No Tax Money For Growth, Says Herron

Advertisement

by Hoby Herron

payson

I would like to respond to Gordon Metcalf's letter printed in the July 18 Payson Roundup.

Yes, as a selfish individual I would have preferred to put a gate across 87 and lock it after I came.

However, recognizing that it was selfish, I have at no time tried to stop growth. In fact, I lived here for 22 years before even remotely getting involved in what the town was doing, and then only at the urging and support of a group that recognized far better than I, what was happening to Payson.

I will always vote against using local taxpayers' money to enhance and encourage growth. That should be done with private money as that is who will benefit from the growth. We have no right to use the taxpayers' money to spend on others, only for that which benefits all.

As for losing touch. Sir, both friendly and small are truly relative terms. One illustration, I believe, will prove my point. Soon after arriving in Payson I needed some screws. I jumped in the car and drove to the largest hardware store in town at that time. I found the store closed with a sign saying, "Sorry, gone fishing. See you tomorrow."

Well I left there with smoke coming out of both ears. How could a business person do such a thing. I had not gone two blocks when the thought hit me. Hoby relax. That is why you moved here. Join them, don't change them. I was told this was a fairly common practice back then, and it was accepted by those current citizens. Would that happen today?

You see, Gordon, growth is not always better. Yes, there still are friendly people in town, just as there are in Manhattan and other places. The point is that we no longer have a laid-back, easy-going lifestyle. The speed is progressing ever faster. The faster it gets, the less time the average person has to be friendly. That is a fact of life that cannot be denied.

My reasons for voting no:

1. We were forcing the people of that neighborhood to accept a lower standard than the one they bought into. Keep in mind that they themselves objected to the change. Selfish? I think not. That was the zoning they had paid for and expected to get and keep.

2. I feel strongly that children and planes do not mix.

3. The so-called builder agreement was just an outline with nothing concrete to assure us that we would have affordable housing. Make that agreement firm in favor of the town before you ask me to base my vote on it.

4. The change would increase the number of ERUs. I, for one, count up the extra ERUs every time there is a lot spilt and/or redesign of a subdivision. We are near our limit on supply should every lot now available be built on. Until we find a new source of water, each ERU added will shortchange someone else down the road. In addition, I believe that when new water is found for these new ventures, all of us will be asked to pay for it, even though we did not create the need.

While I am not perfect and may occasionally slip up, my intention is to vote for what is best for all the citizens of Payson and not take from one to help another. The use of federal and or state money is OK since we do not control that taking. But local tax dollars, according to my vote, will be spent for the general welfare of all citizens. Not to benefit a few.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.