by Dan O'Neil on 2016-07-27
Dear Editor,
I fear I'll be vilified for this, but I must comment on the City Council's most-recent "donation" of two city-owned lots to Habitat for Humanity.
While Habitat for Humanity may be a worthwhile charity, why is the city council “donating” city property to this, or any, charity?
But government entities cannot "donate" anything. All they can do is give away that which belongs to all of us, and I say they are abrogating their fiduciary responsibility to us, their constituents.
If they felt this was such a worthwhile cause, why didn't they pool their own funds, buy the lots from the city, and donate these personally? Or had a charity auction, with the proceeds going to the city, but requiring that the lots be donated to Habitat for Humanity?
A reasonable price for two buildable lots in Grand Terrace might be $200,000. That could pay for a needed second police officer to patrol our city for a year or two. Or it could have supplemented the city budget, paying for deferred maintenance or paying down city debt.
In this time of fiscal austerity, thanks to earlier councils spending Redevelopment funds as though they were General funds, I'm astounded that they are giving away city property as if it were theirs to give. I imagine they feel a warm glow at night about how generous they are. I could be very generous too, were I giving away other people's property!
I have nothing against the families Habitat for Humanity is helping, I wish them well and I hope they thrive in their new homes. But government entities giving away public property to private entities, no matter how worthy, is wrong.
Yours Truly,
Dan O'Neil
[END]