No.

[please see the followup at the bottom]


As Mr. Hartnett said, "if you want any of this you need to cut out about half of it."

The city has played their cards, and counts on two things happening:

1. the voters in the pork-receiving areas will vote yes out of parochial self-interest
2. other voters will vote yes in order to get the needed insfrastructure maintenance

I think a standoff is in order. City Council wants to soak the taxpayers for pretty civic trinkets? Fine, we can reject it. Mr. Mayor, come back to the residents when you have something reasonable, responsible, and respectful of the citizens you serve. You can only shear a sheep so close, and even then you must be mindful of the weather.



PS: If anyone needs a reminder of how shallow the Shiny Pretty City booster crap is, find a few open evenings to re-read Babbitt. Although it was written in the 1920s you will absolutely recognize the same types in our own little burg. The novel is razor sharp.

Followup. I have received this info that appears to confirm a 4-proposal bond election:

Prop 1 - Streets and Drainage-$24,710,000

Prop 2 - Parks -$22,645,000

Prop 3 - Public Buildings - $10,495,000

Prop 4 - Neighborhood Vitality - $8,150,000

If this is in fact the case then I will ratchet back my opposition. It's not exactly a line-item-veto level of control but is much better than a monolithic proposal. It also means I need to back off my "hostage" verbiage.