GilfordGrok

It looks we now own it (ok, technically, we're real close now but not quite).

Idea!  Move the SAU to the Old Library!

Reaction!  No!

Reason - back to my post here - "it's the timing economy, stupid". 

Alternative: back to the Elementary School

Reaction!  Yay!

Reason:

Dr. DiMinico himself put it well - "...although GES would potentially be more cost-effective...$13,000 just operationally".

It surely would be - less cost to do the renovate the Elementary School than to renovate the Library.  Less travel in between buildings, and easier access to the students and the staff.  Not to mention, that much of the overhead cost of the SAU would be "covered" by the normal running of the building.

As opposed to the Old Library?  The Town, sir, given the economic times, could leave the building vacant for now - at a lesser cost.

I did chuckle at Scott Isabelle's comment, also in the Steamer concerning the old library: "it's right across from downtown Gilford..."  heh!

Look, from my perspective, the only reason why it failed before is that the Teachers' Union decided they didn't want their bosses in the same building. 

Also from my perspective - too bad.  OR, if the teachers really want them at the Old Library, do a whole lot of bake sales to raise the operational budget for it - I will fight it on the BudCom.

Yeah, I'm blunt - but it matters not to me which governmental entity has to pay for it; the Town can squabble with the SAU and visa-versa all they want - what ever is decided, EITHER comes out of the taxpayer wallet - and I will choose the lesser cost (and during the temp move, it proved that the Elementary School can work).

Let the phrase "you're divisive and mean" ring again - it won't mean much.  Given that the White House have called TEA Party folks like me right-wing extremists, part of a mob, and racist for being against Obama's policies; the NH Dem Chair calling me as well as thousands of other NH TEA Party participants an unhinged mob, and "progressive" anchors / pundits that are on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and CNBC have used a sexual innuendo to do the same thing.

Heck, that sexual slur has also been used multiple times by Carol Shea-Porter even AFTER she was told what it really meant - such Representation!   Good way to win my vote in 2010, there CSP.

So, I'll be grateful for the much less pejorative adjective "divisive" hurled my way for a change.

Posted by Skip at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Kate Hamel, President of the Friends of the Gilford Public Library is asking Gilford voters to support the Selectmen’s recommendation for a slightly higher amount than the Budget Committee. Why the difference between the Selectmen and Budget Committee’s recommendation? It’s really quite simple. The Selectmen, at the request of the library Trustees, omitted the library wages in the formula to define “operating expenses”. Apparently, the Budget Committee agreed more with fellow member and now candidate for Selectman, John O’Brien’s question; “wouldn’t you include wages in the operating expenses of any business?”

What the Trustees of the Library are saying is that it shouldn’t matter that wages spiked up 16.3% in the last two years, you should ignore that and be happy they only asked to level fund all other items. I’m not trying to be sarcastic here; they truly believe that the increase in use justifies this request.

The voters of Gilford have to decide how far to expand library services and at what pace. According to Richard Young, candidate for Budget Committee, he stated; “the library is a recession sanctuary where unemployed people looked forward to report to every day like a job.” According to Kate Hamel, “libraries train our workforce”.  Do you believe that? I thought the mission of the library was to contain books and periodicals for the public’s use. Apparently, today’s library is so much more. Movie nights, “gaming” nights, unemployment center, cooking classes, yoga classes, knitting classes and outing events. Who knew?

Even if you support all this expansion of services do you believe it should grow without limits? Is there a point where modest growth is acceptable? For the last two years the library has request double the percent of growth than nearly all other municipal departments. Is the library more important than the rest of the town’s services? The library also has the added benefit of a novelty store and donations from the Friends of the Gilford Public Library. The Friends also apply for grants that, unlike other government spending, never show up in the budget. In addition to the huge spike in wages they also received a senior “volunteer” funded from a senior program. (I know volunteer and funded is an oxymoron but we’re talking about the government) I also find it extraordinary that the library has no problem finding donations for controversial things like “Guitar Hero” games but can’t find any donations for needed items like extra chairs.

The Budget Committee’s recommendation provides 3.1% growth for the library. (In line with all other departments)  Please come to the Gilford Municipal Deliberative Session on Feb. 4 to support your Budget Committee’s budget that more than adequately funds all Gilford’s municipal services.       

Posted by Terry S. at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

To qualify the above title, I'm referring to the old library site that was supposed to be the site of the new library until the Library Trustees decided to buy a new site for the new library.  Anyways, the Selectmen have submitted a Warrant to sell that land again.

ARTICLE 33.        To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to convey to Gilford Village Knolls, Inc., a 3.19 (+/-) acre parcel of land situated at 43 Potter Hill Road and more particularly referenced at Tax Map 226, Lot 78-1; under such terms and conditions as the Selectmen may deem to be in the best interest of the Town; provided that the sale price shall not be less than the original purchase price of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000).

There will be some that will say "hey, Skip, the Trustees NEED that money to pay back the line of credit they took out!".  Well, sorry, but they made a realy bad decision and it is not up to the taxpayers to bail them out. 

Ask yourself - the current BAILOUT at the national level is to prop up those people, companies, and states that refused to live within their means?  Do we want to replicate that (albeit at the nano-level) that philosophy?

$400,000 is a lot of money that the Trustees arranged to use - far more than $150,00 asking price of the lot.  While the intention may have been for the good of the building, the Trustees showed that they were being more than a little anxious to finish the project - to the detriment of their finances.  They made a bad decision.

In short, they counted their chickens before they even had the eggs.

From a practical standpoint, it is doubtful that the Village Knolls folks will be able to raise the funds / get a loan for the $150K in today's environment as the value of the land has most likely fallen well below the price.  That said, I would not want to see a long term P&S set up between the Town and the VK folks JUST in case an interested buyer does come along that would be willing to pay the price.

Posted by Skip at 10:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, the Dec 5 Sun reported that the "old - new" library site did not sell - no bids at all.  Hmm, so much for being a liquid asset - not even one to match the $150K purchase price.  And in this economic time, I doubt that there will be any for a while either.  Thus, the $110K that was promised to the Trustees from the sale of the property evaporated into thin air.

What was surprising was that is that the article said that the Library Trustees opened up a substantial line of credit partly in anticipation of the sale of the land and the $110K it would have given them. 

Oops.  That's going to leave a mark....

Posted by Skip at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Update:  Gus emailed a correction:

Skip,

While reading the Grok today I noticed that you incorrectly stated that I used the analogy of turning your Chain saw into a race car.  “Oh, back to my example - what I failed to say, however, when Gus said he turned the chainsaw I lent him into a race car, I failed to say "But when did I give you permission to turn my chainsaw into your race car?"  In my eyes, that was an illegal taking - I've not only lost my chainsaw but (continuing with the applicable law), I'm not able to even get the race car as compensation”   That analogy was given to you by TA Scott Dunn and not me.  Please correct this error on the Grok.

Happily updated and apologies for the original mistake!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Words said by Marshall Faye, an heir to the old library.

I guess I am against the Town proceeding with the taking of the library against the original wishes of Reverent Wilbur Harding and his wife Loise back in 1922.  Yes, the Library was deemed too small over the last few years, but the taxpayers kept saying "No".  But then, a new building was raised by the Friends of the Library.

Well, now what to do? 

My opinion? Let them have it back.  Yes, the Town has added onto the original building - without asking the family.  I used the analogy of lending a chainsaw to Gus, waiting a long time, and then finding out it was not used for its original purpose (cutting down a limb) but was turned into a race car.

Well, there was some back and forth about the applicable laws concerning town property.  And yes, I do have to bow to those that know more than I about the laws concerning this area of the law overseeing this particular problem.

But in reading the Sun earlier this month (4th, 6th for examples), it seems that there may have been more going on than what I thought. While the Town has claimed before that it could not find the heirs, it was easy enough for others here in Town were able to find a few and send them updates on the on-going process.

Oh, back to my example - what I failed to say, however, when Gus said he turned the chainsaw I lent him into a race car, I failed to say "But when did I give you permission to turn my chainsaw into your race car?"  In my eyes, that was an illegal taking - I've not only lost my chainsaw but (continuing with the applicable law), I'm not able to even get the race car as compensation

Fair?  No.

Let the heirs have it back. Tell the Town Counsel to stop the legal proceedings.

Posted by Skip at 09:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, today was the subcommittee for the Library to meet with the Library Trustees and Administration to review their budget.  I expected that there would be some "discussion" as their budget increase, percentage wise at 7.46%, was the highest of all of the Town's departments. 

I made a recording of the session, just click on the gramaphone below.

Their budget, both proposed and allowed by the Board of Selectmen, is shown below.  Yeah, there were a few issues that you can pick up from the audio:

• Their rate of increase, 7.46%, is far above that of most other departments - and most of the other department's increases were due to an accounting decision to move fuels from DPW's budget to the separate departments.  The library had no such line item.
  

• The new part time position.  It was explained that it was really an "old" part time position in that it was added after last year's Budget season (where no extra position was approved) while they were still in the old library but before they moved to the new building (therefore, it was not a new position).  As far as I could tell, it is a New position - New in that it now exists where one did not during last year's deliberations.

• We also discussed that their circulation is up as well.  In fact, much of their budget was defended that they were unwilling at all to decrease ANY line item due to the increase in circulation even as we pointed out that all other departments had much lower increases as they had realized that times were economically unstable (yet had upticks in demand as well).

• They have a number of programs that are used to bring in people to the Library for various reasons.  Essentially, this is in hopes of ramping up circulation (i.e., most people will pick up a book when they visit).  It seems that these marketing programs are working - more marketing means more people which means higher circulation  which means an ever increasing budgetary spiral that provides for more marketing.Fine for a business, but for a government agency?
  

• If you listen to the audio, it will become obvious near the end (that besides the tension discussing the budget line items) that there is a wide philosophical difference between the BudComm members and how they perceive what the mission of a small town library should be vs what the Library Trustees (specifically Tracey Petrozzi and Polly Sanfacon) believe it should be.  In short:

• The subcommittee members tend to see a library as a collection of books and other information materials to be utilized by the citizenry.
• A discussion of mission or "project creep" - what happens when something continually grows beyond its initial purpose - overlaps with other departments, competition within the town and marketplace, et al.
  
• The Trustees seemingly see the Library as just one piece of an overall puzzle to help care for all children and that the Town should spend what is necessary to stand in for parents who either have to work or are "absentee" parents.  They also had no problem, it seemed, to "compete" with the private marketplace by providing some materials (e.g., saving a trip to the DVD store) to make it more convenient ("I don't have to go all the way to the store...").
  

The primary question is "What is the right and proper role of government?"  This question should always be asked of all levels of government.  Then at each level, a determination should be made of the relative importance of each each department in relation to that question, and drilling down, the relative priorities within a department.

Government cannot be all things or supply all things to all people; there is not enough money in the world to slake the incipient demand for those services and products perceived as "free".  Priorities must be set - not all things can all be Priority 1 when dealing with a scarce resource - dollars.

But don't take my word for it - listen to the audio yourself and come to the Budget Committee meeting this coming Thursday - it may be quite interesting.

Posted by Skip at 06:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Gilford student prepping for the SATs at the "library"?

Am I the ONLY person in Gilford that has a problem with what's going on in our 14,000 sq foot library day care center?

At the risk of facing the wrath of the librarians camp counselors and their numerous water-carriers, let me be the first taxpayer in town to rain on the brand new library day care center parade...

Heralding Gilford's own version of Bizzarro World, the Citizen had the story:

No 'shhhh!' at this library event

The Gilford Public Library was anything but quiet Thursday afternoon with its return of the monthly "Rock Band Jam."

The monthly jam sessions with the popular videogame "Rock Band" started last February during the school year with an overwhelming response. The library held the sessions once or twice a month to keep youths busy after school and in the evenings.

And you thought that libraries were about books and reference materials! Not in Gilford! Why, we're WAY beyond that. No, we don't need no stinkin' books! It's movies, music and video games for us.

The Citizen story continues, explaining that it's about getting the teens into the library day care center:

"It gives the kids something to do," said Tasha LeRoux, children's librarian. "I haven't found anything to draw teenage boys into the library, but this seems like a success."

Why stop there? Why only offer video games for the teenage boys at the library day care center? If the mission is to get the boys into the place (gotta get the "usage" numbers up to justify additional staff) why not hire some of the dancin gals from Cocomo's? With the end of tourist season, the dancers must be in need of jobs-- it's kinda like a twofer, when you really think about it. Teenage boys ALWAYS like that kind of stuff. Maybe we could offer cigarettes and beers, too. Heaven knows THAT will entice a few teens. And for those who still refuse to come to the library day care center after school, a little reefer, maybe?

If more people keep showing up after school, the children's department plans on having jams every week. Right now they are only scheduled once a month.

Oh good-- as a taxpayer and budcom member, I can't WAIT to pay for more of these activities. Especially if it gets the teenage boys into the place. After all, if we get everybody hooked on the library in the young years, hopefully they'll grow up to love the library day care center and eagerly fork over large chunks of their paychecks to continue funding the place. Oh, and let's not forget, today's library day care center can easily be added onto in order to accomodate a future senior center (another 10,000 square feet ought to do it).

I'm sorry, but for me and my family, we can find our own entertainment, thank you very much. When my children, escapees from the government "school" system, needed REAL reference materials, they knew they needn't bother with the Gilford library, as we learned what a joke it is a long time ago. We don't need the helping hand of government to raise our children... no shhhhhh*tttt. No, really!

And to the "generous" people that gave the money that foisted this perpetual money pit on our town after the voters said NO, please, STOP! No more "gifts".

Posted by Doug at 04:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The voters of Gilford should know the whole story of how the Budget Committee came to reverse its decision on the Library warrant article. Committee member Dale Dormody described an analogy of how important the committee’s recommendation is to the voting public. He tells the story of an airplane mechanic applying a big sticker on the door of the plane that reads “UNSAFE To FLY”. Dale then asks “would you get on the plane?” This excellent comparison suggests that the committee has combed over the budget information thoroughly enough to know whether or not we should be spending the specified money. Let’s continue the analogy to describe what happens in Gilford when the "mechanics" deem the plane unsafe to fly. After the mechanic has applied his warning sticker he then gets lectured and brow beat by the group that is causing the unsafe flying condition. They manage to corner the mechanic during a vulnerable moment when he doesn’t have all his faculties. The mechanic is forced to remove the warning sticker from the plane even though the plane is still UNSAFE To FLY!

This was the case with the library warrant article giving the library $110,000 of proceeds from the sale of a parcel of the town’s land. The majority of the Budget Committee twice REJECTED giving the library more money. The first time, the Budget Committee simply agreed with the Selectman’s $40,000 cut for items they believed to be part of building a “free” library. The second time the Budget Committee REJECTED the recommendation of giving $110,000 to the library from the sale of town land.  In both cases they felt that the Friends of the Gilford Library promised the voters a “FREE” library and it could have been built using the original land and design drawings that were already paid for.

A third bite at the apple for the Gilford library was allowed because the Chairman didn’t adhere to previously established rules requiring that only a “prevailing” member can reopen a previously voted item. The timing of reopening the library warrant article was also such that a critical vote was absent from the discussion. Had all members been present I’m confident the outcome would have been the same as the first vote because nothing new was added to the discussion.

The “UNSAFE TO FLY” sticker has been removed but the plane is still broken!

Terry Stewart

Posted by Terry S. at 02:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I would like to remind everybody that Connie Grant was offering nothing new for the discussion when she was allowed to speak AFTER Skip moved the question. Her input was purely emotion and was nothing substantive in any way, shape or form. The Chairman said that the rules were that we would ONLY consider info we learned from the public hearing. What would have happened if my wife had wanted to speak? Selectman Grant was simply granted special privileges because she is a selectman. The selectmen are already well represented at the table.
. 
Giving Ms. Grant mic time given the point we were at in the meeting,  JUST PRIOR TO A VOTE gave the pro-library big spenders an unfair advantage. The input she gave was that the budget committee was being a stumbling block to what SHE saw as right. This input had no place in our deliberations. I stand by my point of order interruption and wish that the committee as a whole would become more conversant in parlimentary protocols. Calling the question is just that.
. 
Remember, Ms. Grant, while not a member of the committee, tried to particpate in a vote at last Tuesday's meeting by raising her hand (it's all on tape). While some may laugh this off as simple meaningless childsplay, there are some of us out here that take process very seriously. I'm sure if someone like Wayne Snow or Dick Campbell had watched this behavior, it would have caused their eyebrows to raise at the very least. The selectman raising her hand (while the actual selectman member of the committee sat in the audience, further confusing things) during a committee vote seems to me nothing less than an attempt to cajole and intimidate. I make no apologies for my action, and will most likely write about this on the 'Grok. The public's business is serious stuff. The politics are rather intense at times. Unfortunately, some people don't know this. It ain't bean bag!
 
Doug

Posted by Doug at 07:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by Doug at 05:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been holding off on commenting on this, figuring that I'd let this noodle on its own for a while, but now (BING!) the timer has just gone off.

In the Sun, 11/16/07, there was an article that the Library Trustees are asserting that the land that the taxpayers bought for a previous incantation of a new library should rightly go to them.  Reasoning?  Since the voters approved the purchase of the land for a new library and that the Gilford Friends of the Library had donors that pitched in monies to help that process, 

"...it was appropriate to assign the proceeds from selling the lot to the Friends of the Gilford Public Library" [Robert Kammeraad, Trustee Chair].

I disagree with the logic, at least in part.

Yes, I believe the Selectmen should sell the land as at the present time, there are no long term plans (that I am aware of) that require a build-out of the town's infrastructure.  The only current thoughts are about having the SAU move out of the basement of the Town Hall and move into the Library contingent to the proper heirs assenting to the move.  Please note, however, that money may be needed to grease those skids, and certainly would be needed to rennovate the Library for the SAU's offices.  E.g., more money.

Yes, I agree that the donors should be repaid, as they made a good faith effort to assist - they should not be left dangling in the wind due to the FoGPL deciding that they'd go ahead and supply a new building because the voters voted down the last warrant for a new library.  If the sale happens, the right thing to do would be to return that money.

Which brings us to the meat of the problem - just giving the rest of the proceeds to the FoGPL.  The entire argument is that because the voters authorized the purchase of the land, the voters would want that money to go to them.  

No, I disagree.

As shown in bold above, while the voters did agree to purchase the land, they voted down the attempt of the last publicly funded library that was proposed.  This fact is not mentioned in the article.  Nor was that fact mentioned to me during the Sub-Budget Committee reviewing the Library budget (but the proceeds of the land idea was) nor during the full Budget Committee review (that I can remember - that's why the recording is helpful - let me know if you find otherwise!).

Like it or not, my reasoning is that while the taxpayers bought the land, I disagree that this fact automatically gives the right to the Library Trustees to assume it should be theirs for further funding of the new Library.  And no, I disagree with Bill Seed and his "embarrassed" remark as well, trying to guilt the BudComm into putting back in what the Selectmen removed.

The money used was taxpayer money, not the Trustees' money.  The Trustees stepped in, being unsatisfied with the voters judgement on the new Library, and did it themselves (and should be applauded for that action).  But that still does not change the fact that taxpayer money paid for the land.

How's this? The cost of the land in 2004 was $150K, with $40K from donors and $110K from the taxpayers.  For the sake of argument, given the current real estate climate, let's say it is sold for $150K. 

Give the donors back the money they raised as their money went for something other than the original intention (effectively, surplus land for the Town of Gilford rather than a new library).  What they do with that money afterwards is up to them.  The moral obligation will have been fulfilled.

The other $110K?  Here's a crazy idea - return that to the taxpayers as well!  That was used, at the majority vote of the citizens, for a library that the Town was going to build.  That purpose also became moot when the FoGPL decided to go their own way and do it on their own.

I do not know, off the top of my head, how many taxpayer units there are in Gilford - for the sake of argument, let's say 1,100 (heh - convenient for the math challenged amongst us!).  That means  $100 back, in the form of a check just like the $40K donors, to each taxpayer in Gilford. 

And then let the taxpayer, of their own free will, decide to donate to the FoGPL if they want!  After all, given the reasoning behind giving the donors back their money should also fit for the taxpayers, right? If the moral obligation to the $40K donators must be fulfilled for a purpose not taken, the same argument applies to the taxpayers.

Don't you agree? 

Continue reading "Who gets the money?" »

Posted by Skip at 09:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Update:

Dale has updated his site to better show that the Selectmen removed items from the proposed Library budget on his front page - no longer is it possible to assume that the Budget Committee did the cutting. Thank you!

Look, if Dale wants to play a game, he's not playing it very well.  In this screen shot from his website:

If he was going to be completely honest, his table should show that almost EVERY department had its budget changed by the Selectmen before sending it on to the BudComm.  But he didn't.

He is making a statement that his wife's department did not get what it wanted.  Plain and simple...and in my opinion, blaming the rest of the BudComm (Margo Weeks excepted, as she voted with him) for not giving that department what it wanted is not the right way to play "in a civil manner".  The Library budget, as reviewed and voted upon by the BudComm, was never amended. Making the claim that the budget that we voted on was amended is false.

Period. 

IMHO...

Continue reading "Not quite complete....showing a bias, eh?" »

Posted by Skip at 05:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Hmm, I guess there's at least one reader of the 'Grok - a loyal reader asked that I put this up for them (albeit, perhaps a shameless plug!):

Do You Want To Be At Budget Committee Meeting From The Privacy Of Your Home?

Thanks to GilfordGrok, you can. The video is available as the meeting was taped.

Last night the Committee met with the Library Trustees to discuss their budget which included 5 extra items to be added in. These items included security system( $ 8,000 ), new book drop ($3,000) 10 new computers ( $10,200 ), moving costs ($15,000) and telephone system ($4,000) All these items should have been included in our FREE LIBRARY at no extra cost to the tax payers. Now, they are looking for taxpayers to come up with this. There are already extra costs as reflected in the department of Public Works Departments budget. These things were approved ,no problem, because it is part of maintaining the library. Taxpayers were promised that the library would not cost anything as the monies were being raised privately. If these items are to be covered by taxpayers, perhaps some of them could be added delayed so that the library budget does not increase by 14%, the largest increase be any department.

Posted by Skip at 03:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night was the turn of the Library's to be reviewed and voted upon by the entire Budget Committee.  Knowing that there might be some "discussion" about the items, the 'Grok recorded it - twice actually!.  There will be isolated clips later on (already in process).

The full video of the discussion is here.

Warning - it is long (1 hour, 26 minutes) and big (about 143MB).  However, it will give you the full picture of how the Budget Committee conducted its discussion.

I'll have more to say later.

Posted by Skip at 01:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Q: How do you know a Gilford [politician] [bureaucrat] [special-interest water carrier] is being untruthful?

A: When they tell us that their [insert scheme du-jour here] "won't EVER cost the taxpayers a dime."

...Thomlinson, the chairman of the School Board, stressed that the funding for football amounted to 0.08 percent of the high school budget. He said that the board considered drafting a warrant article, but reached a "concensus decision" that because the sum was relatively small and offset by other revenues as a warrant article could be confusing to voters.

Tomlinson said the reason the School Board chose to include the program in its budget is because members felt a warrant article might be confusing for taxpayers who already must vote on a number of warrant articles, explaining that they might inadvertently vote against the measure.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, comes the next FREE GIFT: A BRAND NEW LIBRARY!

Posted by Doug at 09:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, a week ago, the Friends of Gilford Library announced a bombshell - you want it, you got it. Actually, the operative words are: if you "accept" it, we will build it. Taken together, it could present a quandary.

Maybe not for the average person.....frankly, if I had not become more aware of how things work, I wouldn't put two and two together. My reaction would be “hey, it's FREE! What do you MEAN, you don't WANT it? Are you out of your freakin' mind?”

Now, I think I know a bit better. One of my favorite phrases is TANSTAAFL – There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. In other words, nothing in life is free – almost anything will cost somebody something. It is this phrase that I wish more people would take to heart and really understand that there are no exceptions.  

For instance, I remember back when Oprah gave everyone in her audience a brand new car. When it was announced, the audience EXPLODED! Crying, cheering, screaming, back-slapping, hugs all around. And there's Oprah, a real big grin on her face, as all of the audience members this day were “deserving” and could not afford these Pontiacs themselves. Er, except for one thing.....as gifts over $10,000 (I think that is the limit), the cars were now considered income – therefore, eligible for income tax.  

What was seen as free quickly became sore points – crying again ensued, but for other reasons (for complete disclosure, I don't remember what the outcome was).  Why? These were people that couldn't afford it (no, not the cars, but couldn't afford even the tax on one).

Same thing when people yelp for joy when government grants are won – although “free” to the local citizenry, it did cost other taxpayers somewhere else. And the opposite is not often considered – when other places get grants, we pay.

So whenever government is involved, nothing is free. And I guess that this is my concern with respect to the gift of the library.

So, what do I know at this point?

Continue reading "Gilford Library - Skip's turn" »

Posted by Skip at 08:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 09:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)