| Hamilton County, OH | November 3, 2009 Election |
 |
Anderson Center not best use of FundsBy Michael "Mike" PaolucciCandidate for Trustee; Township of Anderson |
This information is provided by the candidate | |
Poor decision making lead to the extreme amount of money spent on the Anderson Center.From September 3, 2009, Forest Hills Journal: Recently Anderson Township Trustees have attempted to explain how TIFs paid for the Anderson Center without raising our taxes. I have negotiated TIF's on behalf of clients, and I am familiar with how these work. We are now paying off $30 Million in bonds and a majority of that money was spent on the Anderson Center. The current leadership has rationalized this expenditure based on the claim that it is OK because your taxes have not been raised. The better question is: Was the Anderson Center the best place to spend $30 Million?The gist of the claims are that the Anderson Center cost the community nothing. I must disagree since the question should not be whether taxes increased (basically they haven't). The question should be whether money was spent wisely. I believe that using the money to build the most opulent office space in our community for mostly Township offices is the wrong priority. Every brick. Every piece of mortar. Every light bulb in the Anderson Center is a dollar that could have been spent somewhere else. Wouldn't a new park have been cheaper? Aren't our schools in need of assistance? Sure, some of the money reached the schools, but did enough? Two of my children attend Wilson Elementary, where they have to place buckets in the hallway every time it rains. I believe a future perspective requires a different prioritization. What is the grand justification? It didn't raise your taxes. Well it didn't today. The next time we need to pass a levy, look at your township building, and then remind yourself that it didn't cost us any new taxes. Money was spent, pure and simple. When capital improvements will be required and levies are requested, the current administration hopes you forget that they just spent $30 million dollars on a state of the art facility. Is this decision any different than the spending we see on a national level? Many have expressed their reservations about the Anderson Center because "it just doesn't feel right." Most fiscally responsible people know they will have to pay for it somehow, and the "no new taxes" argument violates common sense. Let's not forget why we love Anderson. The Parks- The schools- Our homes and neighborhoods are all exceptional. Even with our exceptional community, the one complaint I hear from nearly every resident is the embarrassment of our front door + Beechmont Avenue. People wonder why are we not good enough to have the quality of retail and restaurants on Beechmont that other, many lesser, communities have? This township was presented with the rare opportunity to make their own improvements and what do they do? They choose not to improve our front door, and put a huge office space in a forest. How can we expect private developers to invest in Beechmont when we will not do the same given the opportunity? What if, instead of this center, we had invested in broken down buildings on Beechmont to house the township administration? One less vacancy or used car lot on Beechmont Avenue is inarguably better. The argument should have nothing to do with whether taxes were raised and everything to do with the future. The decision making may have been well-intentioned, however, I can't forget how our quality of life could have improved if that same money was spent with different priorities. Spending the money on the Anderson Center was a bad decision. I believe I can do better, and that is why I am running for Trustee in November. |
Next Page:
Position Paper 2
Candidate Page
|| Feedback to Candidate
|| This Contest
November 2009 Home (Ballot Lookup)
|| About Smart Voter
oh/hm
Created from information supplied by the candidate: October 16, 2009 07:38
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright ©
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor
opposes candidates for public office or political parties.