As discussed in earlier posts, the city council will have a meeting tonight to vote on the third reading of Ordinance 232. Ordinance 232 will obviously pass tonight. The important question now is what to do going forward. I have given my thoughts on why the board should be comprised of independent members. A board of independent members will allow for greater oversight of the golf course. Unfortunately, I believe that this may be a tough year for the golf course again. I know people will argue I am not giving it a chance; however, the economy just does not allow for people to be spending their money on amenities. Loss of jobs, increased taxes (not just because of the golf course, but tobacco, etc.), and this uncertainty takes too much out of a families discretionary budget. Hopefully an independent board will give the citizens of Dayton the best possible information regarding the health of the golf course. This information will allow us to determine what should be done with the golf course later this year or early next year.
Don't get me wrong, I love to golf. In this situation, I am just trying to be pragmatic. This is where I don't understand the negative attitude shown towards Councilman Benson and Councilman Vegors this past month or so. It seems they have been asking the pragmatic questions regarding this golf course. However, being pragmatic has been characterized as being an obstructionist. The Dayton Review evidences this obstructionist idea perfectly by subtitling the main article in the recent issue as "Benson, Vegors vote no." These Councilmen are asking very important questions and raising concerns about an issue that will affect Dayton for years to come.
I do see the other side of the picture. There are people that are passionate about golf. I get that. They feel this golf course is vital to the town of Dayton. However, this issue seems to be placing what many consider to be an amenity above the overall health of the Dayton community. This is not being very pragmatic.
Therefore, it is very important that we have people like Councilman Benson and Councilman Vegors continuing to ask these very important questions and raising their concerns, even when some portray them as obstructionists. It is also very important that the council hears your questions and your concerns because the city council and the mayor are working for you.
dayton.observer@gmail.com
I understand that we need people on the council that don't agree on everything. That's called good government. I respect both Norm and Kevin B. for voting thier convictions. The problem that I see is that they both constantly say they don't want the city to spend money foolishly. But, do they reailize how much money they wasted on these special meetings. There was three special meetings to amend the Park Board ordinance. They both made it well known that they were against this board. They also knew that it would pass, so why did we waste all the money on special meetings. When all we needed was one.
ReplyDeleteI also respect these two gentlemen for their
ReplyDeletebeliefs and following through with their convictions. Three special meetings regarding this was not such a large sum of money. How many special meetings were there last year. How much money was wasted from them? I don't believe it was because of issues brought up the Mr. Benson and Mr. Vegors.
The amount for the three special meetings was around $300 per meeting. Dragging out an issue that's going to pass, after you've made your point is a waste of time and money no matter how you look at it.
ReplyDeleteLets see here, $300 versus $109,000 loss at the golf course. No wonder people are upset at special meetings. That is $300 more that could have went to the golf course!!! Good job to Mr. Benson and Mr. Vegors. At least they are looking out for the taxpayers.
ReplyDelete