Keystone Parkway “needs” upgrade

I keep wondering when “leaders” like the Chair of Citizens for Keystone Parkway Public Improvement District will understand the difference between a “need” and a “want”. If you can’t get the grown-ups to understand this difference, how are the kids supposed to get it? Let’s look at the fluff in this guest commentary from the 10/10/10 Summit Daily News.

1. “Our” Keystone Parkway… had it’s glory days…”. Wow, this gateway had “glory days”?! And note the attempt to give us ownership in this gateway with the use of the word “our”. How funny.

2. “Most other neighboring communities outshine us”. Seriously, because of a parkway?

3. “PID’s have been successful in all parts of the US…”. Proof positive that this PID will be successful if you ask me. And certainly there have never been any failures or the chair would have noted them. Please do define success in your next commentary.

4. “Your taxes will actually drop in Keystone even if…”. Yeah, but won’t they drop even more if this gets voted down? A minor omission.

5. “…enhance the Keystone experience with a “colorful and memorable” entrance…”. Now I like this. Reminds me of my trips to Disneyland with Mickey waving at you as you come into the resort – special. Maybe since they are getting bids at 20-50% less than 1-2 years ago they are just going to build a small amusement park on the median – kind of like a Cedar Point thing.

6. “…promotes being greener and safer”. Almost missed these top selling points – what with global warming and all. Oh, and how many people have been injured/killed on that stretch of the road through Keystone?

7. “…Curb Appeal”. We must be getting to the end of the commentary…

 

8. “…help retain or improve property values…”. Notice the LACK OF ANY PROOF whatsoever with this statement. But of course, you are disengenous to believe otherwise. Let’s be perfectly clear – this is pure speculation that improving the medians would add any value to properties in Keystone. In fact, increasing taxes (which is an expense) will most likely reduce property values. All Keystone property owners would be better off improving the appearance of their own residences and yards before spending money on this pork.

 

9. “It is time the citizens of Keystone take a positive stand for their community”. It is clear that up until this point in time – this vote on this issue, Keystone citizens have been a bunch of negative ninnies.

 

10. “Keystone should once again be the jewel of Summit County”. Ahh, the final Call to Arms, rally the troops for the common good, gimme a “K”. This group is delusional if they think a spiffy median is going to make Keystone the jewel of Summit County. I like Keystone just the way it is.

Citizens for Strong Summit Schools resorts to “guilt-tripping”

Some days it’s fearmongering, other days it’s laying a guilt trip on the Summit County taxpayer. Let’s take a look at the Guest Commentary from Sue Wilcox, Chair for Citizens for Strong Summit Schools in the 10/3/10 Summit Daily News.

First, “…teacher and administrator salaries have been frozen…decisions are difficult, and no doubt mirror cuts that have been made by many families and businesses throughout the county”. Nope. I believe that a salary “freeze” is not what most Summit County citizens and businesses have experienced. I believe that they have seen their sales reduced and their wages and/or benefits cut, and in some cases eliminated.

Second, “…it is incumbent upon each of us as parents to bear our share of costs associated with educating our kids.” How dare this organization suggest that parents/taxpayers don’t already “bear our share”?! So, if I pay my taxes I don’t already “bear my share of the costs”? And if Summit County taxpayers vote no on 3B, we somehow have tried to evade our collective responsibility for educating our children. What hogwash!

My suggestion is this: Cut salaries and eliminate any/all taxpayer contributions for benefits for administrators and teachers. When the people steering this ship feel the pain experienced by the vast majority of Summit County taxpayers, then let’s talk. Until then, VOTE NO on 3B.

Horses and 101 Pearl Lane

Not trying to pick on Daniel, but his last 2 “articles” in the Summit Daily News have been, shall we say “lacking”. The most recent article tries to equate “special features” (in this case zoning for horses) with having a “large pool of buyers”.  Dan fails to see the other side of his argument that “more options equals more buyers”. And that is, “What if the options are not what buyers want?” If not, then clearly, “more options does not equal more buyers”. Dan would also have you believe that 101 Pearl Lane in Ruby Ranch which has zoning for horses, sits on 2.78 acres, etc. has a “huge pool of buyers” and that “buyers will pay lots more” for this property due to the zoning. My realtor girlfriend says the home has been on/off the market since 5/22/08. To which I must ask, “How big is that pool exactly?”