Corsicana Daily Sun
In response to ‘the deal’
To the Editor: The Letter To The Editor by Barbara A. Whitfield (Oct. 19) pretty well sums it up as to what the irresponsible scavengers are doing in Washington. They are more concerned about their own political and financial interest than they are about the interests of John and Jane Doe. They know the debt they have created will never be repaid. Thankfully, our two senators have tried, without success, to restrain some of their wild spending.
The House spent weeks investigating the horrendous failure of the ‘Fast and Furious’ program, instigated by Attorney General Eric Holder. What ever came of it? Nothing; no heads fell. They also spent considerable time investigating the Benghazi consulate murders; and again, no heads fell!
Members of the legislative branch all too often add so called earmarks to bills for the sole purpose of funding their pet projects in their home state, adding millions (or billions) to the deficit. Then there is the unaffordable “Affordable Care Act” program, which is also adding to the deficit. We are confused about the actual contents of the bill and what we need to do, if anything. Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass it to see what’s in it.”
Well Nancy, we still don’t know what’s in it — other than lawyer language we don’t understand.
As for our debt and runaway spending, I ask, “Have we reached the point of no return?”
Questions new campus
To the Editor: Seems like the Navarro College is at it again. Wanting Navarro County taxpayers to take on another cost for opening a campus in another county who will not be paying into our county's tax load. ...
We currently have Ellis and Limestone County campuses in the back pockets of Navarro county taxpayers. Now they want to add a campus in Freestone County at our expense.
It's time we have someone in Navarro County to represent the taxpayers and look into the fairness of this kind of decision making from the president of the Navarro College.
All the university extension campuses in Texas are state supported. It is time Navarro County taxpayers stop taking the risk.
Daryl and Sherry Knowles
To the Editor: In a few weeks, you will be asked to vote on bonds to “renovate” the county courthouse. While this might seem to be a good thing to do, there are other factors to be considered before we, the citizens of Navarro County, commit to taking on the a project.
Personally, I think the current plan should be scraped and a new plan be devised for the courthouse before we commit $7.5 million to this facelift project. Did you know that if continue with the current plans, we will decrease the courthouse workspace when the courthouse needs to be expanded. The only solution is to purchase a courthouse annex.
Another reason for not continuing this project is because the courthouse foundation and structural integrity may be questionable. Despite my requests for commissioners court to have a foundation and structural integrity study performed, commissioners have denied this request. Being a person with an engineering background and experience, what I have observed really disturbs me.
In addition, my wife and I have performed research on past courthouses on that location. We found that the past five courthouses have had some problem. One burned down, another was built and leaned so badly that it had to be torn down and rebuilt and the other three including the current courthouse, have all had indications of foundation or structural problems. Add to that the recent floor dropped down and the ceiling tiles have fallen down. So do you think the courthouse foundation is OK? Maybe we need it looked at first.
To sum up, we are getting less space on a questionable structure all in the name of giving the courthouse a facelift. Vote no on the courthouse renovation bonds.
Donald C. King
To the Editor: Now the time has come to make a decision on the courthouse renovation bond issue. There is a group calling themselves Navarro County Citizens to Save Our Courthouse. Save the courthouse from what? The Navarro County Citizens to Save Our Courthouse has the agenda to pass the bonds and start the courthouse renovation. That would be fine if the structural integrity of the courthouse is assured.
Requests have been made several times that a foundation and structural analysis be performed by a qualified structural engineering and foundation company. These requests have been denied by commissioners court. An engineer once said “If the structural components are no good, neither is the structure sitting upon those structural components.” That’s why a structural analysis must be performed first.
Looking at the financial aspects, does it seem right to pour $7.5 million into a structure that might last only 10 to 15 years? The bond issue will probably be a 25 to 30 year issue and we the Navarro County citizens will be required to pay for the bonds with associated tax increases even if the structure we paid for no longer exists. I think the Navarro County Citizens to Save Our Courthouse and the other side can agree on one thing, let’s save the courthouse but do it in a responsible manner. First, let’s make sure that the courthouse is sound by insisting on a structural integrity study.
Remember, voting for these bonds commits the county to long term debt and a long term tax increase. Vote No until all the issues can be resolved.