SPEAKOUT


Three meals a day minus one

I have a son in the military that is serving overseas. He informed me today that they only give them two meals a day now, that one meal has been taken away. Really? Let's see, if he were in prison he would have three meals a day, air conditioning, TV, basketball and tennis courts, etc. Instead, he is serving in 100 degree plus weather, wearing no telling how many pounds of body armor, in a foreign land, serving for the United States military and our government will only provide them two meals a day? I encourage everyone to write their representative and Congressmen and voice your disapproval. There is something wrong when criminals are treated better than the men and women that are risking their lives for America's freedom.

Amen!

Time has run out

Mr. Jensen, I read your editorial in the Sunday, June 29th newspaper where you criticized two council members for having the nerve to dare to suggest removing funding for Land Clearance Development Authority. You stated that this was approved by the voters. Yes Mike, you're right, it was. That was 10 years ago and at that time we were promised that the LCRA would become self-sustaining because they would sell properties that they had acquired and then purchase new ones. They have been using taxpayers' money all this time. Is there an end to it Mike? You also failed to mention when LCRA buys these properties, it removes them from the tax roll and thereby reducing taxes available to local government entities. I think LCRA has met its goals and should go.

Let me address both of your concerns. The LCRA's continuing mission is to remove problem properties and set the stage for redevelopment. That mission has remained from day one. The problem with redevelopment is that those interested in constructing owner-occupied houses are unwilling to locate in neighborhoods until all of the problem properties are removed. It makes little financial sense to construct a $75,000 house -- by way of example -- between two other houses that are valued at under $20,000. Until the full scope of the removal is complete, little development is likely to take place. On the second point. Most of these properties were purchased at tax sales because the owners were not paying taxes. So the loss of revenue is neutral until development occurs. When the full mission of the LCRA is complete, our community will have fewer condemned properties and instead will have new houses that will greatly improve neighborhoods.

Par one, pave zero

I'd like to speakout to the people of our Sikeston City Council. Where is our sales tax money going that is supposed to be used to repair our streets? Most streets in Sikeston you can't drive up and down for the potholes. They are deteriorating. Spend some money on our streets instead of buying a golf course and buying a building and tearing it down. We need streets to attract industry, also.