Suscribe to Weekly RiverCitiesReader.com Updates
* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

Latest Comments

  • GET A GRIP
    Get a grip, I bet the other little girl who...
  • ...
    Love the show - Daniel Mansfield
  • On target
    Everyone I have shared your editorial finds it really close...
  • Retired teacher
    Loved reading how such an outstanding citizen was able to...
  • Re: name correction
    Thank you for bringing the error to our attention, Lorianne,...
Can Tolerate No Opinions Other Than Their Own PDF Print E-mail
Commentary/Politics - Letters to the Editor
Friday, 27 October 2000 18:00
Our thin-skinned County Supervisors can tolerate no opinions but their own. Their October 24 gang reply to my criticism of their wasteful spending habits raises more questions than their misleading assertions answer. Whoever wrote the letter for them couldn't have attended the same hearing the rest of us did.

Question: Who told Mr. McChurch and his attorney that they did not need to be available for questions at the hearing as the attorney's letter of September 12 states?

Question: If the county already owns five houses closer to the courthouse than the rented building, why don't we convert some of those into temporary office space and recoup the investment by selling them when we're done?

Question: Since taxes are based on sale price, and the sale price of the building was one dollar and the only taxable improvements to the building will be the taxpayer funded remodeling, and the tenant has to pay the taxes, will we the taxpayers be the only group paying taxes?

To ourselves?

Fact: To hold a hearing on a lease, a lease must actually exist, not a blank form. No proper lease existed at the time of the hearing, only letters from the attorney representing the landlord and memos from staff. Contrary to the board's statement, the hearing was held on the letter from the lawyer, not on the lease.

Fact: The hearing was set at a meeting 2 days before it was held. Hardly the kind of 'public notice' citizens could wish for and no time to publicly examine or discuss the merits of the issue. Fact: The hearing was a farce since the landlord, his attorney, the county administrator and the county director of buildings & grounds didn't attend. Contrary to the board's statement, questions remain unanswered.

Fact: The board cut off public discussion and closed the hearing when it was decided that I asked too many questions.

Whether one favors the decision by the board or not, THIS IS NOT GOOD, OPEN GOVERNMENT!

Karl J. Rhomberg, candidate for County Supervisor
Trackback(0)
Comments (0)Add Comment

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy