Danny Thompson asks if the City really needs to do some projects "if these bonds have been sitting around for a decade and five councils have come and gone and they have just set there?"

Good question. The answer may well be "yes," especially for infrastructure or other long-term investments, but it seems logical to at least look at the list.

Also: what are the parameters for Council action on projects that voters have approved?

Comments

[David Wharton]

Some of those bond projects represent years of planning and work by regular citizens as well as city staff -- citizens who view the bonds as a commitment by the city to complete the projects. Is there a more direct indicator of the public's spending priorities than a referendum?

My neighborhood worked for 7 years to get a bond passed for transportation and stormwater infrastructure improvements on Summit Avenue, but the project has been backburnered because of the economy. I've no doubt the city would like to walk away from that commitment now, just as lots of people would like to walk away from their underwater mortgages.

Maybe people have felt they've been good citizens by waiting quietly in line for their area's bond projects to get to the top of the list. If the council starts culling the list, the winners will be the the politically well-connected.