Palace Chrysler-Jeep

Letter to the editor

Reader takes issue with story

August 25, 2010 - Dear Editor,

I was disappointed in the News' coverage of the Aug. 16 Clarkston City Council meeting at which the council decided not to hold a November millage election to fund Clarkston's police department but rather to disband the department ("No new millage vote for Clarkston Police," Aug. 18).

The general tenor of the article is that the voters rejected a millage on Aug. 3, there was no confusion about what was at issue, and those who supported the millage are "sore losers."

The article, however, does not fairly sum up the views of the proponents of a new election.

The Aug. 3 millage question was supposed to be an election on whether to increase taxes to fund the police department. But the ballot question itself didn't even mention police.

The vote was on a general tax increase that could be used for anything. Contrary to the comments reported in the News' article, there was confusion, at least on the part of some voters, as noted by the comments of others at the council meeting, comments that the article did not report.

And there well could have been some who voted against the millage because it was not legally limited to funding the police.

All that the proponents of a new election wanted was a clear, unambiguous ballot question on a millage dedicated to funding the police department.

This was not an unreasonable request, given the close 7-vote margin on the August 3 election.

It is unfortunate that the council would not do this and instead had decided to disband the police department, with the consequent impairment to the quality of life in the village.

Richard Bisio


Email Link
Clarkston Cleaning
The Oxford Leader
SPI Subscriptions
Site Search