Followed by a couple of paragraphs of wasted electrons.

I’m as serious as a patient scheduled for heart surgery not knowing if my health care provider might decide to cancel my policy.

Just because Mr Salton says so, does not make it so.

It is worth pointing out that a couple of hundred thousand dollars would save both the pool and the senior center. How about applying some entrepreneurial initiatives to raise the money? If “John” and “Mr.Dairy” don’t have the entrepreneurial spirit themselves, maybe they can find some people who do and enlist them in their cause. Ann Arbor is full of these kinds of people. They are just not going to be attracted by the kinds of entitlement arguments being made.

@8: Vivienne- you and I do not share a common philosophy. But your willingness to use your name commands respect and attention.

Vivienne, I am not only willing to pay taxes for someone else’s benefit but my firm voluntarily contributes as generously as we can to charities (my favorite is the Salvation Army). My objection to the pool and the senior center is based on the specific nature of the expenditure. “Investing” in recreation when we are laying off teachers, firemen and city workers appears to me to be downright vulgar if not repulsive. Earn the money, build up a financial cushion and THEN go out and build all the recreational and entertainment facilities that you wish. Just don’t do it on the backs of people who are being put out on the street.

I would wager that on a smaller scale, given a loss of personal income, Mr. Salton would turn down the thermostat, cancel the cable, sell the T.V., and skip a few meals in order to buy good paper for his resume, clean his interview suit, upgrade his cellphone and computer, and put gas in his car, all in hopes of finding a better job. He sounds strong, energetic, forward looking.

What about Mr. Dairy? He seems focused on the past. Perhaps his best days of being strong and energetic are behind him. It happens to everybody eventually. Until we cast off our less productive members of society on Arctic ice floes, Mr. Dairy has a fair point. If Mr. Dairy gives up some creature comforts to enable Mr. Salton to go and find a better job, what assurance can Mr. Salton give Mr. Dairy that the favor will be returned?

Has it occurred to Mr Salton that for some seniors, the Senior Center might be the only place where they are able to have contact with other seniors? Hah, let them eat cake, all those Burns Park seniors!

Did it occur to Mr Salton that Mack Pool might be one of the few warm and welcoming public park facilities where families can go during the winter together for their “entertainment”? For those families that cannot afford a Caribbean vacation?

Reading his derisive comments to Vivienne Armentrout, referring to her sneeringly as a “collectivist”, (code word for communist!) I would venture that Mr Salton is an anti government anti taxer, except where it suits his politics, such as more corporate welfare for profitable businesses at public expense.

Ann Arbor is also becoming known for giveaways to developers for projects of dubious necessity. This is nothing but a race to bottom competing with other municipalities on how fast we can give away public assets for unknown tax revenues. Ann Arbor is also known for a terrible track record for public/private partnerships, particularly costly for the public (you, my friend). Let the Valiant Group buy the land from the city at market value. Require them to foot the entire bill for building a conference center and then we’ll see how serious they are. There is no evidence whatsoever that the rosy economic predictions, including the tax revenue will come true. In fact there is evidence quite to contrary that conference centers or big hotels are not economically feasible in a city this size and under these economic conditions. Why else would a supposedly profitable developer come hat in hand and ask for public subsidy and tax breaks unless they aren’t able to make a profit without public assistance. It’s just more corporate welfare.

Let the market decide and if it’s such a great idea with potential for profit, then the developer should be beating down the doors to build. But let them do it on private property and pay for the entire project with their own money. That’s real capitalism. If the market warrants it, then I’m all for it. But, they can’t do it without public money. And at this time, we’re laying off firefighters, cutting services and can’t rebuild a crucial bridge, you, my friend, want to give away public property and subsidize well heeled developers at the expense of those necessary projects that serve the entire city.

As it stands, we’re being sold a pig in a poke while we allow our widely appreciated public assets and services are being sold and cut.

I refuse to foot the bill for your pie in the sky public/private partnerships of unproven necessity that benefit private, for profit enterprises using my tax dollars.

Tax breaks/subsidies/other economic inducements are used by people who are willing to DO something. They put their money at risk and – if it works – CREATE something that the community benefits from–taxes, services, products, etc. I’m willing to forgo some tax revenue (thereby increasing my tax share IF it doesn’t work)to try to see some of that happen.

The programs cited in the article are entertainments and diversions. I have nothing against swimming and providing a place for seniors to play checkers and bridge. I just don’t want to pay for your entertainment. If you want it, generate the money to pay for it.

There are some very twisted priorities here.

And I have to say that while some people, with the best of intentions and loads of intelligence argue the finer points of how City Hall manages our public assets, they are being cut, stolen and reduced to rubble while those smart well intentioned people debate those finer points.