Topics

6 Comments

1. 
   Julio said: On March 30, 2011 at 9:34 AM

   What am I missing here? If there is no cost to the tax payers, why were three against applying for this grant?

   Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 20  2

   Log in to Reply
2. 
   i94roadhog said: On March 30, 2011 at 7:18 PM

   This is interesting journalism – There is absolutely no indication of why the trio of commissioners voted against it. Wouldn’t it be Journalism 101 to get some statement as-to why the no votes were cast on what seems to be a “no-brainer”??

   Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 19  3

   Log in to Reply
3. 
   Rick Jones said: On March 31, 2011 at 7:04 AM

   This is what is wrong with government and the press today. How can you say there is no cost to taxpayers. Who do you think provided the money for this fund. IT WAS TAX MONEY. Yes it was intended for projects like this, but do we need another park when state is taslking about closing parks due to maintenance and upkeep. I am assuming that probably is not covered by the grant.

   Like or Dislike: 8  7

   Log in to Reply
• 
  Julio said: On March 31, 2011 at 1:32 PM

  So just let the money be spent elsewhere in the state. That makes sense.

  Like or Dislike: 9  4

  Log in to Reply
4. 
   Chad said: On April 1, 2011 at 9:42 AM

   Completely understand what you’re saying Rick. However, this would be a county park and connected to another one (if I read the story correctly) so the increased cost would be on the county. And, since there is already a park there (or very nearby) then the added cost shouldn’t be significantly higher than it is today.

   Like or Dislike: 5  4

   Log in to Reply
5. 
   i94roadhog said: On April 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM

   All great questions – too bad the folks who voted on it have not spoken up…….or been asked by a “reporter”.

   Like or Dislike: 8  4

   Log in to Reply