The 2012 bond referenda info came in the mail today. Out of four bond issues we'll be voting on ($25M libraries, $55 public safety, $75(!) parks, $30M stormwater) I don't see any of this going to Sully District. Any reason for us in Sully to vote for $185M in new general obligation bonds?

SullyRes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 2012 bond referenda info came in the mail
> today. Out of four bond issues we'll be voting on
> ($25M libraries, $55 public safety, $75(!) parks,
> $30M stormwater) I don't see any of this going to
> Sully District. Any reason for us in Sully to
> vote for $185M in new general obligation bonds?


Voting YES on a bond referendum is the only way the county can take on debt. If you vote NO, the county will be forced to pay for these things with revenue, instead of debt.

So, by allowing them to take another $185M in debt, it'll free up $185M of revenue for them to spend on other things. Maybe they'll spend it in your district.

I noticed the exact same thing. About 11% of the county lives in the Sully District and virtually nothing is targeted to be spent in the Sully District. A very small portion of 75M to the Park Authority would be for Sully Woodlands, Bull Run Park and E.C. Lawrence Park.

Not that it makes any difference - I've voted against every bond referendum in Fairfax County for over 20 years. And every single one passes overwhelmingly - I don't see any reason why this one should be any different. (I recall making the same comments in 2011).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2012 08:55PM by newgatedenizen.

So.... Money the county doesn't have...

Spend More Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SullyRes Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The 2012 bond referenda info came in the mail
> > today. Out of four bond issues we'll be voting
> on
> > ($25M libraries, $55 public safety, $75(!)
> parks,
> > $30M stormwater) I don't see any of this going
> to
> > Sully District. Any reason for us in Sully to
> > vote for $185M in new general obligation bonds?
>
>
> Voting YES on a bond referendum is the only way
> the county can take on debt. If you vote NO, the
> county will be forced to pay for these things with
> revenue, instead of debt.
>
> So, by allowing them to take another $185M in
> debt, it'll free up $185M of revenue for them to
> spend on other things. Maybe they'll spend it in
> your district.

asdasd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So.... Money the county doesn't have...

Did you take out a loan to buy your car? How about a mortgage for your house? Any student loan debt? What about a credit card?

Please tell me about how you've made a tremendous success of yourself without using credit in any way, shape, or form...

Snark Vark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you take out a loan to buy your car? How
> about a mortgage for your house? Any student loan
> debt? What about a credit card?

Doesnt the government provide them?
Attachments:

The Bonds vary each year, sometimes they directly benefit your local neighborhood, sometimes they don't. They are for bettering the county as a whole. You have to see the 'forest for the trees', and look at the big picture.

That said, I personally, I'm not fond of any bonds. The county brings these issues up as a way to gain money that really has little oversight. While the bond may say there is x amount for doing x thing, that doesn't mean that's how the cash will be used. Bonds are just adding to the county's debt. I think budgeting better to account for modernizing facilities etc would be a better way to run things.

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Bonds vary each year, sometimes they directly
> benefit your local neighborhood, sometimes they
> don't. They are for bettering the county as a
> whole. You have to see the 'forest for the
> trees', and look at the big picture.
>
> That said, I personally, I'm not fond of any
> bonds. The county brings these issues up as a way
> to gain money that really has little oversight.
> While the bond may say there is x amount for doing
> x thing, that doesn't mean that's how the cash
> will be used. Bonds are just adding to the
> county's debt. I think budgeting better to
> account for modernizing facilities etc would be a
> better way to run things.


Actually, they carefully select what to make the bond referendum about because most people confuse them for being about supporting or opposing the project, not choosing whether or not to use debt to fund it.

That's why they never have a bond referendum for pay raises for county supervisors, or to build a jail or something like that. It's always for a park or a school, or something people would feel bad voting against.

It's a bait-and-switch, really. If the referendum were to fail, the underlying project doesn't get eliminated. It would just mean they couldn't reallocate general funds for some pet project.

Sort of like how the maryland governor is on TV ads saying "Question 7 means money for schools. That money WILL go to schools" but what he doesn't mention is that for every dollar it adds to schools, they'll reallocate moneys from general revenue that would have gone to schools, to something else.

Vote NO on everything.

We don't need more parks when they cannot maintain the ones already in place - if you want to use county facilities (like for Little League or soccer) - the county invites you to 'adopt' the field and basically pay again for what your tax dollars are paying for. The county can't afford what it has - why are we building more?

We don't need to replace any firestations. Replace libraries when they are rapidly being made obsolete by technology? And build a levee for people who should move out of a flood plain?

All wastes of money.

harry homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vote NO on everything.
>
> We don't need more parks when they cannot maintain
> the ones already in place - if you want to use
> county facilities (like for Little League or
> soccer) - the county invites you to 'adopt' the
> field and basically pay again for what your tax
> dollars are paying for. The county can't afford
> what it has - why are we building more?
>
> We don't need to replace any firestations.
> Replace libraries when they are rapidly being made
> obsolete by technology? And build a levee for
> people who should move out of a flood plain?
>
> All wastes of money.


I voted "no" on all. I would have voted yes for the parks but saw that they were dumping money into the NOVA regional system AKA wasting our money in other jurisdictions who won't pony up their fair share.

I'll be voting no too. If for no other reason than to send a message that we need to stop spending money like it's water in a way that isn't as easily seen. Not that I don't understand the what and why of bonds, but we need to force more spending 'to the books' so that there's some better prioritization of resources.

fuck off.

Just looking at the parks question, they want $75M to "expand and improve" 22 parks. I'm sure that list was made to make sure there was one park getting $ in every corner of the county.

They cannot even take care of what is already in place. Walk around any county park - unless the park is being funded in some way by a local club, they look like shit. In Baron Cameron in Reston, there a few fields supported by local clubs and some that are just taken care of by the county. The ones that are just taken care of by the county are not even mowed regularly. You can have two fields next to each other, one with ankle deep grass and the other nicely mowed, lined, and irrigated. And forget about toilets, they don't even pave half the parking lots.

Adding more stuff when you can't even take care of what you got? Absurd.

You peasants just shut up and vote for the bond issues and be happy.
Don't bother to read them either because they're much too complex
for the public to understand. Just vote YES!

SullyRes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 2012 bond referenda info came in the mail
> today. Out of four bond issues we'll be voting on
> ($25M libraries, $55 public safety, $75(!) parks,
> $30M stormwater) I don't see any of this going to
> Sully District. Any reason for us in Sully to
> vote for $185M in new general obligation bonds?

vote no