A new lockup or a lockdown?
Published: Friday, Sept. 27, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Owning property in Fayette County may cost more in the very near future. The commissioners will soon make public the options concerning corrections at the county level. They will vote whether to build a new prison, renovate the current facility, buy a local building and convert it or do nothing at all.
Local media have been reporting about overcrowding and conditions that need to be improved at the current facility. Hit the rewind button to 2011.
That year, the burden placed on property owners was 3.51 mills. After the election of the 2012 commissioners, Al Ambrosini and Vince Zapotosky voted to raise the burden of property ownership to 4.51 mills, an increase of 28.49 percent.
An increase of that magnitude will have an adverse affect on the value of property. An increase of one mill may sound like a small amount, but one mill equates to $4 million of property owners' money, which will now be expended by these same commissioners.
The addition of debt on overtaxed property owners is not in the best interest of the county.
Fayette County is one of the poorest counties in the state, and it is time for the commissioners to look within the budget and find the money necessary to renovate the current facility and provide for overcrowding with a solution that will not burden property owners with higher taxes.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Privatization disastrous
- Leave ‘God’ out
- Christians must vote
- Legacy: All lose
- More overreach
- Delinquents often the working poor
- Forgetting troops
- Still get paid?
- Obits interesting
- CNG fueling sustainability
- Unconstitutional funding