By ROBERT PELAKLos Alamos
In recent letters to the Los Alamos Daily Post, Joyce Anderson, Stephanie Nakhleh and Megan Fox have each suggested that a subset of the recreation bond projects should be undertaken despite the rejection by the public of the bond needed to finance them. They each offer slightly different interpretations on the meaning of the “no” vote. Did it mean that people only wanted one or some but not all of the projects? Did they want none of the projects because of the increase in future maintenance costs? Did they just not want to finance the projects with a bond? It’s impossible to know…
What is clear is that the county advertised the bond as necessary for the five projects to proceed. This was a strategic decision made by the County Council in an attempt to broaden support. It did not succeed. The public voted down the bond and thereby sent a message in the clearest and most definitive manner available that they did not want them to go forward with a property bond.
The ambiguity that we are currently faced with is the peril inherent in bundling multiple issues (in this case, recreation projects) together into a single ballot question. The only compromise that is honest and fair to the citizenry is to hold another election where the public can vote on individual bonds for each project. It may be potentially justified that the golf course and ball field projects should be allowed to proceed without a bond as these are efforts focused on necessary maintenance rather than establishing new facilities; we have a duty to take care of the facilities that we have already built. However, after holding the earlier vote, it would be fundamentally dishonest and duplicitous to construct the multi-generational pool, splash pad and recreation center without garnering clear and unambiguous support from the public at large.
