message board home
Next
1/24/2008 9:14:54 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: OPA Board Subject: Board Punts on Slots Msg# 528516
|
||||||
|
Your post is RIGHT ON.... and is the basis of my objection to going after the slot money from the beginning. It seems to me that Purcell and Rakow have both indicated it would have been ok if Mathias had included OPA in the initial bill, but that it is improper, or wrong, or unethical, or whatever to now try and get the money. Let's see... if the state gave us slots money without our asking it would be ok, but it is unethical or wrong to ask. Isn't that contradictory? Sure doesn't make sense to me. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Bill: Your post is RIGHT ON.... and is the basis of my objection to going after the slot money from the beginning. I still believe that these fees are going to have to be justified (possibly not for OC and Berlin)... and if Route 589 and the police impacts are taken care of, OP will end up looking pretty foolish trying to justify money for the other types of projects that are contemplated by the legislation. In reading most of the posts on this point... I have concluded that what some people just cannot stand the thought of our losing out on "our fair share" of the "pot of gold" that will materialize from the slots. In my opinion, no one in their right mind would give money to a non-municipality like OP to spend as it chooses. It is interesting to note that some here seem to want the benefits of being a municipality without really being one. It is hard to have it both ways. Jeff Knepper |
