Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Redmond's officers and firefighters shouldn't have to beg

Isn't it outrageous that the services that are supposed to be the most important are the first to be sacrificed in the event of a shortfall? On second thought, it's not ridiculous. It's either insanity (it's doubtful that the council and the mayor could all be insane) or it's a tactic to preserve programs that are less important by threatening those that have the most significance to residents of Redmond every day: police and fire protection. That's exactly what Redmond has proposed and it should be resisted by the voters.

That those who protect our city are groveling for your support in public is disgusting and unseemly. We should never be placing the necks of our police and firefighters on the proverbial chopping block to save the programs that could be trimmed or eliminated. We cannot risk those vital services because those are a matter of life and death. Priorities? Aren't police and fire protection the most essential services that any city can provide? Should it not be fully-funded to keep Redmond a great place to live?

There were those on Redmond's city council who wanted to build and finance the city hall differently, but the responsibility for this debacle lies squarely in that body. However, Redmond's residents should not be punished for their serious lack of financial sense. Redmond doesn't have a revenue shortfall (revenues continue to rise significantly above inflation), it has a surplus of spending. I urge a NO vote on Proposition 1 on May 16th.

David Carson