Georgie Goss, Salisbury
To the Editor:
I feel like the little boy who, while watching a parade with throngs of cheering people, points out that the emperor has no clothes. It’s not what people want to hear, but our city has no money–we are millions of dollars in debt thanks to Fibrant– and our city has no business borrowing more, especially when there is no guarantee that the building will continue to be occupied by the school system.
Like many others, I didn’t voice my opinion at the City Council meeting because I had read in the Salisbury Post that the school system was going to sign a 20-year lease-to-purchase option so all the money was definitely going to be reimbursed to the City. I thought it wasn’t a smart way for the schools to spend their money, but as a City resident, I had few qualms about it since the money was “guaranteed” to be reimbursed. Since the School Board and City Council members were determined to proceed, why waste my time and energy going to the Council meeting? However, now the truth has come to light, and I have no meaningful forum to object; that is, no public hearing. I appreciate the Rowan Free Press for providing an alternative voice to the local newspaper whose editorial staff’s views align politically with our City Council and School Board, thereby making the Salisbury Post serve as their cheerleader, a fact which the Post staff most likely views as a force for progress. Considering how visionary they claim to be, it seems they are rather short-sighted.
Building a multi-million dollar structure with less than a three-year contract is ill-advised. If the schools leave, the city will no doubt make use of the building in some other fashion, but if this is what the Council wants, they are not going through the proper channels to get it. If Council members want new city offices or a convention center, they should state their intentions and seek a bond issue so that voters can have a voice. Surely the other use–renting to a private company or a host of private companies–wouldn’t be Council’s intention since they would be competing for renters with the many empty privately-held buildings already available downtown. It would not exactly be fair to use tax money to fund that venture, especially when downtown property owners would be paying to subsidize their competition.
Is the point of this really to establish a conference center or to build a central office for the schools? Proceeding with construction without a long-term lease makes it seem more like the city is trying to construct a convention center and using the current needs of the school system to bypass public input. While it might be nice to have a convention center downtown, it is a huge expense that city residents should have the right to decide with a vote, such as through a bond vote.
Grandiose ideas which we don’t have the money to pay for are the reason our fees, taxes, etc.,in the city keep going up at the same time that employees are being laid off and services being reduced. I appreciate the long hours put in by the City Council in service to our community but I was hoping they would collectively be more business-savvy than the group who brought us Fibrant.
As with the Fibrant debacle, there will undoubtedly be much hullaballoo at the completion of this new building. People–mainly politicians and others who derive direct benefit from it–will talk about how wonderful it is for Salisbury, but the joy will be short-lived as reality sets in with taxpayers and also with parents of the students who must attend schools which will be suffering because of the largess bestowed upon the administrators in creating such an unnecessarily fine building.
Assuming the rent will be enough to cover the estimated cost of $560,000 to $620,000 a year (per the Salisbury Post) the School Board will be spending an awful lot to rent a building for their administrators, especially considering that the School Board has been wanting to get out of the rental situation they have been in with some of their administrative offices. In fact, Gene Miller cited the current situation wherein office space is being rented as one factor in seeking a central office. In his financial presentation to the City Council awhile back, he showed that the new central office could be paid for entirely out of capital expenses already allocated to the schools and would not require a bond referendum. Mr. Miller applied the money saved from no longer renting office space toward the cost-savings argument as he advocated for a centralized office. Renting office space was expressly referred to as “money being thrown away” since it was supposed to be going toward capital expenses. If it was so important to not rent a $50,000 per year space for some administrators, why is it a good idea suddenly to rent a $560,000 (minimum) space for all of the administrators?
If there is a behind-the-scenes deal in which the city is giving up their rights to the building as the schools rent it, then this is a lease-to-purchase agreement which should be subjected to proper scrutiny by whatever governmental offices in Raleigh are supposed to scrutinize it. If there isn’t a behind-the-scenes deal, then the city is being mighty benevolent in taking a major risk with our tax money while our city is in a very deep hole financially.
It is easy to be generous with others’ money. This Council is not only doing that, but is also being generous with money that they–and we–don’t have. In the process they are tying the hands of future politicians and residents, whose resources are being spent by the present City Council. While the building plans are beautiful, raising taxes to pay for it will strain our city’s resources further and make our city less attractive to prospective residents Already we have great difficulty encouraging out-of-town physicians who practice in Salisbury to locate here. And many of the ones who have located here recently have left, as have many executives. Those without strong family ties seem to find it easy to leave. Our town’s economic situation is such that we cannot afford to bankroll projects with open-ended repayment plans. This is a matter which should be handled by the School Board and the Commissioners, not paid for by city residents.
None of us has an accurate crystal ball, but I’m concerned that Salisbury, drowning in debt, will be forced to price itself out of being competitive in attracting new businesses. The plaque which will inevitably be placed on the completed central office building may serve as a reminder of who bankrupted this great little city. Borrowing money to loan it to someone else is never a good idea.
Georgi Goss
Salisbury, NC
