Salisbury courting fiscal dangers
Several recent articles in the Salisbury Posts have referenced the cityís Fibrant system with dismay. Confusion and lack of information seem to be the center of a controversy that would not have occurred if the city of Salisbury had been open about the Fibrant system. However, openness does not seem to be part of the governance of our city. Our city council, like the county commissioners, have no objective method of appointing members to the multitude of committees allegedly intended to represent the will of the citizenry. They choose individuals whose views are in keeping with the elected officials.
The $35 million bond incurred by the city is really an obligation foisted on us by a small number of select persons having interests in our being obligated. We further note in the Post that a transfer of funds is needed to maintain our solvency.
The Post has dutifully provided amounts of the debt and the costs of satisfying it. Non-payment according to the contract of obligation would negatively affect the cityís ability to borrow money in the future. In a period of economic hardship we can face an increased burden potentially by raising real estate taxes and other meansselected by the chosen few governing the city.
We need term limits for our ěelectedî officials for our protection. If this were law, the pressure groups electing and supporting city officials may find it harder to ěpassî ordinances which donít benefit all the cityís population. This, of course, means we must get out and vote.
Finally, since there was no referendum for Fibrant, should we, the uninformed citizen, be liable for the debt? Or should the mayor and others who orchestrated the Fibrant calamity be responsible for rectifying the unnecessary burden?
ó Arthur Steinberg
Salisbury