News-Record.com

The News & Record’s Voterspeak panel reviews the Greensboro bond referendum.

The question: Will you vote for any of the issues on Greensboro’s $205 million bond package? Is $50 million worth it for a new auditorium? Is $134 million worth of road bonds the only way to pave roads and build greenways? How about $20 million for Parks and Recreation, which will include a $12 million pool complex? If all the bonds pass, it would take an extra 2.5 cents on the property tax rate to fund all those projects. Will you be thinking with your wallet when you vote?

And they said:

Jeff Bartolet, 38, Republican: How much of a tax burden can the average citizen bear? In times of economic downturns, our leaders should be finding ways to do more with less. Yes, there is a desire to make this city look like a contender for businesses and investments, but at what expense? Auditoriums and pools have unknown financial returns to the city and are even more risky considering the average consumer will now have to cut back on wants to pay for needs. Why not look for investors who have the money and passion for these special projects instead of making every homeowner pay the price for a luxury few can afford right now? Why not find a way to improve our roads with less cost?

Phyllis Davis, 64, Republican: I don’t live in Greensboro, so would not be able to vote on these issues. However if I did live there I could not support all of the bonds. With the downturn in the economy and being in the business to sell homes, the 2.5-cent increase in taxes would impact the ability of a major segment of homeowners to complete a transaction.
While some of the bonds are probably necessary and in the long run would benefit the citizens of Greensboro, it might be best to put these on hold until taxpayers feel more secure.

Kendall Garvin, 29, unaffiliated: I plan on voting for the street improvement, housing and the War Memorial bonds. The first two bonds will enhance the appearance of the city. Although spending money on the park will also improve the appearance of the city, it will not have as much effect as the previously mentioned bonds.
War Memorial is in a state where it either has to be fixed or be torn down. It will be much easier to fix it now vs. wait and have more to fix later.

Trevor Hamm, 25, Democrat: I’m considering voting for the housing bond and the parks and recreational facilities bond. For me, it’s not necessarily how much money a bond is for as much as it’s about what we’re getting for that money. I think the auditorium bond is unnecessary and I think that the street improvement bond is inflated.

Mike Kelly, 60, Republican: I will vote only for the street improvement bonds as maintenance and upgrades to our infrastructure benefit all of our citizens. Safe streets and bridges are necessary components to a city’s commerce. Further, with the construction of additional walkways and bikeways, people may opt to eschew traditional modes of transportation and resort to cycling and walking as means of commuting.
The housing bonds proposal is a tough call. Many people would benefit from its passage. However, I do not think that those of us who pay taxes should be called upon to further underwrite the needs of the disadvantaged of our community.
I probably would have voted for the parks and recreation bonds had not the swimming pool rider been added. Although producing the heir apparent to Michael Phelps may bring notoriety to our fair city, a natatorium will be of little use to most of us. The same can be said for the improvements to War Memorial Auditorium. Nice to have? Sure. Necessary? Not really. Does our “quality of life” suffer? Relative to what we have become accustomed, yes. However, we must face the reality of hard financial times getting harder and that taxpayers are just about tapped out.

Marlene Costa Nielsen, 67, Democrat: With this economic environment, it will be difficult to pass these bonds. We need to separate wants from needs and may have to find other ways to finance these projects.

Kate Peeples, 27, unaffiliated: I definitely think there are some bond projects that are more important than others (a pool complex??). Even amongst the school bonds, I can point to some that I would prioritize over others. I'll be voting for a lot of the bonds again - even though that property tax hike affects me, and not so much the rest of my voting demographic, and filling my tiny gas tank all the way to "F" is now a luxury. But not all of them. It may seem unfair to judge a need for road improvements against a need for a pool complex, and I certainly don't want my action as a voter to stifle the local arts scene, or economy. Like everyone else, I will vote based on what sort of progress I would most like to see the city make.

Deonna Kelli Sayed, 34, Democrat: Parks are a wonderful thing, as are new auditoriums, but Greensboro isn’t lacking in these departments. It is a marvelously green city with many swimming pools and recreational facilities. It is financially irresponsible during this economic crisis to spend on things which are more or less OK. No one wants their taxes raised but if it has to happen, I’d rather see that 2.5-cent tax go to assist those struggling due to the economic crisis or toward any city infrastructures in dire need of repair.

Mike Sigmon, 61, Republican: I would prefer the pool complex be a separate item. As I recall it was defeated in a prior election cycle. Merging it with the Parks and Recreation bonds appears to be a “back-door” attempt at passage. Where is the other $8 million being spent?
Since the auditorium money is to be spent for renovations to the existing building, I would be concerned about the acoustics.
What new roads will be constructed and where? If this is for repair and maintenance only?
The City Council and County Commissioners need to make the case for a “yes” vote. Without more information I’m hesitant to approve any of these.

Ruth Mary Weston, 54, Democrat: I’ll vote for the housing bonds. I think the best use of this money would be energy-efficiency upgrades on older rental housing stock. I’ll consider it one last chance to see our tax revenue used wisely under a properly supervised, well-targeted program. Tenants should benefit through reduced energy costs. Only properly licensed and insured contractors should participate under a “lowest conforming bid” scheme, and all work should be inspected before payment. A small amount for use of existing government staff should be the only expenditure outside of actual work performed.
The rest of the bonds get a “No.” C’mon, guys! You’d like a line-item veto on budgets; so would we. Let us vote on the merits of separate projects where possible.