Comments on: Masterson Meets Motorists

By: Joe moran

Joe moran — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:25:12 +0000

I agree with the Guardian. If you the politicians won’t put it to a vote of the people there trying to pull something off. This is America!

By: osprey

osprey — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 02:35:28 +0000

Gotta go with Patman. It is prudent and thrifty, i.e. “conservative” in its traditional definition, to save. I do not buy the Guardian argument that saving money for a police station is cutting the voters out of the loop. The money is identified and set aside in the city budget, which is discussed and adopted at a public meeting. No, I did not go to the meetings, I voted for the people who take care of that. It’s called representative government. The requirement for a vote when going into debt implies an incentive for governments to be thrifty and budget to save for capital expenses. As for the comments about location, size and exact cost of facilities, I think those details are best left to the elected officials. If one is interested in details like building colors and parking spaces go ahead and run for city council.

By: Patman

Patman — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:15:29 +0000

I have to disagree with the Guardian on this one. I think it’s very responsible government to save money for an expense that’s not an “if”, but rather, a “when”. Eventually the police will need that building and the city will have the cash to pay for it. The citizens of Boise will not have to pay for a bond election and won’t have to pay interest on the bond (i.e. mortgage). We’ll own it out-right. We elect the council to make the decisions about the size and location of facilities. “They didn’t save to pay the library or the Foothills debts” and we’re paying the interest – Kudos for not making the same mistake a 3rd time. Debt is BAD.