Just the facts Good Guv

I posted the comment below in response to one of our newly minted AR Times city hall cheerleaders...

the specific post is found: Here

Comment:

Some of your points are valid Good Gov but not for me......

many of the points individuals are making above are perfectly valid. I and others of our opposition group ARE well informed of the facts and this is one of the reasons members of our group never are able to be appointed to any city commissions, because we will dispute the so-called facts you site. We will rock the boat or stir the waters and that is not allowed inside the walls of city hall, only cheerleaders like yourself are welcome (the go along to get along crowd).

Look Good, no one is disputing your position that many infrastructure needs could use attention. It is also agreed that impact fees will not cover all the cost for items on that list (we have always agreed with that fact). Yet that is NOT the point. What impact fees have been clearly shown to result in is "smart expansion planning". It makes increasing your footprint come at a cost, while NOT preventing municipal expansion. That small expansion fee then makes your governing body keep their eyes on the established city so that many of the infrastructure problems you site do not get out of hand like this city governing body has done.

Also Good...there is one thing you have nothing to counter with concerning the issues I describe above, as well as all the other sited by those above. That is.... they have maintained for DECADES..that "growth pays for itself" yet now they also site that they need to address problems in the city that all the "professional" data previously presented to them predicts come as a result from allowing ever increasing expansion at the outer edges at a cost less than working within the established neighborhoods. Good...THAT is a clear indicator of poor governance. No one should give such a group $500 million that maintains such poor management policies.

Finally...as for your development funds. I see Good, we should give these guys 40 mil to hire a bunch of people that do not even live in Little Rock. Just a small fact here Good to establish my point....close to 70% of the LR police officers do not live in Little Rock. So your solution is that the citizens of Little Rock should be solely responsible to pay their taxes so non-residents can have good jobs (and take our tax expenditures out of Little Rock to spend in other cities), while our unemployment rate in the inner city continues to skyrocket.

And THOSE ARE the Facts Good...and I can back them up with DATA...how about you Good (oh I see, you get your data from an established research group...that would be the mayor, the city manager, the police and fire chief, etc., in other words the individuals that are running that crazy house down on Markham St.), just pointing it out....since you are accusing everyone of the rest of us of just being a bunch of dunces!!!!! (And I can assure you, I have been to just as many of those policy discussion presentations as you have and have followed them up with HARD questions that they either do not or cannot answer, like why do our police officers get a 4% raise at a time when NO ONE else is getting raises and the economy is tanking. We pay for those raises that city hall agreed to!!!). And why should we give more in taxes, while we have a mayor that agreed with me BEFORE the strong mayor election that the doubling of city hall top management cost should be REVENUE NEUTRAL!!! Now it is clear how he is getting that done, BY TREBLING OUR CITY SALES TAX!!!!