We are perplexed.
Within the past month, our Star Valley Town Council decided that it was not the job of the town government to pay to mitigate serious, land-eroding flood problems of some of our fellow town residents, because, if we recall correctly, it was deemed by our representatives that it was not the proper role of government to use tax dollars to pay to help private residents with an allegedly private problem.
Now that same town council has voted unanimously to spend some $300,000 or more of our tax dollars to purchase a private business for purely moral purposes, that Mr. Grier states will not be to make money, but to “uphold our mission statement” even though “we may or may not break even.”
As almost 20-year Star Valley residents, who have lived all those years near Pete’s Place, we were, of course, dismayed and apprehensive when Pete’s Place became a topless bar. However, our neighborhood has experienced no ill effects whatsoever from this private business, which is now in foreclosure from lack of patrons — which is what we predicted would happen sooner or later when it first opened.
Why doesn’t the town just let this business close on its own, which it is already doing? If a topless bar closes for lack of patrons, why would anyone else invest in reopening a similar business? Why do we have to spend a third of a million dollars to put Pete’s Place out of business when it can, and will, do that on its own?
And exactly what is this lofty town “mission statement” that Mr. Grier feels we must pay so much to uphold?
As taxpayers, we object to this frivolous use of our money for a purpose that in no way can be described as providing public services to the residents of our town.
If the town has that much money to throw around on this kind of “moral” project, but no money for flood mitigation, its priorities are hopelessly skewed.
Mr. & Mrs. Ned Weatherby