My wife and I got a surprise this morning on our walk through the neighborhood.
We saw a house around corner from ours with a lawn sign that urges city residents to oppose all seven of the municipal propositions on the Nov. 8 ballot.
The message is sponsored by a group called saveamarillo.org.
So, when we got home, I looked up the website and found some limited “information” about why this group — which doesn’t have any individuals listed — opposes the propositions.
Here’s what I found under the tab “The Problems with Propositions 1-7”: “The problems with the propositions that Amarillo will be voting on are very simple to see.
“These propositions are loaded with pork. When we say pork, we mean wasteful spending by government officials. Look through the items listed on amarillo.gov and you will see plenty of items that are not well defined, or not needed. We are for buying must haves, but all of the must haves listed in these propositions could easily be taken care of by the City Council. Instead, Amarillo will not be voting only on wants, or only on must haves, but rather Amarillo will be voting on a combo package of the City’s wants and a couple of must haves. This is trickery by the career politicians. And it is yet another reason to vote against on November 8.”
That’s it, folks.
For starters, I’d like to know who the “we” are in this effort to derail the city’s $340 million spending package that covers a multitude of issues, ranging from parks and ballfields, police and fire protection, street repair and Civic Center renovation and expansion.
I also would like for them to identify the “pork” alleged to be contained in the measures.
How about telling us how the City Council could have “taken care of” the items listed in the propositions? Are these folks — whoever they are — suggesting the council could just spend the money without asking voters for their approval?
As for City Hall asking voters to decide the fate of a “combo package,” the city instead has broken out the propositions into stand-alone segments. Voters can approve all, some or none of them.
I intend to support them all.
This group also accuses the city of not defining the projects sufficiently. It’s fair to ask, though, whether saveamarillo.org has defined its objections … at all!
Check out the website here:
They call it “trickery.” I sense a good bit of the same in the vagueness of this anti-proposition effort.
These folks might be composed of individuals who were against the ballpark ?
Do you think? Thanks.