Thought Starter: Street lights

After a reorg meeting a while back my wife asked “What’s new?”  I replied “They said the new community will pay for our street lights.” “Why”, she asked “it’s not as if our home owners association will lower our dues because the street lights are now paid for by Greenwood.” She has a point, if we already have street lights and a way of paying for them why should the “new” community pick up the costs? In theory the move of the expense from our homeowners association to city government should be a wash. But in reality seldom if ever when a cost is moved to government does it save the citizens money. In this case the reason may be as simple as our homeowners association may not deduct the street light cost from the budget. Maybe they will, but even if they do did anyone compare what it currently costs me to what it will cost for city government to provide the same service before deciding to to recommend it as something to include in the plan?

My point is as we look at what services the “new” city will provide to the citizens of Center Grove and Smith Valley don’t forget to ask, “Do we need this?”  If you live in an area without street lights and want them then maybe the city should provide them and tax you for there cost. But if you already have them, or any service, why should any governmental body provide something you already have.

What are your thoughts?

No related posts.