Something that I find interesting, is that in the opinion section of “The Morning Sun” Posted Dec. 29, 2015, Megan Stoneberger Johnson goes to some length to admonish property owners for posting signs (at their own expense) in yards of their rental properties, declaring their opposition to the bond issue. Furthermore, she seemingly mounts a campaign questioning their integrity. In a more interesting note, Stoneberger Johnson tasked herself with an “informal survey” noting that one property owner had accumulated some $2.68 million dollars in properties and a total of 92 units. However, in my opinion, the survey data alone, omits the important point that the owner of those 92 units can cast but one ballot. In comparison to an individual homeowner having one vote for one property, the “multi property” owner seems underrepresented by ratio, (1:1 v 1:92) using Stoneberger Johnson’s survey data.
Relative I think, is that those “multi property” owners, paid for the opposition “vote no” signs using private monies to “level the playing field” somewhat, while proponents will use taxpayer funding to support their agenda with “bond management”(AKA, pitch and guidance favoring passage of the bond ) fees estimated to be $180,000, should it pass. Even if it does not pass, taxpayers may find themselves responsible for “reimbursable expenses” expected to be $500. Stoneberger Johnson apparently doesn’t find that objectionable or made no mention of objection.
In my opinion, there are proponents that prefer to think of their ideologies as the paragon of virtue and insight, instead of simply submitting the facts with supporting documentation. Among those proponents are some that regard opposition to be “against progress and growth” and or symptomatic of “a community of no”. As a taxpayer, I find that mindset an affront to hard working property owners and absent of critical thinking, especially when coming from those in public service. To expect rubber stamp approval of an issue that demands a 25 year commitment, to repay in excess of $100 million dollars, without humbling the plan to adjustment or opposition is absurd. To stifle input, hinder opposing views, and restrict civic duty or to mute the voice of citizens, isn’t something we want to convey to the student body of USD 250, I’m sure.