Rick Badie / My Opinion

By BW

October 9, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

After the commissioners shafted all of us taxpayers with a behind closed doors deal to build a stadium during an economic turndown it would be foolish to vote yes.

How can you trust these commissioners to spend our money wisely anymore? Look at the stadium again, the price doubled in just a few months of the promises made that it wouldn’t, they are not very good stewards of our money.

Vote NO.

By Don

October 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

BW- I thought I was the only one that think the BOC screwed us. I only wish you were at a meeting nine months ago. I am voting no on the SLOST due the their arrogance with my money. If they changed soem of the uses I could vote for it, I would like to see a clause that states all SPLOST money spending would have to be voted on by the residents.

Ys, this has built new scholls, paved roads and some other good things but it also is building a stadium for a private company ( ok only bought the land ). Why do youth organizations have to pay to light soccer fileds and build batting cages at a public park and allow anyone to use them? I am in the process of completing building of four batting cages at my park to the tune of $40K with no help form the county.

Vote no on SPLOST to send the local politicians a message to be fiscal responsible.

By Twynn

October 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

Speaking of Commissoners, according to this article: http://www.ajc.com/gwinnett/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/07/01/sheriff.html?cxntlid=inform_sr

Bannister said: “If the school system and others think this is a viable program that should be continued, I can promise you that we’ll find a way,” Bannister said. “It may go back to the Police Department, or it may be that there’s another way.”

Whatever became of that? I haven’t heard of anybody stepping up to the plate or of him assigning anyone to it.

Now we already know the stadium was important enough to keep on track, what about ADVANCE? Do the current facts speak for themselves? Bannister?

By Bubba

October 9, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

C,mon, Twynn. You don’t expect Bannister to answer you, do ya? It’d require him to listen first.

No to SPLOST. It’s a great idea on paper, but puttin’ money in these nimrod’s hands? I can spend my money better than they can. Get some new commissioners, I’ll revisit.

It’s not that the money can’t be put to good use. It can. It’s just that these commissioners have their hands so deep in other people’s pockets, they can’t possibly dig ‘em out long enough or quick enough to extend thir hands to areas in need.

By Cindy

October 9, 2008 7:36 PM | Link to this

I whole-heartedly agree with each of you. When we vote NO to this SPLOST and they have some quarters without the $$$, maybe the commissioners will take pause to realize we do matter and we deserve a voice, especially in big ticket items like the money pit…aka the stadium.

I’d like to know why Bannister hasn’t taken over the ADVANCE program too. It seems to have just fell to the wayside and we’re already 3 months into the school year. Kids need all the positive police influence they can get.

By MJK

October 9, 2008 7:44 PM | Link to this

In the past I’ve voted in favor of SPLOST but I haven’t decided if I will do so again.

I’m somewhat puzzled by the amount and types of resurfacing done to Gwinnett roads. I grew up on Boston and you could lose a subcompact car in some of the divots in the roads in New England. I’m all for spending on public safety and even libraries but are there that many roads and bridges in disrepair in Gwinnett?

By Mark

October 9, 2008 9:22 PM | Link to this

Is there a jail addition on the upcoming splost? Looking at the sheriff’s website, seems I remember the last addition bringing the jail to 2700 or so beds. They have been over that for a good while now. It takes years to add on so where is it?? Guess they will add it to our tax bill again. Stupid. I’ll vote no too.

By Cindy

October 10, 2008 12:26 AM | Link to this

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting on anything regarding the sheriff to be funded for a while. He’s the county’s red-headed step child who’s been sent to the corner for a permanent time-out punishment.

Seems like the county actively looks for ways to make his dept look like a burden on the taxpayers. He’s been doing so much, so long, with so little because when he asks for more, he’s told no and sent back to his corner.

I would like to see what the specific breakdown is for the money outlined in the upcoming SPLOST…”public safety facilities and equipment - $66.3 million.”

Recreation will get almost 3 times what public safety will…and keep in mind public safety isn’t just police-specific.

To be open-minded and fair, I’ll try to think outside the box…I guess Recreation has to get that much money though so it can continue to line the pockets of Kenerly and his like-kind. That land isn’t free ya know.

At least the commission agreed to the $130K…I’ll hand it to them for that anyway since “I” believe in giving credit where credit’s due.

By townie

October 10, 2008 7:41 AM | Link to this

NO.

The commissioners have shown that they treat “reserve funds” as play money.

The stadium is an insult to Gwinnett taxpayers and we should no longer fund what we actually need through SPLOST.

By Michael H. Smith

October 10, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

To answer the question posed I’d have to say yes the voters will stay the course with the SPLOST and so shall I stay on my course in voting NO.

In truth Rick, with the present economy consumer spending will probably fall of sharply. Keeping that in mind, approving this “special consumption tax” could all but become moot.

Either way we need people of better judgment sitting on our commission. Namely, individuals that understand their love of sports and baseball is not equally shared by everyone; nor is the fiscal irresponsibility of believing that all things can be done with and through the taxpayer’s dollar acceptable.

Get ready to make the hard choices that hard times demand Gwinnett.

By roska

October 10, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

The thing is if we don’t collect revenue thru sales taxes then they’ll simply vote a huge increase in property taxes.

Vote SPLOST down and watch your property taxes double.

At least with SPLOST apartment dwellers and out of county shoppers help pay the bills.

By Michael H. Smith

October 10, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

You got it my friend and that means accountability, a reckoning day. They (the commissioners) have been able to play shell games with money through using layers of different things. Things they know voters are less sensitive to in their present form. BUT, let them start laying the full tax burden on property tax only (no SPLOST, no rainwater fee no etc. etc.) then just you watch how dang quickly the commissioners change their spending habits and just how willing they will be to add services and grow the government.

Reiterating either way: The economy this time around may well have the last word on what amount of revenues are collected.

Times is hard.

By Cindy

October 10, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

Yes they are. I seriously hope the budget analyst didn’t project any growth. If so, it’s just a big joke to skew the numbers.

By mark

October 10, 2008 10:20 PM | Link to this

I beg to differ roska. If they don’t have the “free” splost money they can’t build more roads to develope new subdivisions on. No new parks or libraries for a while. I bet for the cost of building and operating all the libraries they could furnish computers and internet connections to all the legal citizens for less than what it costs now. They will learn to be frugal and conserve when the tap runs dry.

By Mojado

October 10, 2008 10:58 PM | Link to this

…they can’t build more roads to develop new subdivisions…. No new parks or libraries for a while?

Did you mean to say the illegal aliens will not have jobs building new roads to build more subdivision or new parks or libraries? Might include schools too?

Dang Mark, there you go spoiling everything by disclosing a good plan!

By MikeB

October 11, 2008 7:51 AM | Link to this

Hello Rick: Forget the bridges and other infrastructure projects for a moment……

What about basic roadside maintenance??? With the exception of the most wealthy areas of Gwinnett, I never see mowing crews out maintaining grass and picking up roadside trash.

Where we are over by Shiloh High, the Grass along Bethany Church and other roads is not kept up with by either the property owners that border it or the county. It feels like we are forgotton. Let me say, if I lived along a Bethany Church type road, you can be sure I would not wait for the county to mowe and care for it. Others due to the traffic may not be comfortable that close to the road.

When I go to other areas of Gwinnett I see county crews weed wcking and mowing these areas, why not over our way.

It would make the sidewalks safer, and help our property values. Benefits everyone who pays their bills are entitled too regardless of neighborhood.

If the county cannot distribute resources on a consistent, rotational basis for this, don’t give them more money to waste.