These dimbulbs actually equate SPENDING ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUSAND
TAXPAYER DOLLARS to “saving money”. Even though under the best of
circumstance it would take more than three years to possibly break even. Do you
believe SPENDING ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS IS “SAVING MONEY”? Of course, most of you don’t.
If the interest being earned on the
taxpayer-funded City cash reserves is less than the interest being paid on the
loan for the City Building, you could make the case that you have lessened the
debt load. But you certainly aren’t saving money when you SPEND ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. This is especially true
because some still undetermined portion of that ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
is supposed to be used to pay the mismanaging Martin’s excessive legal bills.
What about this? It is a fact that
Martin is squandering taxpayer money on at least six attorneys and all kinds of
unnecessary legal actions. How can Martin defend this? Well, he chooses not to.
He simply chooses to avoid that part of the discussion. Whether by chance or
design, Martin’s personal-and now City-Attorney
Toad V. McMurtry failed to mention that some still undetermined portion of that
ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUSAND DOLLAR WITHDRAWAL FROM THE
TAXPAYER-FUNDED CITY CASH RESERVES will go towards Martin’s attorneys.
Wouldn’t it be far easier to simply
reduce the number of taxpayer-funded attorneys? Wouldn’t it be far easier to
drop the expensive lawsuit against the City’s Civil Service Board? Wouldn’t it
be far easier to drop the expensive lawsuit against a City employee and seek a
compromise solution? Of course it would. So, why not do it.
Martin could easily free up far more
money for street repair if he stopped using YOUR MONEY to fund his long-running vendetta against the people
he blames for his 2007 FORGERY ARREST.
So why doesn’t he do it?
Perhaps
you should ask Martin why he won’t do it.
