Our local newspaper, The Blade, has an interesting editorial board. Unfortunately, they just can't stop contradicting themselves.
In this editorial about COSI, and in previous ones regarding their levy requests, The Blade makes the point that the cost of COSI is a "paltry $5.21 a year" for the owner of $100,000 home.
They've also supported just about every other levy that's ever been on the ballot.
However, in this editorial about dog licenses, they think $25 for a yearly licenses is too high:
Dog ownership should not be a privilege only of the well-to-do. People from every strata of life benefit from pet ownership, not to mention that for many, our first lessons in responsibility were learned feeding, watering, grooming, walking, and playing with a pet, often a dog. But excessive fees, such as Lucas County's highest-in-Ohio $25, encourage people, especially those of modest means, not to license their pets.
Reducing the annual fee, giving low-income families a discount, and offering on-the-spot licensing instead of a citation are ideas that might lead to more people obtaining tags for their canine friends.
So how can $25 be too much for people to pay, but they can urge voters to increase their property tax bills when they endorsed every levy on the ballot last November?
If you can afford all the other costs of a dog, shouldn't you also be capable of affording the $25 license?
If you can't afford a $25 dog license, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that you can't afford any additional property taxes for a science museum, public transportation or the zoo?
Does anyone else see the contradiction in these two positions, or is it just me?