Archive: Opinions

I may be missing something, but in my opinion spending $82K to study where sewer and water is in Tompkins County is a waste of money.  I'm pretty sure that the municipalities already know where the infrastructure is, and if they want a county-wide repository of the information it seems to me that the County Planning Department could just ask the individual municipalities for copies of what they have.  It's hard to imaging that it would come to $82,000 in duplication costs!

I understand the value of intermunicipal cooperation, but especially in these economically disastrous times it seems to me that a little restraint in spending and taxing isn't such a bad idea.  Even if it isn't local tax money.  We all pay state and federal taxes.  Even when a grant comes from the state it's our tax money.

Some might say that there is a benefit to bringing some of that state tax money back home.  I agree.  But I would rather see it spent on something we need, like, say... an actual sewer.  Or storm water control to prevent flooding in Ludlowville (the County actually did get a grant for this and is working on the problem.  There is no question that this is a worthwhile project).  Or an infusion into our local highway departments.  Something actually beneficial.

I have only observed the Lansing boards, and it disturbed me that some officials are willing to go along with what they consider a bad idea just to not seem like spoilers to other officials in the county.  Only one official of the two boards defended the grant on its merits.  I applaud him for standing up for what he believes.  But with lukewarm support or none at all, I expect a no vote. (Which is what did happen in the Town this week, sort of.  THhey couldn't get a second so there was no vote.  That's almost a no vote.)  While I see the value of intermunicipal cooperation, I don't see why being perceived as the 'bad guy' should matter one jot when deciding on responsible spending of taxpayer dollars.  Part of the job is being a 'bad guy' sometimes.

This idea of being a 'bad guy' for not going along with everyone else... Who do our elected officials care most about being 'good guys' to?  The taxpayers or a few fellow legislators?  I understand the concept of granting political favors to get favors.  But I don't get why a project with little apparent benefit matters enough in terms of political capital.

Let's say I am 100% wrong about the value of the project the grant is meant to fund.  If someone I elect thinks it is a good expense that will bring benefits to the taxpayers I am all for that person voting yes.  But if another official thinks it's a lousy project I expect them to stand up and vote no.  That's what I elected them for -- to do the right thing as they see it.  If they do the wrong thing as I see it I have the freedom to vote for someone else next time.  But officials should not think that means that lets them off the hook for voting for what they think is right.

This isn't about official good guys or bad guys.  It's about the bottom line and elected officials standing up for what they believe in.  Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be doled out just because a bunch of municipalities think a project is a nice, cooperative idea.  If it has merit, by all means, vote to spend it.  If not... that's why we need 'bad guys.'

----
v5i24