Editorials & Interest Rates, a Look at Albany's Failed Emergency Bond

A constant volunteer at various Albany community happenings, Bill Root, while chatting at the St. Mary's Soup Kitchen, told me, "You don't know what you're talking about."

So I let him explain:

First, Root said, the emergency bond failed because folks didn't know that it wouldn't raise their taxes. The new bond would have paid off two older bonds, and tax payments would remain about the same.

Second, the fire and police WON'T be separated, but I agree, they need to be accountable.

Root went on to say that the Democrat Herald(DH) editorial on the matter was "accurate."

The DH has it right, Root told me, and the summary regarding voter angst, speaks to America in general. The dissatisfied factions are critical of all government, from the federal block, all the way down to the municipal government we have here in Albany.

 Albany's Ladder 11 responds to a small chimney fire in west Albany.

Some of the comments on the DH editorial, have indeed stated that "we(voters) are sick of spending and taxing by Albany government."

I disagree with Bill Root, and I disagree with the DH. It is more than just a "few unhappy voters."

But what about Albany lately, with its hard to rent out Carriage House and "bought" remodel of downtown, which eliminated an entire block of parking in the name of private business? There are other issues, such as Albany Police(APD) spending gobs of money on rarely used, and hardly prudent, tactical gear.

I believe we do, in fact, need an upgraded emergency bond. But addressing glaring problems within Albany, should be first on that agenda. Examining government spending, and the payoff to its citizens, is the first step in the process. And like the DH stated, the Albany City Council has "stepped back," to let former Linn County Sheriff, Dave Burright, and former Albany businessman and politician, Frank Morse, form a committee to study the matter.

Two things here, the first being the lost vote. The bond was defeated by 700 or so votes, meaning that the study will be focused more on how to get a "positive" message to Albany voters, in hopes of swinging opinion.

Secondly, and more importantly, the city government has little credibility within the city. Judging by the comments left on DH articles about the bond, even a fire measure would fail.

What this means is, the proposed bond appearing on the spring ballot, might be too soon. I would encourage the city council to research the ideology, not the need. I know that is hard to swallow, pending a November election. But I think the council would benefit from a change in focus. Spending for the future, is great. Spending money to pad the elite, is not great.

The simple fact is, government is partisan, and in Albany, partisan means simply denying any bond measure. It is typical of government, yet in this case, when reviewing Albany's spending, it seems an appropriate "blocking" of any vote on more spending.

The city's response has been that the new bond replaces expiring bonds, which result in roughly the same taxes. 

Citizens are tired of "high" taxes, and many of the DH commenters stated that they "were tired of high property taxes."

In addition to bond issues, citizens have voiced questions about fire purchases such as a new ladder that "doesn't fit in the existing building." Other questions included points about promises made when the police station was built, expenses on police gear, and why the police building is in "abandon" mode.

Address mistakes made, in regard to spending, and implement a long-term plan for emergency services. Take hold of nationwide response to policing, and make Albany's police a better unit. And finally, find some manageable use for the Carriage Building, the existing police station, and for the Political Action Committees that fail to represent Albany.

I get it, that investing in Albany's future, is the motivating factor behind the city council and its spending. I just think some of that spending, could have been executed better.

The Carriage House was a good idea, if the surrounding area is upgraded as well. The spending on Broadalbin, between 1st and 2nd, is an atrocity. It looks beautiful, no doubt, but at what cost? After eliminating a half-block of parking, businesses around the Broadalbin project have suffered.

And in my opinion, making it harder on the smallest businesses downtown, is a monumental mistake. One that had a hand in the failed bond for emergency services.

And why, other than Linn County Monarch Tim Mueller, has there been zero comment about making use of the current police station?

As far back as 2009, the DH reported on APD's search for a new locale. Back then, the argument was that in addition to the current building being too small, it is also "inefficient."

Seems like poor planning and begging to me.

Mueller publicly said, "The Linn County Sheriff's Department would love to have that building." Of course he would, at the taxpayer's expense.

Nothing like paying for something twice.

Linn Sheriffs escort a prisoner to court.