The Duncan Banner

October 5, 2011

LTE - 2 letters on bond issue

Staff Writer
The Duncan Banner

DUNCAN — Writer asks, ‘What didn’t you like?’

To the Editor:

Are there people in Duncan that would like to look at the school bond issue from another view? Twice tried and twice failed would tell me that some voters in the community are not being reached.

Maybe I am reading the tea leaves wrong, but it seems that the chosen 20 are going to put their heads down and barrel ahead on the next bond issue without post-election examination.

Here’s an idea! Before we spend the money on another election let’s poll people on what they did not care for in the previous two proposals.

If you are a person who does not want to attend a meeting, speak in public or want your name on record call Lee at 580-252-1976 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday, at the Stephens County Democratic Headquarters. I will take down your grievance on the previous bond issues and send the results on to Sherry Labyer or Glenda Cobb at the superintendent’s office.

Volunteers staff this phone five days a week and will help you.

Come on, citizens of Duncan, let’s guide this next election to a positive conclusion. Let’s join together as a community and get this right.



Lee Wendte

Duncan

 

Lessons learned in bond election

To the Editor:

Buried in The Duncan Banner (Sept. 25, Page 7B) was the headline, “Lessons learned in bond election.” Superintendent Labyer confessed that the lesson learned was to continue, with child-like persistence, the project to spend other people’s money.

I suppose the operating principle is that taxpayers, like rattled parents with the screaming kid in the story, will give in to obtain the relief of silence. The lesson “not” learned is that taxpayers don’t want to purchase the toy for which the kid is crying.

The lesson “taught” was that a monument by any other name would still be a monument.

Another lesson “not” learned is that people who “do” own property, do pay property taxes, and that people who do “not” own property will pay property tax because property owners will automatically increase rent.

If the “assumption” of automatic rent increase has any validity at all, then people who do own property and also rent property, such as office space, will be taxed twice.

The confessed learned lesson was expressed in progressive prattle.

The sales tax option was rejected as being unfair. Really? The sales tax option enables persons wishing to avoid the tax to buy elsewhere or buy less.

Property owners may not avoid paying property tax. Pursuant to the sales tax option, all voters are tax payers. Under the property tax option, all voters are not tax payers, accordingly, voters who do not own property have “no skin in the game.” What is fair?

Monument advocates, under the sales tax option, are provided with the clear opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.

They are at liberty to buy locally, buy more and to buy luxury. Let them buy the toy for the screaming kid.



Thomas R. Weaver

Duncan