I wanted to post the 8 suggestions that were previously posted in Letter to the Dayton Observer. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions.
1) A well written, reasonable and attainable business plan by the park and rec board.
2) An audit of the golf course because there seems to be ongoing questions of what has happened financially. This audit should solve the questions. If everything is o.k. then good, if not then it would need to be fixed.
3) The city attorney be replaced, I do not think after his “personal tirade” that he could or should continue to represent Dayton.
4) That several completely unbiased individuals be on the park and rec board.
5) The council work together to get along, possibly some apologies with the council it’s self and to some others closely involved.
6) An up front open and honest movement by the mayor, council and park and rec board. When things are not perceived as easily answered or information easily and quickly given then it is questioned as to the valid and truthful of any answers or information. This is human nature.
7) Sometimes appeasements to people, ie: arrangement of tables at council meetings, purchasing cheap microphone. These are just examples. If you try to meet very simple requests it will make people happier. It’s usually the small pebbles that irritate people the most, and then these things multiply and become boulders.
8) Have a community healing potluck picnic as suggested by Cindy Corson.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Letter to The Dayton Observer
Dayton is NOT a Credible Government
By: Publius
Local governments are supposed to be a voice of reason in today’s era of big government. Towns are not supposed to take on huge amount of debt or loan themselves money. In the town of Dayton, Iowa, however, this is not the case. Dayton has taken over ownership of the previous privately owned golf course and has pumped hard earned taxpayer money into it. The golf course seems to be a few people in government own personal project. The town has fallen into the mode of tax and spend, and this is a big problem. The government is no longer a credible one that people can trust, but rather a government that people can view as a predator. The town of Dayton has a problem; a problem that will only get worse unless change happens.
By: Publius
Local governments are supposed to be a voice of reason in today’s era of big government. Towns are not supposed to take on huge amount of debt or loan themselves money. In the town of Dayton, Iowa, however, this is not the case. Dayton has taken over ownership of the previous privately owned golf course and has pumped hard earned taxpayer money into it. The golf course seems to be a few people in government own personal project. The town has fallen into the mode of tax and spend, and this is a big problem. The government is no longer a credible one that people can trust, but rather a government that people can view as a predator. The town of Dayton has a problem; a problem that will only get worse unless change happens.
The town of Dayton beginning in the summer of last year has funded the local golf course. The course was bought at the price of 170,000 dollars which was the debt of the course at the time, meaning the city bought debt. Of course the many citizens of the city didn’t know the course could have been bought cheaper after foreclosure and that there was another private buyer that wanted to continue the land as a golf course. After the course was bought, the city council feeling improvements would be needed to the clubhouse to keep the course alive made large purchases such as building a deck and buying several major kitchen appliances. The choice was made to buy these things new, instead of possibly buying used items at a cheaper price. The council was advised to shut down the golf course over the winter by an advisory board. The town council however, voted to keep the course open. The golf course and clubhouse hence accrued a loss of 40,000 dollars over the five winter months as a result of this decision. That is a staggering loss of $8,000 per month.
Then in May the council voted to approve a $1.35 increase in property tax. This property tax increase as stated by a town official is almost entirely due to the golf course. The city also is hurting existing businesses by neglecting town roads. The town road maintenance budget is now only one-fourth of what it was last year. There are several pot holes on heavily trafficked roads that lead to prosperous businesses. This undoubtedly has lead in a decline of business to those areas as other places have much better roads. The roads in Dayton are so bad that you have to swerve in several locations to keep from bottoming out in a car. The roads are just the start in the way this government is unfairly impairing private enterprise. The town and taxpayers are directly funding a rival to restaurants and bars. Just recently the town has also borrowed $25,000 from the Light Board to help pay debt on the golf course (they are in charge of the town’s electrical payments, plans, etc.). This after the town’s electrical rates went up 9 percent this year.
A credible government is one that will let a success prosper and succeed and let a failure, fail. The government must allow these things to happen no matter the preference of the government. This means having a zero tolerance/no exception policy when it comes to funding goods that are pure public goods. If an enterprise is succeeding then the government cannot become a predatory state and start to tax the business more for its success to support a failing business. So, if a business is failing the government should not bailout the business and prop them up. This creates mistrust between the government and the people. The people being the lifeblood of the government can take action by voting and electing new leaders or by doing damage with their feet and moving to different communities with a credible government already in place. That is a plus of a having a Federalist system of government.
Another important part within the idea of credible government is that local governments cannot print money to bailout failing businesses. However, if a local government were able to do such a thing through creative methods you could see it causing a large rift in the community. Ultimately a small government being predatory by methods such as taxing its citizens at an extremely high rate will cause damage to that community as it loses its tax base, when they move to a different community.
The town of Dayton in many of its citizen’s eyes is no longer a credible government. The town has decided to prop up a failing business in the golf course due to the government’s preference for the course. The course lost 107,000 dollars in the past year. This is remarkable and substantial lost. Yet, the government continues to prop the golf course up by raising the citizen’s taxes by $1.35 all due to a golf course a majority of the citizens do not use. The tax is even worse on local businesses however. This is because businesses have to pay a higher percent of their properties earnings than homeowners. There are currently approximately 35 in town members out of the total memberships. That means that in a town of over 800 people under a tenth of the town plays the sport of golf, while the entire town pays for the cost of operating a failing business.
The town has become very predatory. It is not only taxing its citizens at the highest rate by $3.00 per $1000 property value in the county, but it is also competing against private businesses. The city is sponsoring events at the golf course’s clubhouse (that also serves as a restaurant) that would otherwise go to other businesses in town such as the two restaurants, one future restaurant, the bar, and the grocery store that also caters events. The government in Dayton is not letting succeeding businesses succeed.
The government has strong connections to the golf course in the town of Dayton. Three of the five council members have golf memberships, as does the mayor and police officer. I am not saying that the government is purposely trying to become a predatory and uncredible government. They may be doing things with the best of intentions, in the name of promoting the town as a strong major little town. To many a golf course in Dayton is viewed like a pro sports franchise. Many in the government feel that the town without a golf course is no longer a relevant to the rest of the area. This however, is not true; they in fact are only hurting the market for good business in Dayton by bailing out the golf course.
As previously stated local governments should not be able to print out money or bail out businesses. The town of Dayton has gotten around this by taking even more money away from prosperous businesses by slashing the road fund by three fourths and borrowing 20,000 dollars from the Light Board. The town in doing this is borrowing money from itself. All of these things are going to lead to a large move with your feet “movement.” Many people already have expressed a desire to leave due to the factors and mistrust of the government.
A few possible solutions for the town of Dayton are to privatize the golf course in some way. The town could go the route of leasing the clubhouse which has been the main reason behind the large losses and the town becoming predatory. This would also still ensure that the government’s preference of having the golf course is also met, while satisfying the people by taking it off the town’s budget and the taxpayers’ property tax. The other option would be to sell the golf course and the clubhouse to the highest bidder; this while being most likely easier due to the ability to convert the course to farmland. The town would get immediate profit from the sale which would allow the town to concentrate on pure public goods such as roads.
The town of Dayton bought a golf course that was in serious debt. The government then decided due to their preferences that it was best for the town to continue ownership of the golf course. However, due to this decision the town’s government has turned into a predatory government that taxes its citizens as extremely high rate and one that supports its failing business over those of prosperous, succeeding businesses. The town of Dayton has a very simple choice in my mind to privatize the golf course in some way. Otherwise the problems will continue to progress.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Tuesday's Edition
I find it unforunate that The Dayton Review decided to rehash last week's Des Moines Register article, as well as a portion of the quotes the city attorney made at the city council meeting. As stated in a previous posting, I thought the city attorney and The Des Moines Register opened Pandora's Box. I am not sure why the decision was made to reprint the same story, a story which does not advance the current debate.
I think there are more important issues out there. For example: the new budget/bond issue.
However, this week's story is already over a week old.
I think there are more important issues out there. For example: the new budget/bond issue.
However, this week's story is already over a week old.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Saturday Meeting
Very short meeting on Saturday; the meeting was held to approve the budget to be advertised.
I hope everyone is having a safe and a fun Memorial Day.
I hope everyone is having a safe and a fun Memorial Day.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Interesting Read
I wanted to post an article that I thought was very interesting and some of the points made in the article are directly related with the city of Dayton owning the golf course.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Tuesday's Thoughts
Some of the recent comments posted on the other site are very unsettling to me. In my previous post I stated that I did not think that a person's past has anything to do with the current debate; this statement includes family and friends. I hoped it was not true, but the combination of the city attorney's statements and The Des Moines Register, Pandora's Box was opened.
We need to find a common ground to try and come to a solution. Some have suggested a business plan. Let's look at alternatives that would not increase our property taxes. I would still be happy to post advertisements for the golf course if there are events/special food items that they would like advertised.
Please be warned that if there are any comments that I find offensive or out-of-bounds, I will immediately remove them.
We need to find a common ground to try and come to a solution. Some have suggested a business plan. Let's look at alternatives that would not increase our property taxes. I would still be happy to post advertisements for the golf course if there are events/special food items that they would like advertised.
Please be warned that if there are any comments that I find offensive or out-of-bounds, I will immediately remove them.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Common Ground
I have to say it has been interesting reading all the comments on the Des Moines Register's website and the blog today. I wanted to talk about a theme I picked up in some of the comments tonight. I believe that theme is finding a common ground. I think we need to find a common ground to discuss the concerns of both sides. I think that some of this might be solved if we come to a definitive conclusion on what the city should do with the golf course. Some people do not want to continue to having higher property taxes if the golf course is continuing to lose money. Obviously, if the golf course does well, we don't have to pay higher property taxes.
But we have to have some kind of measuring stick to determine when it won't be feasible to continue to have the golf course if the course continues to lose money. Can we decide at what point that will be? I think this may make both sides a little less edgier because both sides will know what to expect going forward with the golf course.
This is only one option in trying to find common ground with many other options out there.
Now to a couple other items: As many others have stated, I'm not really sure what the purpose of airing Councilman Benson's past has to do with the current debate other than to make him look bad. Furthermore, I really don't think that is a road that we want to head down. It seems like the city attorney has opened the door to every councilmember's past, which I believe is a disservice. Their past is their past, whomever it is.
But we have to have some kind of measuring stick to determine when it won't be feasible to continue to have the golf course if the course continues to lose money. Can we decide at what point that will be? I think this may make both sides a little less edgier because both sides will know what to expect going forward with the golf course.
This is only one option in trying to find common ground with many other options out there.
Now to a couple other items: As many others have stated, I'm not really sure what the purpose of airing Councilman Benson's past has to do with the current debate other than to make him look bad. Furthermore, I really don't think that is a road that we want to head down. It seems like the city attorney has opened the door to every councilmember's past, which I believe is a disservice. Their past is their past, whomever it is.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Last Night's Meeting
Wanted to give everyone a quick synopsis of last night's meeting:
AGENDA
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda- Approved
Approval of Minutes- Approved
Approval of Bills- Approved. There was an issue brought up with the council not being notified about Dale Johnson hauling for the city and the cost difference between the city hauling and Mr. Johnson hauling.
Approval of Water Project CDBG/SRF Bills-
OLD BUSINESS
A. Recycling Fees- There was a motion to approve increasing the recycling bill by $1.00 per month. The council then discussed raising the rates by only $0.50. Council approved raising the rates $1.00 a month per resident household and sending a letter to the county to ask for more funds.
B. 2008-2009 Budget Amendment
C. Ordinance 233 (3rd Meeting)- Approved
D. 31 South Main Street Property Clean Up- Brought up liability concerns of not tearing down the last wall as a town. The council decided to try and get the property owner to help with the cost of this project.
E. Power of Trees Program- The mayor asked the council to think of candidates for a five person committee. Two can be council members.
F. 9th Street Drainage-This drainage needs to be repaired according to the council.
G. Well Project- They have drilled to 1000ft. The goal is to drill to 1250ft. They hope to have this accomplished by Thursday of next week.
H. Water Meter Replacement Program- The council approved by 10 meters with the type to be determined by city employees.
I. Golf Course Superintendent- Devin Gallentine was hired at $500 a week for 5 months
J. Golf Course Maintenance Worker- Hired Tyler Menhusen at $400 a week.
K. Golf Course Clubhouse Cook
L. Lagoon Property Rental Bid
M. Golf Course Petition-Out of Order
NEW BUSINESS
A. Building Permits: Christ the King Church, Storage Shed- Approved; Kevin and Robin Dodson, Retail Building-Approved; Southeast Webster School: concession, restroom building-Approved
B. Fireworks Permit-Approved
C. Bridge Inspection Reports
D. 3rd Avenue SW Drainage and Trees- Will ask the DNR about a potential solution.
E. Animals at Large Ordinance- Police Chief Weiland suggested that the town change the fines for this ordinance from $250 for the first offense and $750 for all next offenses to $25 for the first offense, $50 for the second offense, and $75 for the third offense. The council passed his suggestion.
F. Park Clean Up Project-5th Graders. This was moved up to the beginning of the meeting. Two pupils in Mr. Wisecup’s 5th Grade class asked the council for permission to clean up the park at the school and to raise money for the Humane Society. Council approved of their inquiry.
G. Park and Recreation Secretary Pay- The council approved paying either the City or Assistant City Clerk $25 to take notes at the Park and Recreation Board meetings.
H. 1st American Bank Building- The town has been approached about buying this building. Some have suggested making this City Hall to protect records in the vault. More information will be collected before a decision is made.
I. School Park Update
J. I-JOBS Program- The state has appropriated a sum of money for roads to cities. The town will have to apply for these funds.
K. Franchise Fees- Towns can now again apply franchise fees. The council decided not to apply this.
L. Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-
M. State Ombudsman- The city attorney addressed the council and those in attendance from 40 to 50 minutes addressing a variety of issues.
N. Comments from the floor- There were several comments from the floor.
O. Other Business
Meeting Adjourned
AGENDA
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda- Approved
Approval of Minutes- Approved
Approval of Bills- Approved. There was an issue brought up with the council not being notified about Dale Johnson hauling for the city and the cost difference between the city hauling and Mr. Johnson hauling.
Approval of Water Project CDBG/SRF Bills-
OLD BUSINESS
A. Recycling Fees- There was a motion to approve increasing the recycling bill by $1.00 per month. The council then discussed raising the rates by only $0.50. Council approved raising the rates $1.00 a month per resident household and sending a letter to the county to ask for more funds.
B. 2008-2009 Budget Amendment
C. Ordinance 233 (3rd Meeting)- Approved
D. 31 South Main Street Property Clean Up- Brought up liability concerns of not tearing down the last wall as a town. The council decided to try and get the property owner to help with the cost of this project.
E. Power of Trees Program- The mayor asked the council to think of candidates for a five person committee. Two can be council members.
F. 9th Street Drainage-This drainage needs to be repaired according to the council.
G. Well Project- They have drilled to 1000ft. The goal is to drill to 1250ft. They hope to have this accomplished by Thursday of next week.
H. Water Meter Replacement Program- The council approved by 10 meters with the type to be determined by city employees.
I. Golf Course Superintendent- Devin Gallentine was hired at $500 a week for 5 months
J. Golf Course Maintenance Worker- Hired Tyler Menhusen at $400 a week.
K. Golf Course Clubhouse Cook
L. Lagoon Property Rental Bid
M. Golf Course Petition-Out of Order
NEW BUSINESS
A. Building Permits: Christ the King Church, Storage Shed- Approved; Kevin and Robin Dodson, Retail Building-Approved; Southeast Webster School: concession, restroom building-Approved
B. Fireworks Permit-Approved
C. Bridge Inspection Reports
D. 3rd Avenue SW Drainage and Trees- Will ask the DNR about a potential solution.
E. Animals at Large Ordinance- Police Chief Weiland suggested that the town change the fines for this ordinance from $250 for the first offense and $750 for all next offenses to $25 for the first offense, $50 for the second offense, and $75 for the third offense. The council passed his suggestion.
F. Park Clean Up Project-5th Graders. This was moved up to the beginning of the meeting. Two pupils in Mr. Wisecup’s 5th Grade class asked the council for permission to clean up the park at the school and to raise money for the Humane Society. Council approved of their inquiry.
G. Park and Recreation Secretary Pay- The council approved paying either the City or Assistant City Clerk $25 to take notes at the Park and Recreation Board meetings.
H. 1st American Bank Building- The town has been approached about buying this building. Some have suggested making this City Hall to protect records in the vault. More information will be collected before a decision is made.
I. School Park Update
J. I-JOBS Program- The state has appropriated a sum of money for roads to cities. The town will have to apply for these funds.
K. Franchise Fees- Towns can now again apply franchise fees. The council decided not to apply this.
L. Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-
M. State Ombudsman- The city attorney addressed the council and those in attendance from 40 to 50 minutes addressing a variety of issues.
N. Comments from the floor- There were several comments from the floor.
O. Other Business
Meeting Adjourned
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Space For Rent
Some of my recent posts have been critical of the some of the latest happenings going on in Dayton. Last night I did say that the purpose of this blog was for everyone in Dayton and I would like to reiterate that tonight. Specifically, I would like to offer some space on this blog to the golf course business.
Some of my suggestions:
1. I would be interested in receiving a weekly lunch/dinner special menu for the clubhouse. My thinking is if I could receive something on a Saturday or a Sunday through e-mail, I would be able to post the next week's specials on Sunday so anyone interested would be able to check to see what's on the menu for lunch/dinner.
2. If the Rec Board has an event that they want advertised, I would be more than happy to post those events.
3. If there is someone that would like to write a guest column, I would be also happy to post that column.
If others have suggestions, submit them at dayton.observer@gmail.com
Also, I encourage people to go try the food at the clubhouse. They do have some really good food.
I want to make clear that I have been critical of some of the decision-making surrounding the golf course, not that I want the golf course to fail. Heck, I enjoy the food and will continue spending money there.
Some of my suggestions:
1. I would be interested in receiving a weekly lunch/dinner special menu for the clubhouse. My thinking is if I could receive something on a Saturday or a Sunday through e-mail, I would be able to post the next week's specials on Sunday so anyone interested would be able to check to see what's on the menu for lunch/dinner.
2. If the Rec Board has an event that they want advertised, I would be more than happy to post those events.
3. If there is someone that would like to write a guest column, I would be also happy to post that column.
If others have suggestions, submit them at dayton.observer@gmail.com
Also, I encourage people to go try the food at the clubhouse. They do have some really good food.
I want to make clear that I have been critical of some of the decision-making surrounding the golf course, not that I want the golf course to fail. Heck, I enjoy the food and will continue spending money there.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Quelling of Political Speech
I want to start off tonight and let everyone know that there was a Rec Board meeting tonight, and the board decided on a supervisor.
I would like to take this time and respond to the recent article in The Dayton Review. First, I appreciate being called the "alternative newspaper," but the real purpose for this blog is to give a voice to everyone in Dayton.
The crux of the matter, it seemed to me, was that this blog was centered on anonymity. I briefly addressed this issue a month or so back, but I will discuss my reasoning again.
When I created this blog I felt it was important that people have a chance to have a voice and be heard. However, some people feel hesitant to let their feelings be known because of possible retaliation or their opinion being minimized. I will admit that anonymity is not perfect, but I feel it is the best option and gives people the best chance to let their voice be heard.
Another important point, the Constitution protects anonymous political speech. If anyone is wondering about that, I googled anonymous free speech today and came up with two cases protecting anonymous political speech. The two cases are: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commissioner and Watchtower Bible v. Village of Stratton. I wanted to quote a portion of the McIntyre opinion:
"Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that "[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Id., at 64-65. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where "the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade," City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U. S. ___, ___ (1994) (slip op., at 13), the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity. The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation."
Another quote from McIntyre:
"Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."
I believe the principles set forth above ring true in this situation. People are free to agree or disagree with my positions and these people can let their opinion be known on this blog. As noted, there are factors that go into deciding whether to stay anonymous, and one of those factors is official retaliation.
Case in point: This week Councilman Benson was issued a letter stating he was not in compliance with the dog registration ordinance. There was also an earlier verbal warning to him after a contentious city council meeting. Councilman Benson complied with the ordinance by registering his dogs.
This brings up an interesting point: how many letters or citations under this ordinance have been issued before this in recent years? Zero. This stinks of retaliation. Councilman Benson has been a vocal critic of the golf course and he gets a letter saying he was not in compliance with an ordinance. The argument can be made that the enforcement has to start somewhere and with someone. True, but only one letter was sent out and that letter was sent to one of the councilmen who has been a vocal critic of the golf course. If you have spoken out against the golf course, you better make sure your sidewalks are not cracked or make sure to have your dogs registered. Furthermore, there are other instances of this kind of "enforcement of ordinances" going on with other opponents of the golf course.
Hence, this is the main reason that the Dayton Observer is going to maintain its anonymity.
I would like to take this time and respond to the recent article in The Dayton Review. First, I appreciate being called the "alternative newspaper," but the real purpose for this blog is to give a voice to everyone in Dayton.
The crux of the matter, it seemed to me, was that this blog was centered on anonymity. I briefly addressed this issue a month or so back, but I will discuss my reasoning again.
When I created this blog I felt it was important that people have a chance to have a voice and be heard. However, some people feel hesitant to let their feelings be known because of possible retaliation or their opinion being minimized. I will admit that anonymity is not perfect, but I feel it is the best option and gives people the best chance to let their voice be heard.
Another important point, the Constitution protects anonymous political speech. If anyone is wondering about that, I googled anonymous free speech today and came up with two cases protecting anonymous political speech. The two cases are: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commissioner and Watchtower Bible v. Village of Stratton. I wanted to quote a portion of the McIntyre opinion:
"Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that "[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Id., at 64-65. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where "the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade," City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U. S. ___, ___ (1994) (slip op., at 13), the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity. The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation."
Another quote from McIntyre:
"Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."
I believe the principles set forth above ring true in this situation. People are free to agree or disagree with my positions and these people can let their opinion be known on this blog. As noted, there are factors that go into deciding whether to stay anonymous, and one of those factors is official retaliation.
Case in point: This week Councilman Benson was issued a letter stating he was not in compliance with the dog registration ordinance. There was also an earlier verbal warning to him after a contentious city council meeting. Councilman Benson complied with the ordinance by registering his dogs.
This brings up an interesting point: how many letters or citations under this ordinance have been issued before this in recent years? Zero. This stinks of retaliation. Councilman Benson has been a vocal critic of the golf course and he gets a letter saying he was not in compliance with an ordinance. The argument can be made that the enforcement has to start somewhere and with someone. True, but only one letter was sent out and that letter was sent to one of the councilmen who has been a vocal critic of the golf course. If you have spoken out against the golf course, you better make sure your sidewalks are not cracked or make sure to have your dogs registered. Furthermore, there are other instances of this kind of "enforcement of ordinances" going on with other opponents of the golf course.
Hence, this is the main reason that the Dayton Observer is going to maintain its anonymity.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Inefficiencies of Local Government
First of all, I would like to congratulate the golf course on two good days of business.
I wanted to have a discussion about the inefficiencies of the local government. It has long been the belief that local governments are best suited to provide local transportation infrastructure, sanitation, police, fire protection, and elementary/secondary education services. One prominent theorist (Tiebout) specializing in local government asserted that people will "vote with their feet" by moving to a locality that provides a better mix of taxes and services. Local governments try to keep people and attract more by offering attractive public services and amenities at reasonable tax costs. Of course, this theorist assumed that people can move to other localities without many burdens. Today, we know that some people cannot vote with their feet due to economic circumstances.
These local governments need revenue, and the biggest source of this revenue is the property tax. The main purposes behind local taxation is to provide services and create wealth. I believe all of us are very familiar with the providing services part. However, a local government should have policies that improve the well being of the local citizens. Also, there is a desire to increase the tax revenue of a community through business related decisions. However, it is paramount that these business related decisions lower the effective tax burdens on residents. Generally, the majority of the property tax burden falls on the residents of a community. This is because businesses usually receive tax relief as a carrot to come to a community.
Now to the inefficiency of our local government. Dayton has one of the highest property taxes in Webster County. Granted, some of this is due to recent infrastructure improvements. However, the golf course decision was a business decision that increased the tax burden on the residents of Dayton. As noted before, there was some questionable decisions that were made with regards to the golf course. First, there was no mention of possible private buyer. Second, the city could have gotten a much better deal than the $ 170,000 paid. Finally, the citizens are footed with the bill of the $ 107,000 loss last year. I would argue that some of these moves has hurt Dayton in being competitive with other communities. A golf course is a great asset to the community. However, other communities offer the same services at a lesser tax burden to their residents. This puts Dayton at a competitive disadvantage, which is part of the inefficiency of our local government.
We still have the full golf course season ahead of us to see how well the golf course does and what future decisions the Rec Board makes, as well as the City Council. In November, each resident will get to evaluate the decision-making of the Council and determine whether the Council made Dayton more competitive in the sense of offering the right mix of taxes/services.
I wanted to have a discussion about the inefficiencies of the local government. It has long been the belief that local governments are best suited to provide local transportation infrastructure, sanitation, police, fire protection, and elementary/secondary education services. One prominent theorist (Tiebout) specializing in local government asserted that people will "vote with their feet" by moving to a locality that provides a better mix of taxes and services. Local governments try to keep people and attract more by offering attractive public services and amenities at reasonable tax costs. Of course, this theorist assumed that people can move to other localities without many burdens. Today, we know that some people cannot vote with their feet due to economic circumstances.
These local governments need revenue, and the biggest source of this revenue is the property tax. The main purposes behind local taxation is to provide services and create wealth. I believe all of us are very familiar with the providing services part. However, a local government should have policies that improve the well being of the local citizens. Also, there is a desire to increase the tax revenue of a community through business related decisions. However, it is paramount that these business related decisions lower the effective tax burdens on residents. Generally, the majority of the property tax burden falls on the residents of a community. This is because businesses usually receive tax relief as a carrot to come to a community.
Now to the inefficiency of our local government. Dayton has one of the highest property taxes in Webster County. Granted, some of this is due to recent infrastructure improvements. However, the golf course decision was a business decision that increased the tax burden on the residents of Dayton. As noted before, there was some questionable decisions that were made with regards to the golf course. First, there was no mention of possible private buyer. Second, the city could have gotten a much better deal than the $ 170,000 paid. Finally, the citizens are footed with the bill of the $ 107,000 loss last year. I would argue that some of these moves has hurt Dayton in being competitive with other communities. A golf course is a great asset to the community. However, other communities offer the same services at a lesser tax burden to their residents. This puts Dayton at a competitive disadvantage, which is part of the inefficiency of our local government.
We still have the full golf course season ahead of us to see how well the golf course does and what future decisions the Rec Board makes, as well as the City Council. In November, each resident will get to evaluate the decision-making of the Council and determine whether the Council made Dayton more competitive in the sense of offering the right mix of taxes/services.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Good Golf Day
I wanted to congratulate the golf course on having a good tournament today. I do hope we see more days like today and getting the course closer to break even! Congratulations again to the people putting on the tournament today.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Cost Per Membership
There was a recent suggestion via e-mail regarding a topic this person wanted discussed.
So far, if you add up all the costs associated with the golf course you get $287,000 ($170,000 + $107,000 + $25,000)-$15,000. These are the total amount of buying the course, loss from last year, the recent loan from Light Board and taking away the approximately $15,000 for the first payment obligation. There was some back and forth about a month ago regarding the actual membership numbers from last year (106 memberships from an editorial and I believe around 118 from another source), so I am going to round up to 120 memberships, give or take. Divide the $287,000 by 120 and we get $2391.67 per membership.
That is a staggering number. I understand that some of the debt went to capital improvements and such, but the truth of the matter is the debt sustained by the golf course is approximately $2391.67 for every 1 golf membership so far. This seems to be an amenity that serves a few but in turn costs the majority much more.
I have heard some arguments that the golf course increases the value of homes in the area. I believe golf courses, in general, do increase the value of a home. The other side of that argument is the opportunity cost of not continuing the general upkeep that a city needs every year. This may lower home values. I hope not, but it is a factor.
I am glad to see the Rec Board discussing some cost saving matters in their recent meetings. But there is still quite a bit of cost savings that need to be implemented to reduce the $2391.67 dollars lost to every 1 membership.
So far, if you add up all the costs associated with the golf course you get $287,000 ($170,000 + $107,000 + $25,000)-$15,000. These are the total amount of buying the course, loss from last year, the recent loan from Light Board and taking away the approximately $15,000 for the first payment obligation. There was some back and forth about a month ago regarding the actual membership numbers from last year (106 memberships from an editorial and I believe around 118 from another source), so I am going to round up to 120 memberships, give or take. Divide the $287,000 by 120 and we get $2391.67 per membership.
That is a staggering number. I understand that some of the debt went to capital improvements and such, but the truth of the matter is the debt sustained by the golf course is approximately $2391.67 for every 1 golf membership so far. This seems to be an amenity that serves a few but in turn costs the majority much more.
I have heard some arguments that the golf course increases the value of homes in the area. I believe golf courses, in general, do increase the value of a home. The other side of that argument is the opportunity cost of not continuing the general upkeep that a city needs every year. This may lower home values. I hope not, but it is a factor.
I am glad to see the Rec Board discussing some cost saving matters in their recent meetings. But there is still quite a bit of cost savings that need to be implemented to reduce the $2391.67 dollars lost to every 1 membership.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)