Can an airport fly?

The Cleveland City Council and Bradley County Commission have decided to create a joint airport authority as the next step for the building of a new airport. Was this a sensible move? Given that there is no definite site, no funds to build it and apparently the majority of people don't want it, the decision by our leaders could understandably be criticized. So, was it a sensible move? If your reasoning is based on the assumption that government always spends money it doesn't have by borrowing it and raising taxes to pay back the loan - it is a sensible move. If you believe in fiscal responsibility then it is not. An impressive airport will be an asset to the community just as a 20 bedroom mansion would be an asset to the average family, but it would only be an asset if you could make the payments and also afford the necessities in life without having to take two extra jobs. We all have visions of grandeur but most of us realize they are dreams that must be paid for. The taxpayers of Bradley county are being misled on this airport issue. Frankly they are being lied to. The airport promise has been made and some of our leaders are so determined to build a new airport they are prepared to risk their reputations by lying and cheating to get it. I have watched Mayor Tom Rowland do that. Rowland has known all along that there was and is no money earmarked to build a new airport in Bradley county and he knows that with the exception of some possible federal and state help to construct the runway, all expenses will be paid for with your money, that's right, your money. The local media has also misrepresented this fact by saying that the recommendation to create an airport authority was on condition that no local taxpayer funds be used, when the report says "not result in a tax increase." There is a vast difference. The Bradley News Weekly even went as far in an editorial as to say "read their lips, no local money." All lies.
Remember Walker Valley High School, then Cleveland Middle School, then Waterville School, then the greenway, then the new justice center, then a new Mayfield school, then the new juvenile center and now the airport? Do you think it will end there? When will the spending stop?
What do you think?

It's about control

The latest invasion of government into private life and property is scheduled to rear its ugly head in the form of a Cleveland Historical Preservation Commission. Like so many noble causes, the idea of voluntarily preserving Cleveland's historical landmarks has been perverted by a few misguided and inconsiderate individuals who have a taste for enforcing their will on defenseless property owners. To extend them enforcement powers the Cleveland City Council has authorized Mayor Tom Rowland to apply to name the commission a branch of local government. Under criteria set by these people, it would be possible for the commission to include any areas and structures as historically important and impose severe limitations on the property owner. If that wasn't bad enough, being a new branch of government will mean the eventual hiring of an executive director and a department full of enforcers.
Historical preservation can benefit a community or district in many ways, fostering a pride of ownership and a tourism asset that is difficult to value. Craigmiles Hall in the courthouse square is a prime example - Allan Jones the owner, did a great job of restoring the property, not only for himself but bringing pride to downtown voluntarily. Wonder how he would have felt had he had a bunch of snotty nosed busybodies telling him what to do.
What do you think?

Barry Goldwater, "The Conscience of a Conservative"

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
What do you think?

Website Survey Results