Apparently, the City of Toledo has learned a valuable lesson: It open city pools and doesn't have to spend limited tax dollars to do so.
According to today's paper, six pools and a splashpad, that were not funding in the city's 2015 budget, will open due to an influx of donations from companies, unions and others.
The Blade also reported that the cost of opening the pools this year would be around $400,000.
As I've previously noted on this blog, the pools are a huge money drain for the city and even the paper and administrators have finally noted that attendance has been falling over the years.
According to City of Toledo Finance Director George Sarantou, last year the pools too in only $11,437 leaving a deficit of about $350,000.
According to District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski, that's $3,000 per child who used the pools.
The city needs to do more of this and find ways to NOT spend tax dollars, especially since it's still raiding the Capital Improvement Plan funds to pay for every day expenses.
Showing posts with label city pools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label city pools. Show all posts
Friday, May 08, 2015
Monday, June 24, 2013
Still catering to the 2%, Toledo opens city pools today
The City of Toledo will open its publicly-funded pools at noon today. Six pools and a splash pad will be available for residents.
They are: Willys Pool, Roosevelt Pool, Wilson Pool, Jamie Farr Pool, Navarre Pool, and Pickford Pool - along with the Savage Splash Pad.
View City of Toledo Pools Map in a larger map
You'd think that since the public has already paid for the pools with their tax dollars that they'd be free, but you're wrong. It will cost $1 for those 12 and under and $2 for those 13 and older - except for the Savage Splash Pad, which is free.
Here's the thing - they don't make sense economically.
I did an analysis of pool usage in 2008 and found that Toledo pools really don't have that high of attendance with maybe about 2% of the city's population actually utilizing this 'service.'
Based upon census data and cost at the time, I found it was costing the city about $120 per person served. As I wrote at the time:
It would be cheaper to buy every kid in the city a membership to the Boys and Girls Club ($5 per year for 16-18 year olds, but only $3 for 7-15 year olds) which would give them access to ALL activities, not just the pools.
In 2009, I updated the figures and pointed out the warped priorities of our city government:
The total amount to be spent this year (three ordinances are on the agenda) is $136,398. The problem is the number of children to be served.
As I've highlighted in previous posts, the pools serve less than 2% of the population and less than 6% of the children in the city. And the number of users has declined over the last three years.
As calculated in my previous posts, the pools serve roughly 4,700 unique visitors. At that number for this year's funding, it's about $28 per person. For the same amount of money, the city could purchase a year-long membership at the Boys & Girls Club for 27,000+ kids (calculated at the 16-18 year old membership rate of $5, not the 7-15 year old rate of $3). If we really care about kids, why aren't we providing them with year-round activities instead of just a couple of months (depending on weather) of pool access?
But if the city told you that they were going to purchase memberships for kids to a club, would you support the expenditure of those dollars while we're laying off police and not planning on residential road improvements? Probably not.
It's an issue of priorities and Toledo government doesn't have a track record of setting good ones.
As the Occupy Wall Street groups gathered last year to complain about the 1%, I again examined the issue of the public pools and how they cater to the 2% all the while claiming that everyone's quality of life was enhanced by providing a service to only 2% of the population:
But on a principle basis, the claim is that these types of programs provide "quality of life" for residents. The problem is, they provide a certain benefit for some, at the expense of all. And simply saying that "all" have the "opportunity" to take advantage of them doesn't negate the fact that my quality of life is diminished by having to pay for recreation/entertainment I neither like nor want, but that is forced upon me by a significant few.
An analysis I did in 2008 showed that even under the best of scenarios, the city pools serve less than 7% of the youth population and, since we know that adults also visit the pools, less than 2% of the total population of the city.
Why are we spending money to serve less than 2% of the residents? And why would council members claim that the entire city's quality of life is enhanced by a 'service' that caters to less than 2%? Certainly the taxation of 100% in order to serve 2% isn't logical and doesn't enhance the 'quality of life' of the remaining 98%. As many of the same council members who promote this logic also supported the OccupyToledo group, you'd think they'd understand this concept.
These same council members also talk about how pools and other youth entertainment help reduce crime. However, I have yet to see a single one of them provide a single study or shred of evidence that such is the case anywhere, much less here in Toledo.
The bottom line is that they want to provide pools, so they do. That the vast majority of the public doesn't want our limited tax dollars so expended is countered by an emotional appeal to our 'quality of life.' Yet even that attempt at logic falls short with just a cursory examination.
My quality of life is negatively impacted so that council can - maybe - enhance the quality of life of the 2%. Sadly, Toledo city council members don't understand that providing a quality of life service for some means a lack of quality of life for most.
So here we are in 2013, still spending public monies to cater to a few at the expense of everyone else. And the same politicians who decry such actions when the few who are catered to are banks, or rich people, or Wall Street, will willingly embrace the concept and become hypocrites in the process.
If you want to 'take advantage' of the 'service' being 'provided' by your tax dollars, here are the regular hours and admission costs:
Willys Complex Pool
1375 Hillcrest
Tuesday – Sunday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission $1 for 12 years and younger
$2 for 13 years and older
Roosevelt Pool
910 Dorr St.
Tuesday – Sunday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission $1 for 12 years and younger
$2 for 13 years and older
Wilson Pool
3253 Otto
Monday-Saturday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission $1 for 12 years and younger
Jamie Farr Pool
2000 Summit St.
Monday-Saturday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission $1 for 12 years and younger
Navarre Pool
1001 White
Monday-Saturday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission $1 for 12 years and younger
Pickford Pool
3000 Medford
Monday-Saturday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission $1 for 12 years and younger
Savage Splash Pad Water Play Park
645 Vance St.
Monday-Saturday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission free
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Bet Toledo City Council didn't consider 'pool-mageddon' in decision to open city pools
Toledo City Council decided to open several public pools this year, but I can't help but wonder if they bothered to factor in these new costs in their decision:
It's only a 60-day extension, though some Republicans are trying to pass a bill to repeal the mandate.
This means that Toledo will be required to modify all the pools they plan to open - at costs of around $5,000 each according to a brief Internet search of 'pool lifts for disabled.' And that doesn't include installation, maintenance, or other annual costs of the item.
It will end up costing at least another $30,000 for the six pools - but probably much more.
Of course, they're already planning to spend $277,000 to repair and open Roosevelt Pool. They haven't yet decided which other pools to open, primarily because most are in such disrepair that they cannot be opened and made functional without huge expenditures.
But that's okay - despite their abysmal financial track record - and their penchant for spending money they don't have, including transferring over $62 million out of Toledo Capital Improvement Plan fund, City Council is rejoicing over the fact that voters just renewed the temporary 3/4% payroll income tax.
So council will continue to spend.
After all, if the city doesn't provide swimming opportunities, kids will wither and die this summer - or commit crimes because they didn't have a pool to play in.
The Justice Department on Thursday issued a 60-day stay of execution for hundreds of thousands of public pools which had been required to install ramps and wheelchair lifts by today or else face lawsuits over violating disability laws.
President Obama in 2010 dramatically expanded the rules for access under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the new regulations mean that every publicly accessible pool — from municipal facilities to hotels — must have two "accessible means of entry," at least one of which must be a ramp or wheelchair lift. Spas must also have either a lift or a transfer system to help the disabled enter them, under the new rules.
Under the law, non-compliant facilities can be sued — and some lawmakers feared a bonanza for lawyers eager to capitalize.
The impending situation was labeled "pool-mageddon" by opponents, who said there aren't even enough lifts available in the U.S. to make every pool accessible.
It's only a 60-day extension, though some Republicans are trying to pass a bill to repeal the mandate.
This means that Toledo will be required to modify all the pools they plan to open - at costs of around $5,000 each according to a brief Internet search of 'pool lifts for disabled.' And that doesn't include installation, maintenance, or other annual costs of the item.
It will end up costing at least another $30,000 for the six pools - but probably much more.
Of course, they're already planning to spend $277,000 to repair and open Roosevelt Pool. They haven't yet decided which other pools to open, primarily because most are in such disrepair that they cannot be opened and made functional without huge expenditures.
But that's okay - despite their abysmal financial track record - and their penchant for spending money they don't have, including transferring over $62 million out of Toledo Capital Improvement Plan fund, City Council is rejoicing over the fact that voters just renewed the temporary 3/4% payroll income tax.
So council will continue to spend.
After all, if the city doesn't provide swimming opportunities, kids will wither and die this summer - or commit crimes because they didn't have a pool to play in.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Toledo city pools - catering to the 2%
The City of Toledo is considering moving the Recreation Department out of the embattled Department of Neighborhoods and into the Department of Public Service. They think it may save money.
Why the city is in the business of providing 'recreation' - or if it should be - is a question Toledo City Council members rarely consider.
Many, including my District Council rep, Lindsay Webb, truly believe that providing pools for kids to swim in and other types of recreation/entertainment are clearly a function of government.
I disagree - not only on principle as a believer in limited government - but also on a fiscal basis. Our city is constantly raising fees (red-light and speed cameras, trash tax, etc...) while facing deficits. We just don't have the money.
But on a principle basis, the claim is that these types of programs provide "quality of life" for residents. The problem is, they provide a certain benefit for some, at the expense of all. And simply saying that "all" have the "opportunity" to take advantage of them doesn't negate the fact that my quality of life is diminished by having to pay for recreation/entertainment I neither like nor want, but that is forced upon me by a significant few.
An analysis I did in 2008 showed that even under the best of scenarios, the city pools serve less than 7% of the youth population and, since we know that adults also visit the pools, less than 2% of the total population of the city.
Why are we spending money to serve less than 2% of the residents? And why would council members claim that the entire city's quality of life is enhanced by a 'service' that caters to less than 2%? Certainly the taxation of 100% in order to serve 2% isn't logical and doesn't enhance the 'quality of life' of the remaining 98%. As many of the same council members who promote this logic also supported the OccupyToledo group, you'd think they'd understand this concept.
These same council members also talk about how pools and other youth entertainment help reduce crime. However, I have yet to see a single one of them provide a single study or shred of evidence that such is the case anywhere, much less here in Toledo.
The bottom line is that they want to provide pools, so they do. That the vast majority of the public doesn't want our limited tax dollars so expended is countered by an emotional appeal to our 'quality of life.' Yet even that attempt at logic falls short with just a cursory examination.
My quality of life is negatively impacted so that council can - maybe - enhance the quality of life of the 2%. Sadly, Toledo city council members don't understand that providing a quality of life service for some means a lack of quality of life for most.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The real issue of city pools
Anyone who reads this blog knows that I'm a proponent of limited government. I believe that government has a purpose, but a limited one, and that government should stick to those limited tasks.
I also believe that government takes too much money from us in the form of taxes and fees - and they do so in order to 'provide' more than the basic services government should be providing.
So it should come as no surprise that I oppose public funding of pools and recreation under the guise of 'quality of life' or 'for the children' arguments. I'm of the firm opinion that families would be able to provide such 'recreation' for their children if government wasn't taking so much of their money in the first place.
But I am apparently in the minority on that position, as the City of Toledo is again planning on opening the pools because, as the ordinance states, it's important that "citizens in all areas of the city will be able to enjoy aquatic recreational opportunities this summer."
On a positive note, the funding for the pools is coming from donations and the Parks Trust Fund - not the general fund. I'm very glad that community groups and churches have stepped up to fund these activities, though I must admit that one of the sources (a grant from EOPA) is actually tax dollars from the federal government. I believe that this is the proper way to permanently fund these types of things. I believe that other groups might step forward to do the same if the government hadn't taken over the responsibility in the first place.
The total amount to be spent this year (three ordinances are on the agenda) is $136,398. The problem is the number of children to be served.
As I've highlighted in previous posts, the pools serve less than 2% of the population and less than 6% of the children in the city. And the number of users has declined over the last three years.
As calculated in my previous posts, the pools serve roughly 4,700 unique visitors. At that number for this year's funding, it's about $28 per person. For the same amount of money, the city could purchase a year-long membership at the Boys & Girls Club for 27,000+ kids (calculated at the 16-18 year old membership rate of $5, not the 7-15 year old rate of $3). If we really care about kids, why aren't we providing them with year-round activities instead of just a couple of months (depending on weather) of pool access?
But if the city told you that they were going to purchase memberships for kids to a club, would you support the expenditure of those dollars while we're laying off police and not planning on residential road improvements? Probably not.
It's an issue of priorities and Toledo government doesn't have a track record of setting good ones.
Beyond that, it's an issue of responsibilities - it is not the responsibility of taxpayers to provide entertainment and recreation for the children in the city. If you want to do something like that, you make a donation to private organizations who provide those types of services. And if there are private organizations who are willing to fund such activities this year, let's develop a plan by which they will be able to do so every year and get the city out of the business of swimming pools.
I also believe that government takes too much money from us in the form of taxes and fees - and they do so in order to 'provide' more than the basic services government should be providing.
So it should come as no surprise that I oppose public funding of pools and recreation under the guise of 'quality of life' or 'for the children' arguments. I'm of the firm opinion that families would be able to provide such 'recreation' for their children if government wasn't taking so much of their money in the first place.
But I am apparently in the minority on that position, as the City of Toledo is again planning on opening the pools because, as the ordinance states, it's important that "citizens in all areas of the city will be able to enjoy aquatic recreational opportunities this summer."
On a positive note, the funding for the pools is coming from donations and the Parks Trust Fund - not the general fund. I'm very glad that community groups and churches have stepped up to fund these activities, though I must admit that one of the sources (a grant from EOPA) is actually tax dollars from the federal government. I believe that this is the proper way to permanently fund these types of things. I believe that other groups might step forward to do the same if the government hadn't taken over the responsibility in the first place.
The total amount to be spent this year (three ordinances are on the agenda) is $136,398. The problem is the number of children to be served.
As I've highlighted in previous posts, the pools serve less than 2% of the population and less than 6% of the children in the city. And the number of users has declined over the last three years.
As calculated in my previous posts, the pools serve roughly 4,700 unique visitors. At that number for this year's funding, it's about $28 per person. For the same amount of money, the city could purchase a year-long membership at the Boys & Girls Club for 27,000+ kids (calculated at the 16-18 year old membership rate of $5, not the 7-15 year old rate of $3). If we really care about kids, why aren't we providing them with year-round activities instead of just a couple of months (depending on weather) of pool access?
But if the city told you that they were going to purchase memberships for kids to a club, would you support the expenditure of those dollars while we're laying off police and not planning on residential road improvements? Probably not.
It's an issue of priorities and Toledo government doesn't have a track record of setting good ones.
Beyond that, it's an issue of responsibilities - it is not the responsibility of taxpayers to provide entertainment and recreation for the children in the city. If you want to do something like that, you make a donation to private organizations who provide those types of services. And if there are private organizations who are willing to fund such activities this year, let's develop a plan by which they will be able to do so every year and get the city out of the business of swimming pools.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Toledo spending - a lesson NOT learned
About a year ago, I looked at the attendance at our city pools, as the city was planning on expending tax dollars for them in 2008.
From that post:
I've just received the 2008 attendance information from the city: 23,675. That's a 6% decrease over last year - and remember that 2007 attendance was down 18.5% over 2006. And those numbers are visits, not unique individuals.
Using the same logic as before, if each person visited the pool five times in the season, then we're serving about 4,735 citizens. According to the 2007 Census data for Toledo, there are 73,095 residents under the age of 18. So if every person who visited the pool was under 18, which is certainly not a given, we're only serving 6% of the youth population. Since children did not always go without an adult, when you calculate the number served based upon the total city population, you'll see we are serving 1.6% of Toledoans. And that's using the older, smaller population number - not the increased population number Mayor Carty Finkbeiner worked so hard to get increased.
The total cost for 2008 for the pools, according to the 2009 Toledo budget was $219,234.44. Total revenue was $19,297.50, though the budgeted amount was $32,320.00, a loss of $13,022.50 or 40%. (With results like this is it any wonder the city had a 2008 deficit?)
So we spend nearly a quarter of a million dollars to make sure that 1.6% of the population had a 'service' and we ended 2008 with either an $8 million or $16 million deficit, depending on what city administrator you ask...
Pools are NOT a necessity, but the 'quality of life' issue is always raised as an excuse for such non-essential expenditures. So did this expenditure enhance YOUR quality of life? And was this expenditure more important than the police and fire classes we did NOT have as a result of last year's deficit?
Do you think City Council has learned the lesson from last year? Or will they again fund such non-essentials like pools, and ice rinks and athletic programs while laying off police officers and charging us for fire equipment used during a response?
Southern cities like Charleston, SC, and Memphis, TN are looking better all the time.
Lest you think this really doesn't impact you, remember that the city is looking to 'enhance revenue' by increasing the trash taxes. The decrease in police and the new fees for fire response will directly impact your insurance rates, driving them up. Combine that with the decrease in population and your home values will continue to decline. The spending by the Mayor and City Council - and the use of precious and limited tax dollars for non-essentials - impacts every single person in Toledo.
What are you willing to do about it?
From that post:
Last year, the pools served 25,151 entrants. The city did not keep track of how many of those 'entrants' were the same individual. They also charged $1 for entry.
In 2007, there were six pools open (one was a splash pad) compared to the 12 facilities opened in 2006. Despite the increased attendance at two of the pools, overall attendance at the six facilities declined 18.5% from 30,841 to 25,151.
...
As these numbers are visits and not visitors, it's hard to estimate just how important this cost is to the general public. For sake of argument, let's estimate that individuals likely to use the pool facilities will do so five times during the season. This seems a reasonable estimate considering the number of days the pools are open.
Using this assumption, the pools had about 5,000 unique visitors. The 2006 Census data shows that there are 74,896 children (under 18 years of age) in Toledo. Even if every visitor to the pools was a child, we would be serving less than 7% of the kids in the city. If we consider total population, those estimated 5,000 unique visitors represent less than 2% of the population.
Yet the city is planning to spend about $600,000 for this - which is about $120 per person served. It would be cheaper to buy every kid in the city a membership to the Boys and Girls Club ($5 per year for 16-18 year olds, but only $3 for 7-15 year olds) which would give them access to ALL activities, not just the pools.
I've just received the 2008 attendance information from the city: 23,675. That's a 6% decrease over last year - and remember that 2007 attendance was down 18.5% over 2006. And those numbers are visits, not unique individuals.
Using the same logic as before, if each person visited the pool five times in the season, then we're serving about 4,735 citizens. According to the 2007 Census data for Toledo, there are 73,095 residents under the age of 18. So if every person who visited the pool was under 18, which is certainly not a given, we're only serving 6% of the youth population. Since children did not always go without an adult, when you calculate the number served based upon the total city population, you'll see we are serving 1.6% of Toledoans. And that's using the older, smaller population number - not the increased population number Mayor Carty Finkbeiner worked so hard to get increased.
The total cost for 2008 for the pools, according to the 2009 Toledo budget was $219,234.44. Total revenue was $19,297.50, though the budgeted amount was $32,320.00, a loss of $13,022.50 or 40%. (With results like this is it any wonder the city had a 2008 deficit?)
So we spend nearly a quarter of a million dollars to make sure that 1.6% of the population had a 'service' and we ended 2008 with either an $8 million or $16 million deficit, depending on what city administrator you ask...
Pools are NOT a necessity, but the 'quality of life' issue is always raised as an excuse for such non-essential expenditures. So did this expenditure enhance YOUR quality of life? And was this expenditure more important than the police and fire classes we did NOT have as a result of last year's deficit?
Do you think City Council has learned the lesson from last year? Or will they again fund such non-essentials like pools, and ice rinks and athletic programs while laying off police officers and charging us for fire equipment used during a response?
Southern cities like Charleston, SC, and Memphis, TN are looking better all the time.
Lest you think this really doesn't impact you, remember that the city is looking to 'enhance revenue' by increasing the trash taxes. The decrease in police and the new fees for fire response will directly impact your insurance rates, driving them up. Combine that with the decrease in population and your home values will continue to decline. The spending by the Mayor and City Council - and the use of precious and limited tax dollars for non-essentials - impacts every single person in Toledo.
What are you willing to do about it?
Monday, April 14, 2008
City pools are NOT necessities
The City of Toledo will spend about a half a million dollars this year to operate city pools. But that amount doesn't include the capital improvement costs that are also budgeted in order to open the various pool locations.
According to today's Blade, the city thinks the benefits outweigh the costs.
Kids already have a place to get wet and cool off. It's called a yard. All that is needed is a hose, since I'm pretty sure that most homes have some sort of water available.
Last year, the pools served 25,151 entrants. The city did not keep track of how many of those 'entrants' were the same individual. They also charged $1 for entry.
In 2007, there were six pools open (one was a splash pad) compared to the 12 facilities opened in 2006. Despite the increased attendance at two of the pools, overall attendance at the six facilities declined 18.5% from 30,841 to 25,151. This clearly indicates that individuals who had access to a pool in 2006 did not travel to other locations in 2007 in order to "get wet and cool off." (I just can't imagine how they survived!)
As these numbers are visits and not visitors, it's hard to estimate just how important this cost is to the general public. For sake of argument, let's estimate that individuals likely to use the pool facilities will do so five times during the season. This seems a reasonable estimate considering the number of days the pools are open.
Using this assumption, the pools had about 5,000 unique visitors. The 2006 Census data shows that there are 74,896 children (under 18 years of age) in Toledo. Even if every visitor to the pools was a child, we would be serving less than 7% of the kids in the city. If we consider total population, those estimated 5,000 unique visitors represent less than 2% of the population.
Yet the city is planning to spend about $600,000 for this - which is about $120 per person served. It would be cheaper to buy every kid in the city a membership to the Boys and Girls Club ($5 per year for 16-18 year olds, but only $3 for 7-15 year olds) which would give them access to ALL activities, not just the pools.
District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski, who voted against this spending, believes the city has other, more important, items to fund in the budget. "In terms of what the [city] charter dictates, [pools] are not a necessity, but the quality-of-life argument will always be made."
Yes, whenever our government wants to justify funding items not mandated in the city's charter, they use the 'quality of life' argument. But they conveniently forget that they are lowering the standard of living for the majority of residents when they spend limited tax dollars to provide such 'quality of life' amenities for less than 2% of the population.
If they were really interested in improving the quality of life in Toledo, they'd reduce the size of government, thus reducing the cost, and give all of us some of our money back to spend as WE want on OUR OWN definition of 'quality of life.'
I won't hold my breath.
p.s. An afterthought...Remember when the city of Toledo passed their balanced budget? City Council members scrounged around eliminating dollars from various funds in order to add a police class ... in December. Think maybe the $500,000 for pools could have been put to better use in getting our police class several months sooner???
According to today's Blade, the city thinks the benefits outweigh the costs.
Kattie Bond, director of Toledo's department of neighborhoods, said the benefit of operating city pools outweighs the cost.
"It is important to provide recreational opportunities for citizens," Ms. Bond said. "We live in a city where we do get hot weather, so it's important we provide a place for kids to at least get wet and cool off."
Kids already have a place to get wet and cool off. It's called a yard. All that is needed is a hose, since I'm pretty sure that most homes have some sort of water available.
Last year, the pools served 25,151 entrants. The city did not keep track of how many of those 'entrants' were the same individual. They also charged $1 for entry.
In 2007, there were six pools open (one was a splash pad) compared to the 12 facilities opened in 2006. Despite the increased attendance at two of the pools, overall attendance at the six facilities declined 18.5% from 30,841 to 25,151. This clearly indicates that individuals who had access to a pool in 2006 did not travel to other locations in 2007 in order to "get wet and cool off." (I just can't imagine how they survived!)
As these numbers are visits and not visitors, it's hard to estimate just how important this cost is to the general public. For sake of argument, let's estimate that individuals likely to use the pool facilities will do so five times during the season. This seems a reasonable estimate considering the number of days the pools are open.
Using this assumption, the pools had about 5,000 unique visitors. The 2006 Census data shows that there are 74,896 children (under 18 years of age) in Toledo. Even if every visitor to the pools was a child, we would be serving less than 7% of the kids in the city. If we consider total population, those estimated 5,000 unique visitors represent less than 2% of the population.
Yet the city is planning to spend about $600,000 for this - which is about $120 per person served. It would be cheaper to buy every kid in the city a membership to the Boys and Girls Club ($5 per year for 16-18 year olds, but only $3 for 7-15 year olds) which would give them access to ALL activities, not just the pools.
District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski, who voted against this spending, believes the city has other, more important, items to fund in the budget. "In terms of what the [city] charter dictates, [pools] are not a necessity, but the quality-of-life argument will always be made."
Yes, whenever our government wants to justify funding items not mandated in the city's charter, they use the 'quality of life' argument. But they conveniently forget that they are lowering the standard of living for the majority of residents when they spend limited tax dollars to provide such 'quality of life' amenities for less than 2% of the population.
If they were really interested in improving the quality of life in Toledo, they'd reduce the size of government, thus reducing the cost, and give all of us some of our money back to spend as WE want on OUR OWN definition of 'quality of life.'
I won't hold my breath.
p.s. An afterthought...Remember when the city of Toledo passed their balanced budget? City Council members scrounged around eliminating dollars from various funds in order to add a police class ... in December. Think maybe the $500,000 for pools could have been put to better use in getting our police class several months sooner???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
