Bond Issue - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 4, 2004

RE: RE: RE: Bond Issue

Date: Nov 4, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Split vote
"There are probably as many answers to your question as there are posters on this message board. As for myself, I would support only the community improvement portion. I could not support the athletic portion until USM directs appropriate attention to the academic side of their wrecked house. "

Got it. Thanks. I have the impression from HA news accounts that the $60mil package would be presented to voters as an all-or-none proposition, with promises of mutual support from community and USM factions. I don't know the mindset of the community, but passage of the "big" package seems even less likely than the $12mil deal, from an anti-taxation standpoint.

Maybe Cameron Diaz can jump-start a fund raising drive after she takes the reins of the ADP; she could probably hit up some of her rich Hollywood friend for a few million in seed money. Of course she'll have to beat out Dr. Dr. Dvorak first....

AE

Date: Nov 4, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Austin Eagle
"passage of the "big" package seems even less likely than the $12mil deal, from an anti-taxation standpoint."

I don't have a problem with high taxes. Taxes are necessary to support services. I would happily support higher taxes on food and lodging in order to provided the needed community improvements. I would also happily support a bond refereenum to support needed university improvements in the academic arena. If USM were a 1st or 2nd tier institution I would happily support a referrendum to provide athletic improvements. Until that day comes (and it is not likely to happen anytime soon given the sorry current state of affairs at USM), maybe they should raise athletic facility funds the same way we used to raise funds to support our high school band: a spaghetti supper