|
 |
|||
|
Open Letter to Carl Carl Schulthess I just got in from coaching Little League and have now read your messages. Yes, I am the one who wrote the earlier letter. Yes, I am the one who spoke at the council meeting on Monday in favor of our city's children. Yes, I have read through the document that you attached, and, yes, I do understand and agree with the need for fiscal prudence and responsibility in our community. We're together so far. I fully expected that the $33 million in the general reserve account was at least partially spoken for, and while I've now read your list, I'm curious as to how many of these 'buckets” are cast in concrete. In my humble opinion, most of these seem to be worthwhile projects, and I'm glad that funding has been set aside for them. However, I strongly beg to differ with Mr. Holtzman's statement that a gym at Newhart is “an edifice to an ego.” I'm certainly confused about the priorities of a man who claims that replacing the current healthy green landscaping along the many streets listed is worthy of four times the city budget reserves and of greater importance than providing athletic facilities for our children. Plants versus children? At four times the price? Do any of you have children? Plants come and go while our children are our legacy. I can proudly state that I've participated in every Tierra Nativa since we moved to this city years ago. I love plants. I also love how beautiful our city appears as you drive through these streets. But are plants more important than our children? Come, now. Further, it's not as if our slopes are bare. All of these streets have mature plants already thriving. Horrendous and very aging? Mature plants have mature root systems that prevent landslides. Are we also against mature humans who might appear to some as horrendous and very aging? What logic can you (or Mr. Holtzman) defend? I would very much like to have my written opinions shared on your blog, but please do not oblige me to agree with Mr. Holtzman's statements, which are completely biased and detrimental to our future generations. I appreciate that you were kind enough to include his letter attached to your earlier email, but I'm unclear if you are in lockstep with his stated opinions. I'll reiterate that I remain completely in favor of governmental fiscal prudence, and, in that sense, we continue to agree. The question, it seems, is your willingness to tolerate opinions that may differ somewhat from your own. Terry Hanrahan |
|||