View the Stafford County community page

Bonds for Stafford would mortgage future for luxuries

Eugene Trainum

Date published: 10/25/2006

I plan to cast a "no" vote against the Stafford County bond issues ["Ex-officials oppose bonds," Oct. 9]. The reasons are numerous and quite obvious. The county supervisors are asking the citizens to mortgage the county's future by approving a long list of frivolous luxuries.

The approval of these bonds would have a severe negative impact on the county's future bond rating. As the population grows, our ability to borrow for important needs would be placed in jeopardy.

Bonds can be a useful method for financing infrastructure needs such as schools and water treatment plants. But swimming pools and other luxuries hardly meet the criteria of important need.

Does the county really need another swimming pool? Better yet, do we need a $35 million facility? There are numerous public and private pools already available year-round.

The YMCA has multiple locations of indoor and outdoor pools. There are a variety of private health clubs and fitness centers. The county operates Curtis Park and Woodlands Pool year-round. And there are a multitude of community pools.

Look at your latest tax bill and imagine adding about $400-$500 for each of the next 15 to 20 years.

Then ask, will our future debt load allow us to add the additional schools, security, and other things that will be needed as the county continues to grow? Will your children be able to afford to have a home in Stafford County?

I suggest we pay attention to the wisdom of the previous supervisors and vote "no" on the $238 million bond proposals.

Eugene Trainum

Stafford

Follow us on

Date published: 10/25/2006