The following was my reaction to the front page stories on your Feb. 3 edition:
The schools operating levy failed by a 4-1 margin and the superintendent's reaction was that they will just put it on the ballot again in May ("Operating levy fails by 4-to-1 margin"). Of course, this is after they convince the voters that there is "clear evidence that the district has made attempts to reduce costs." No one likes to see job losses, or program cuts, but what actions do households take when income is reduced - they cut costs immediately. Get the message? The next two main articles are about the city raising taxes for roads and operating costs ("City considers 4-mill option" and "Cost of 'fun' may rise in Macedonia"). Regarding the levy, I didn't read anything about how the city would reduce operating costs other than through cutbacks in service or layoffs. The other tax increase is for "admission taxes" for entertainment and amusement businesses. Obviously the city does not understand that if you want something to go away, just keep taxing it. I would like the City Council to make the voters aware of their specific plans to reduce operating costs. There are ways to reduce costs other than by reducing services or employee layoffs. I remember reading of a substantial surplus that the city realized a couple of years ago. I haven't heard of the surplus since then. What happened to the surplus and what was it spent on?
Regis J. Minerd
Sagamore Hills