What O'Grady and Saffo failed to realize is that at its core the city is still asking for a voluntary tax increase to fund a private enterprise. This is what voters a mostly mad about. You can get voters to approve tax increases for roads an schools but not this
O"Grady then offered no facts to back up is claim of increased revenues. Scott scored big points on this.
The Saffo statement about public leaders being villified came off as a "poor me" statement. My Mayor? Councilman O"Grady? All you have to do is look at the convention Center and you'll figure out why you're being villified for this. This is the second time you've come to the voters looking for money to support something that is supposedly good for the city. The convention center is an abysmal failure so far - so why should you be trusted? Why should we let you off the hook?
And finally the comment about this being over when it's voted down? Sorry but thats smoke and mirrors.
It WOULD be over as far as the city is concerned but there is a county alternative out there that would cost the taxpayers NOTHING! Minor League rules say we can't discuss it until THIS offer is voted down and the MOU expires.
While I believe that the exchange about the bonds was won by Saffo and O'Grady the fact that it was just brought up now hurts the PRO cause because of the mistrust we have for both men. Most voters do not understand bond issues and this ALSO leads to mistrust. This is why the city should have put the final agreement out there.
Again - at its core this is the politicians asking for TAX monies to fund a questionable, private enterprise project AFTER doing the same thing for the failing convention center.
They won on the bonds but lost on the economic development discussions. Saffo and O'Grady lose on trustworthiness.
More information about formatting options