Would make more from taxation

Dear Editor:

In light of the “parkland controversy” one might get some vibes from all of the bantering going on. The bantering is more “common sense” than just bantering except Council seems to adopt the “talk to the hand” regimen.

If one, (concerned taxpayers… and not mayor and council) were to stand on a lofty hill with a clear view of the city, one should see a city with natural beauty situated between two lakes. It is one of two cities in the world that is geographically

located between two lakes. There are several green spaces that are scattered throughout the area of the city.

An immediate thought might arise as to how these green spaces happened to materialize. The common sense answer to that is that they didn’t just materialize. They came about as a result of careful study;

interaction of administration and citizenry and last, but not least, principles of democracy.

If one were to stand on that lofty hill lately and envision the proposed changes to the topography, there would be a somewhat cloudy mist hanging over the city somewhat like the smog in Los Angles perhaps. It seems that City Hall (the dog here) is being somewhat seduced by “Big Business” (in this case Trio).

The tail (Trio) appears to be wagging the dog. How else might one explain the indifferent attitude toward citizens regarding the planned green space change? It would seem that there has been a clandestine plan in place for sometime before it became public.

Where is the logic to this? What logic?

The costs involved to make the suggested changes to areas will not, in all probability, be borne by Trio. First of all, the city appears to be “giving away” green space that, through due process, was established.  The long-term lease will give back some income to the city.

However, if these same ambitions were realized on private land, the tax benefits, in all probability, would be far more beneficial in the long term and a green space legacy would be preserved.

But wait! City Hall is the Grand Poobah, extolling the virtues of democracy here isn’t it? Not! The City owns these areas on paper.  However, the taxpayers (their employer) pay the costs of maintenance, etc. The bottom line is until we, collectively, focus on City Hall shenanigans, there will be no change and the mayor and council will throw “democratic principles” out of the window.

Ron Barillaro