Land purchase is example of expanded government
To the editor:
The article in last week’s paper pertaining to the purchase of the “final” piece in the Lake Waconia Parks Plan is a good example of putting lipstick on a pig.
The premise that waiting for the Met Council’s formula to change was a responsible thing to do is true only if you discount the fact that, by waiting, we are over all going to pay nearly 10 percent more for this property. That is only a good thing if you focus only on county dollars and think any other form of tax revenue generated funding is “free money” not a increased strain on taxpayers, for yes, recreational spending in challenging economic times.
Of course, that’s if you believe the original premise that there was an “actual” verbal agreement in the first place. Making an offer while the property owner investigates the futility of trying to treat their own property as an asset, as it always had been before the county set its sights on this long held family property, does not an agreement make. Higher taxes because of the proximity to parkland bought at an extremely exaggerated price, and the inability to market one’s property to other buyers because of the inclusion in a 37 year old parks plan, is a lose-lose proposition.
Add to this, the statements made by Chairman Tim Lynch about the benefits, which are vague at best, first “conservation” in effect taking away the ability of property owners to sell their land to people who want to live in proximity to the lake. This would have much less environmental impact than adding the proposed boat launch on a lake that already has enough boat landings to stress the DNR’s boat per acre formula, something the county agreed “in writing” to honor 20 years ago, so much for conservation.
The “ability to realize the parks planned recreational space” is bureaucrat speak for “more recreational spending following this pressured sale” and “the resolution of Old Beach Lane,” which of course could never have been dug up and replaced with dirt without an expenditure in excess of $3.5 million. It all sounds so reasonable as presented by the Carver County PR machine.
The question is, who do our county commissioners’ serve? Those who want the expansion of government spending regardless of taxpayer burden, (ie: government administrations and other government entities who provide these talking points) or those of us struggling under the load?
It appears it doesn’t matter much to them, as long as someone can make them look like dedicated public servants.