Grants
The Times- Standard tells of the Eureka's waterfront trail and all the "grants" being used to fund it. I thought I'd point out to those that don't know, grants generally come from government and are thus paid for by taxpayers. Sure, there are private organizations that give out grants, but even that money is often given to the private organizations by government.
The reason I bring this up is some, who I would think would know better, seem to think this is all private money bestowed upon the community by some benevolent rich person. Sometimes it is. I suspect most often it isn't.
This comes to mind because of a fellow I work for who shall remain nameless but I feel safe to say considers himself a fiscally responsible conservative.. Some time ago we got to discussing Eureka's street tree program which I vigorously opposed. He seemed to agree, even going so far as saying government shouldn't be in the business of planting trees in the first place.
Not long after that I go by one of his rentals to find three street trees planted out front on the sidewalk. The next time I saw him I had to ask him what gives with the street trees. After all, wasn't government not supposed to be involved in such things? He went on to say he went down to City Hall to find out more about the program and how they were funded, saying he was told they were funded by grants, acting as if that absolved him of any responsibility. I pointed out to him those grants likely came from taxpayer funds, just as the drunk driving checkpoints are often partly funded by grants from the state highway safety program, or whatever it's called. He seemed confused over that. I'm not sure he ever understood.
Anyway, point being, this waterfront trail is likely costing taxpayers a bunch. Whether it will be worth it after it's finished, will depend on one's viewpoint, I suppose.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 7:59 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
HOJ has a concern that development as a "terminology" has been"usurped" and "divied up" by the progressives and liberals as quietly as possible until about 3-4 years ago when local community grassroots bullshitters had to face the mirror and admit that all the years that bs'ers used the word "development" for negative campaigning propganda to deflect the fact that the bs'ers were ans still are the destroyers of the natural environment in wetlands, around waterways and more.
Remember all the road building is evil complaints, even though the bs'ers road building is called a 12' wide paved trail.
Semantics 'R Us is one bullshitters tactic to deceive in favor of the minority of those community grass roots groups of local political bullshitters and thieves.
For all the talk about conservation of wetlands, water quality, etc.......
Is the City really saying that the land is sooooooooooooooo polluted, finagle in a trail system because it is too hazardously unhealthy for larger developments that serve coastal industry.
Conservation is only real when people are mandated, forced to stay the fuck out of areas needing protection. Obviously, grant money is being used to substantiate that only a trail system is feasible because anythong else for an EIR will fail from pollutant levels onsite, but the city is ok with poison forcing its home base of people.
Grants used to destroy the environmental habitat further when the environment is deemed too poisonous and toxic suggests that EIR's are in part a SHAM ON WORDPLAY!
wouldn't it wonderful if we could somehow ensure that 100% of Fred's paid state taxes went to pay for Eureka's street tree program?
This particular grant comes from a government agency, but speaking as a grant writer, no, my observation is that most grants available in the US do not come from government sources. In fact, many grants specifically target funding areas that local state and the federal government won't touch.
Please provide a list of all types of grant donors for us all to read and familiarize.
Something says there are also organizations which funnel private grants and that some donors that create grants are being deceived as their donorship goes to projects that exaggerate and deceive the public and donor as to benefits and impacts from the grant appropriation.
Private Money (grants) should not be exploited to push public projects that don't go to a community vote first, just like public dollars should not be spent on projects without a community vote.
Projects in this scenario are "wants pork projects", not "needs projects".
Ah, no wonder people avoid taxes when others wish to spite.
Anyhow, what would be apropo is a city wide ballot measure, but alas, trees wont make an iota difference at changing the backwater squalor appearance Eurtweeka provides because a small subset of thieves, liars, deceivers (aka pieces of shit) who have been in control because Eureka citizens are not open minded enough, too apathetic, naive too often, lazy with politics.
The only thing powerful is "groupee organizations", and the results are abissmally apocalyptic.
It is no wonder Eurtweeka is on a downward trajectory to shitsville, USA standards.
Eurtweeka is just a larger version of "Orick squalor", suffice to say. Orick has an excuse - extreme poverty and lack of infrastructure.
Eurtweeka has no legit excuses, just a lot of bullshitting lies.
It's never a good thing to accept govt grants. Most of them come with horrible strings attached. Senator Mike Lee is fighting AFFH/HUD, & I hope other states follow or join. Apparently, the AFFH strips away the local planning & enforces (yes, enforces) govt planning. They say where you live, how you live, where buildings will be built, which businesses or neighborhoods need to close because they are too close to their projects, and more. Not good.
Post a Comment
<< Home