Letter: No vote on another SID

Dear Editor:

“Wally” and “the Beaver.”

Remembering the old TV series and the proverbial, “my big brother says,” and all things in “Beaver’s” life were believed to be so.

Well, it looks like there is a new “Wally” in town and he has all the knowledge that the young “Beaver” seeks. All “Beaver” had to do was decide “Wally” was the best person for the job of city chief of police. Now every idea of “Beaver’s” released in the local newspapers are quoted as being supported and researched by “Wally.” Hey, “Wally” says! … so be it?

There has yet to be a consensus, nor a formal Special Improvement District for “Streetscape II.” Yet “Beaver” is back to the property owners/businesses of just one area of town, saying, “Wally” has all the answers, just open your wallets (again)!

This would be the time for “Beaver” to learn a lesson by example. Let’s say “Beaver” puts aside his differences with his excavating business neighbor, “Eddie,” and they convince the city to improve that slum-looking vacant lot between their businesses … you know, the one with waist-high knapweed and dusty parking lots that all travelers from the west see when coming into town? Maybe a park for the high-schoolers to hang out in or a new parking lot for them. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

But since “Beaver” and “Eddie” have the only properties that border the wonderful improvement for the entire city, they will graciously accept this SID that the city deems “for the good of the city.” It would seem logical that “Beaver” would now understand the unfairness in directing the cost of an SID to only those adjacent property owners for a project that is “for the good of the city.”

But who am I to believe that a politician has a grasp on common sense. Let the businesses decide if they want and can afford surveillance cameras. Not another SID.

M. Scott Ryan

JT Products

Libby