Importance of finances calls for 'super majority'

Posted: Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Those who supply the money in the purse (the taxpayers) should have control of the purse strings, hence the requirement. Our founding fathers were perfectly correct in instituting a simple majority for elections. When we are deciding whether candidate A or candidate B should be hired to represent us in the boring everyday details of government, 50 percent plus 1 is sufficient. But the founding fathers never foresaw the growth of government largess that we have today, where "free" grant money builds infrastructure and services that must then be maintained and staffed for coming generations.

When our road decided to form a Limited Utility District to bring in natural gas to our area, the borough required us to sign up at least 70 percent of our neighbors. Thankfully, we had better than 95 percent participation, because I was very reluctant to force my neighbors to pay for a project they did not want.

(If you aren't familiar with LUDs, the borough paid Enstar the $110,000 for our project up front, and then put a $1,550 lien on each lot to be paid back at 10 percent interest for 10 years.) If my neighbors were unable to pay the lien, they would lose their land.

We are asking a 60 percent super majority, because these issues are not simply a matter of giving someone a job for three years, but entangling our finances for many years to come. They should be taken with more seriousness. Sensible, needed projects will still be done, but those who provide the money should weigh in on the future direction of our community.

Please vote "yes" on propositions 4 and 5.

Vicki Pate, Nikiski

Related Searches


Subscribe to Peninsula Clarion

Trending this week:


© 2018. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us