notes on government, sports and popular culture
....At first, I thought the N&R had done a poll. Then I read the article and found out that 40 people at a city council meeting constitutes a large show of support for a possible bond referendum in November.
Now, is it me, or does anyone else see how some of the items on the referendum promote urban sprawl? The $25 million that the Greensboro Partnership
requested would be used for "land for business and industrial sites downtown and elsewhere, infrastructure improvements for those sites and improvements for transportation corridors."
It's the "elsewhere" that bothers me. I assume that the partnership has a strategy to bank large chunks of land on outer edges of the city limits so that a business can easily build a large building that will provide lots of jobs. "Improvements for transportation corridors" will make that goal even easier to achieve, making such land even more attractive to businesses.
Then there are the three new branch libraries, at an estimated cost of $9.1 million. But do we not have a fine library downtown? I've spent much time there, most recently yesterday when I went to check out a copy of Namath
So would the city not be undermining the central library's role as a legitimate downtown marketing tool by encouraging the construction of new branches? With its wide range of resources, it's the type of place a family would come to spend a couple of hours and then perhaps treat themselves to another outing downtown.
All this said, I guess no one in their right mind would oppose lots of jobs. But what kind of nut would oppose more libraries?