WESTSIDE — Editor,

Apparently some apologies are in order, first and foremost to you, Mr. Editor.

If you felt that you have been hoodwinked, that was not my intention at all, so I apologize. My intention was simply an attempt at anonymity out of respect for my family, my position and my employers. As I'm sure you already know, there are people out there who would view my opinion as being the opinion of others that are close to me, such as friends, family or possibly the people I work for. I simply didn't want to trouble anyone else, just voice my concerns. If by using a pseudonym, I insulted or offended you in any way, Mr. Editor, it was not my intention and again I apologize.

As for the me being “less than informed on the facts ” that wellbe true as I was simply responding to your article published in the Jan. 19th Westside Eagle Observer. Therefore, any "facts" that I may have been "less than informed" about, I pulled from that article. The aforementioned article did not say anything about the moneys that would be funding this park project coming from a 100 percent grant. As a matter of fact, the article went into great detail about all the expenditures that the park was going to have but didn’t relay that everything was going to be covered by a grant. So, you see how I could have easily been "less than informed on the facts."

Now, I will address the letter to the editor written by Mrs. Saunders. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I didn’t know that the park was going to be funded by a 100 percent grant. Had I known that, I would have never voiced any concerns. The gist of my letter was based on the assumption that the taxpayers would be carrying the brunt of the costs. I guess that’s why they say you should never assume, because it only makes an ... well, you probably know the rest.

But to think that this park is going to be at zero expense to the Gentry taxpayers is a bit naive, don’t you think? From what I read in the Jan. 19th article, there's going to be a lot of work needed out there before and after the completion of the park. Now, I don’t doubt that the initial costs of research, planning and building the park will be covered by the grant, but what about the long-term costs? What about the maintenance and upkeep? What about the flood plain issues thatMr. Moore brought up? He pointed out that a portion of the park is in a flood plain, which could result in the need to clean up the park after heavy rains. This could entail rebuilding portions of the walks and trails. Are these costs going to be covered under the grant? What about five, 10 or 15 years down the road?

Don’t get me wrong, Mrs. Saunders, after reading the article on the 26th, as well as your letter from last week’s paper, I am a bit more informed now, and therefore not as opposed to the new park idea. But I still can’t help but be skeptical that this thing is going to cost us a bunch of money that could be put to better use elsewhere. And, I assure you that my skepticism comes from experience. I have lived around here for a long time and seen the way things have been done in the past.

William Otis a.k.a. The Hoodwinker Gentry

***

Hoodwinker,

Your apology is accepted and your confession will not be used against you.

Most of the grant information was published in previous issues, but you are right in that the issue you referred to did not include all the grant details. They were originally repeated in the article, at the end, but had to be cut because of space limitations. They were provided in detail in previous issues, as well as in the following issue.

I fear you may also be right about additional costs. I've never seen free things stay entirely free; and somebody’s taxes - or those of all of us - are probably paying theinitial price tag, too. Most city projects start off at one price but end up costing more. Thought must be put into this to determine how to cover any long-term costs which are almost sure to come.

Personally, I like the idea of using the area as a nature park better than as a dumping ground. However I'm a bit skeptical about the ponds since they are only beaver ponds on a spring-fed stream. Dredging may cause big problems and installing walking trails, picnic areas and other features may cause it to be less of a natural area than some hope. I’ve also seen so much littering and vandalism at natural areas that I fear keeping up with it could be a problem.

In addition, patrolling the area to prevent vandalism and other criminal activity could be a nightmare.

So, yes, I like the idea. But I still share your concerns.

Editor

***

Editor,

Well, here I am again, same topic as last week, Flint Creek Park. I still do not think the city of Gentry should proceed with developing a park adjoining Flint Creek.

Let me clarify upfront, I am not a financial guru. I want to throw out a few things you may want to chew. My point being, in my humble opinion, there is no such thing as getting something without it costing us a single dollar. We frequently see or hear about people being convinced there is money to be had for the asking. Scams are every place. They just come by different names and from different sources.

I have witnessed many instances where individuals or businesses are persuaded to do something to either make money or save money. Almost weekly I receive an e-mail message from somewhere telling me if I will only send several thousand dollars, I can cash in a multi-million dollar inheritance located in Africa. I don’t think I shall take the chance.

I have known several people who were prosperous farmers in the 70s and 80s that in my opinion were coaxed into purchasing additional land or extremely expensive agricultural equipment in order to save money on their taxes. Well, that must have seemed like a swell idea to them, but it seemed questionable to me why anyone would want to replace a perfectly good piece of equipment to save a few bucks on their taxes. I guess it worked OK until the economy took a nose dive and they could no longer pay the mortgage or bank note. The banks and the government that convinced them to go into debt did not have any qualms about foreclosing. Those farmers are now assembly-line workers or day laborers.

Grants may seem like a great idea upfront, however, I attempt to look down the pike. Sort of like a train engineer running the train through Gentry. I hope they are looking way down the track to see if anything might conflict with their safe passage of an intersection. Are we looking down the financial pike to determine if the citizens of Gentry will be able to afford to support projects we invest in using grant money? I hope and believe the future citizens of Gentry will be our children, grandchildren, and so on and on. I believe we should attempt to build our town so it will continue to attract the next generation who will proudly call Gentry home.

I know projects funded by a grant are not paid out of the Gentry city budget, but someone had to pay taxes in order for the governmental agency to distribute the grant, or have they? Maybe the government is just printing grant money and setting it aside, waiting for someone to write a grant request. That may be the reason the United States is approximately 14 trillion dollars in the red - probably makes the rulers of China happy.

I hardly think I am the sole retiree living in Gentry, so I shall ask a question: Am I the only person that received a notice within the last 60 days stating my retirement check is going to be somewhat smaller in the future? Wonder if this is where they are getting the grant money? Best I recall, my Social Security entitlement has remained at the same level for the past several years due to the Consumer Price Index, however, the amount available to me is somewhat less because the cost of my Medicare insurance continues to increase.

Will the city of Gentry be financially able to sustain an additional park in the future? With the current economic situation our country is facing, I am very apprehensive about burdening the citizens of tomorrow with another ongoing financial obligation they may be unable to satisfy.

If we can also receive a grant that will pay the operating expenses associated with a new park for a period of at least one hundred years, I say let us make haste to get the grant, otherwise I think our elected officials should make a prudent decision and decline the offer of a grant. Let’s say, “No, thank you,” to something that does not cost us anything.

William A. Carver Gentry

Community, Pages 6 on 02/09/2011