Posted by Pedro on May 18, 2008, 8:55 am, in reply to "Re: Vote "NO" on Measure "V"!"
68.6.79.193
While I respect your opinion, is it really necessary to accuse me of "spreading lies" simply because I oppose yet another tax increase? I have re-read my previous statements alongside yours and still fail to see anything factually false about them. Concerning Mary Rose, I even attributed my source: City College's own newspaper.
Like your response, my initial statement was a one-sided rant and I even represented it as such. Apparently, it touched a nerve. You seem to be of the opinion that our government (of which City College is an extension) is entitled to these tax increases, and that by opposing them I am being "ungrateful". It is this sense of entitlement that leads me to believe that City College is the ungrateful one here. The issue of civil liberties is all the more pertinent because the City College administration has a history of attempting to silence voices of dissent, as they did when they tried to shut down this web site in 2000...
We need a dialog on this. Though many in your circle no doubt regard Measure V as a "slam dunk" (and it probably will pass), it must be known that the support is not unanimous, and there are legitimate reasons for opposing it (such as the fact that property taxes are already too high and do not need to be raised by a single cent). Another good reason is that bond measures are inherently bad fiscal policy due to the accrual of interest. We, the taxpayers, end up paying double for these kinds of projects.
And regardless of who is actually footing the bill for Mary Rose, do we really need PR firms telling us how to vote? We're big kids now. I think we can decide for ourselves.
116
Message Thread:
« Back to thread