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

Karl J. Rhomberg, candidate for County Supervisor

Premium Content: