S INPUT
Shame on City Council for letting it be drawn into what is essentially a disagreement between neighbors (Page A1, Aug. 8).
Council is definitely not Solomon by taking sides in the matter and vacating some undeveloped streets and ignoring the input of an advising city department.
Its action in this matter deprives a property owner of possible development by denying him access and reinforces the impression that council is a do-nothing, rubber-stamp council.
My only hope is that the county commissioners don’t follow your lead in the pending Western Meadows drainage problem and steamroll the rights of downstream property owners.