Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkxingu
Lubricous? Really?!
In any case, yes--I suppose this discussion is a reflection of one greater: where is the line between government spending taxpayer money on "unnecessary" purchases vs. those that are expensive but we know are worthy.
As the son of a machinist and grocery store clerk who has depended on the US Parks system and public lands for recreation my whole life--along with millions and millions of others, including the affluent--I see a great value in purchasing and protecting valuable lands for use by everyone. Of course, this assumes the purchase is viable and won't destroy a town's financial stability.
In short, in my mind, there's a very real balance that needs to be found between people's willingness to pay to keep beautiful places public and available to all rather than the few.
I'd love to know where this land fell in that spectrum.
Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk
|
Well considering the entire national debt is hovering around 17 trillion dollars at the moment and growing I'd say we've already got ourselves a pretty big problem to deal with.
Everyone now a days wants stuff and wants it NOW, and how to pay for it.... what was the monthly payment again? Sorry but once again I say going into debt for non-essentials is
insane. Simple as that. Protecting beautiful places is a noble effort where it is possible and feasible to do. In the case of this piece of property, from the town's perspective it was neither from a financial point of view. Instead the property falls into private hands, a very nice estate is built. It could have been far worse.