Editor,

Why was I not surprised to see the editor endorse the fairground proposal? After all he endorsed the marina where interestingly there was also no business plan.

The marina is now operating at capacity, but still costs us $50,000 over the marina income to cover the almost-million dollars in bonds to build it and that will continue to be subsidized out of the general port fund.

Why do I mention this? Because the million dollars in bonds was the amount to “leverage” grant money. Sound familiar? It should, as this is exactly what Mr. Burnett reported the port must do for any work on the fairgrounds. Grants always come with strings and they typically only cover 75-percent max; the rest is matching cash or “leverage” that the tax increase will not cover.

What the port does have is the ability to borrow backed by their almost unlimited taxing ability. Somehow “leveraging” sounds so… free. Believe me “leveraging” is not free. This is the thinking where things take a bad turn. Most of us want the fair to continue and so what if the tax increase is not quite enough? We just close our eyes and believe that this “leveraged” money won’t really cost us anything.

Just imagine for a moment all these great renovation projects promised. Now try to put a price tag on all this. I know it is not easy since no one has taken the time to do so. Probably because the real cost would send taxpayers into orbit.

Now close your eyes and imagine your new tax bills when you realize the port has increased your taxes again to pay for this “leverage” to cover the “leveraged” grant to fund “leveraged” repairs that cost 10 times what we anticipated.

Can’t happen without a vote you say? Sorry, but the port has the statutory power to raise taxes up to a maximum of 45 cents per 1,000 without asking and no vote needed! A port has very sweeping powers that can be a tremendous help in economic development, but when used with no business plan, no real idea of what it will ultimately cost and with magical thinking that power can get us in very big trouble.

Here is the most frustrating thing: the fairgrounds plan could work very well if properly funded and not totally dependent on “leveraging.” Wasn’t “leveraging” by banks what led to the financial meltdown? Another thought not discussed is the plan calls for a top-notch manager for the fairgrounds. The plan thinks $60,000 will buy a top-notch manager and that is too low by half, but where is that $60,000 to come from? There are no grants to pay salaries, so it will come from the general fund, taking away from other projects and on it goes.

We must stop the magical thinking and wishing. Vote “no” this time and ask the port to go back to the drawing board and put solid costs together, create a business plan and try again.

ED JENKINS

Clinton