ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Taxpayers of suburbia, awake!

| Thursday, June 17, 2004

In the spirit of "build it and they will come," it now appears that some of the Mt. Lebanon commissioners and school board directors are saying, "we will build a new $11.6 to $13-plus million Aquatic Center regardless of a lack of community input and sound financial strategy and analysis."

It should be noted that the additional costs of the Aquatic Center would add to the taxpayers' current burden. Mt. Lebanon school taxes have increased 25 percent in the last two years.

The proposed Aquatic Center is projected to lose $1 million in operating expenses per year. Additionally, taxpayers will need to cover another $900,000 of annual debt service. The existing Mt. Lebanon Recreation Center with ice rink, pool and community rooms lost $326,000 in 2003 and this figure is projected to increase.

Why does Mt. Lebanon need a 50-meter, cold-water , competitive pool with seating for 1,000 spectators and a four-lane leisure pool with a small fitness center•

Why has there been no Mt. Lebanon staff financial analysis, no coordination with the Mt. Lebanon comprehensive plan, no input from the park advisory board, the planning board, or the traffic board, and no voter referendum, which would allow taxpayers to have a voice in this decision?

I urge our elected officials to take a deep breath, do their homework and not be pressured into a decision that we as taxpayers cannot afford.

Carolyn M. Byham
Mt. Lebanon

The writer was a Mt. Lebanon commissioner from 1982-1990.

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.

click me