Elsewhere in this paper, the potential benefits of funding capital improvements through the upcoming bond referendum are outlined. But that outline fails to describe this referendum’s drawbacks.
Instead of providing a menu of needed programs for your consideration, this referendum bundles critical needs with wants. As such, it takes nice-to-have projects that were never able to compete for funding, and ties them to must-fund projects.
This is like you ordering prime rib, baked potato and beans at your local restaurant and the waiter tells you “Sorry—if you want the prime rib, you can only order fries and spinach as the sides.” Likewise, this referendum is telling you that you can only have a new fire station if you also buy flush toilets at Woodville Park. If the county really wanted to give what you wanted, then the county would have let you vote for each case individually—not package it as an “all or nothing” deal.
Second, the referendum implies that if you want the new fire station,...