different sensibilities appeal to different people. Best to cover all of issues in a political debate, that's just common sense.mister_coffee wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 2:44 pm Not all of the reasons either for or in opposition to the aquatics district proposal impressed me. Some of them (on both sides) annoyed and offended my common sense.
The FOP did their best to avoid what a Metropolitan Park District entails. They even avoided those words as much as possible and used phrases such as the Methow Aquatics Center, recreation district, and whatever the acronym MAD stands for.
In the ballot statement on what prop 1 is, the attorney who wrote it did not even use caps in the words "metropolitan park district"( just like that) .
The FOP dismissed the tax hit on low income seniors and I never saw anything from them about the tax hit on non senior low income families. They even tried to sell their plan as a benefit and being affordable recreation for low income families.
It was a smoke screen right from the start.
The community is already divided as you know from reading Dr. Sherman's book.
This issue just highlights that division. Many of us here have been fighting against the entitlement that has recently moved here for awhile now. Fortunately at the moment it's only a relatively few who are pushing a self gain agenda at the expense of others.
Once I found out who was behind this, along with Don setting the debate tone by calling us "paranoid", I took the gloves off.
Take comfort in the fact that the opposition to prop 1 was a bipartisan effort.
I agree. There was never any doubt that their plan was for the $20+million Mega MAC. I don't think their changed political narrative and then saying that opponents were spreading false information helped them at all.
But if prop 1 fails they will be back with a refined message.
Don't throw away the signs as they may be needed again.
David Bonn 