CONSIDER PUBLIC INPUT THIS TIME
A sales tax levy is the fairest means for the collection of money for infrastructure projects. Every citizen, every business, and every visitor will pay the sales tax according to their level of disposable income. There is at least a small amount of financial accountability with a sales tax.
The direct opposite is the constant property tax assessment burden forced on a select group of property owners. Once a levy is passed, there is no financial accountability as to how that money is spent.
The public would be interested in knowing where more money is collected, in a sales tax or in property tax assessments.
Unfortunately, the attempted passage of Issue 3 and Issue 4 sales taxes last year was handled so badly by our local government, and I would hope local government has received a major wake-up call and will finally decide to listen to public citizen input.
If Hancock County citizens are to be called shareholders by Commissioner Brian Robertson, the shareholders lost big time in the past 10 years of sales tax for a flood project completion.
I am puzzled that same commissioner uses the word synergy and comes up with a math formula that 1 + l = 3. My personal finances would get a big boost with that formula!
Please take a look at the past 10 years of sales tax collections that only paid for flood studies with nothing to show toward a completed flood-control project as of today’s date. The purchase of real property was accomplished with mostly federal and state grant money.
Only one major Blanchard River cleaning was done along with a few minor logjams removed. If a sales tax is put to voters again, I agree with The Courier’s view that a strong argument needs to be put forth along with cost and public input being seriously considered.
Ten years ago, I believe there was public input as to widening of the Blanchard River, which was immediately dismissed as being impossible.
The idea has now come full circle.
Barbara Von Stein Smith
Findlay

LET’S LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS
Tom Quarrie (letter, March 12) and the seven directors of “Save Our Neighborhoods” (SON) decided they have the answer to the massive opioid problem facing the country right now.
They want a new “war on drugs.” I say new because we tried it before and it failed.
Where SON shows they have no actual understanding of drug addiction is when the letter states: “So why do we continue to throw virtually all our resources at curing addicts when actual results produced are largely negative?”
Addicts aren’t “cured.” The Joint Statement For A Humane And Balanced Drug Policy signed on by the U.S. in May 2012 states: “Our approach must be a balanced one, combining effective enforcement to restrict the supply of drugs, with efforts to reduce demand and build recovery; supporting people to live a life free of addiction.”
While jailing (or executing as President Trump said) drug dealers sounds like a great idea, it only addresses one part of the problem. The community will still have to help addicts, and it will cost a lot of money to do it.
We filled up the jails during the last war on drugs, and it didn’t work.
I think we need to listen to the people who really are experts on drug addiction, and SON isn’t it.
Doug Berger
Findlay

Comments