The case against Fibrant system
The online comments about the cityís problems with Fibrant and House Bill 129 are right on target.
At David Tremeís direction, our city officials have put Salisbury in a $30 million hole. First, it is unconscionable for elected officials to make a financial commitment of that magnitude without a public referendum. It is derelict for elected officials to make a commitment of that size without researching the pros and cons. The city owned broadband systems that were established in Statesville, Davidson and Cornelius have been unsuccessful. These systems have not been able to compete with Time Warner. Furthermore, as state Sen. David Hoyle stated, it is counterproductive for a municipality to go into competition with companies in their tax base. Why would any person or group of individuals decide to shoot themselves in the foot?
Adding insult to injury is the fact that Fibrant is not what we were promised. It is not cheaper than the commercial alternatives and the faster speeds have already been surpassed by Time Warner. Drive through Salisbury neighborhoods, and you will see that most folks have not bought into the Fibrant hype.
The city has been given an exemption from Bill 129 for the original plan that offered Fibrant within the city limits. Why do we need a lobbyist in Raleigh? The answer is simple. Fibrant cannot make it financially with only Salisbury as its customer base; Fibrant will need to expand to surrounding areas to look for customers. If the city is allowed to expand Fibrant, all that will be accomplished is a deeper financial pit.
If the Salisbury public officials want to go into business, they need to form a private company and spend their own money. Donít spend the taxpayerís money without their permission on money-making schemes.
ó Larry Bowyer
Salisbury
Shine light on this
In the interest of ětransparency,î I think you should publish the names of those repeat parking offenders in the downtown area. The $15,000 Downtown Salisbury Inc. saves by your doing this could be put to a much needed parking lot.
ó Julie Apone
Salisbury
Thanks for series
Thank you so very much for the recent articles in the Post on salary, benefits, etc. of our local government employees.
It is reassuring to know that our local newspaper is diligent in being the ěpeopleís watchdog.î
However, I am disappointed that your articles have not included the same information for the employees of our two local public housing agencies. Even though these employees are not city or county employees, both public agencies receive millions of taxpayer dollars from the federal government.
Thank you.
ó Nelda Freeze
Salisbury