Letter to the Editor

Prudent propaganda

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Dear Editor,

The window-rattling blast you heard at 5:30 p.m. Sept. 8 was the top of my head exploding after reading a councilman's comment at the Sept. 7 meeting.

The Humane Society asked for a measly $3,000 to fund their dedicated and much needed service. True, they handle homless and problem animals without payment for some of our neighbors. Addressing the request, a council member said, "Why do the citizens of McCook have to subsidize the animal problems of Southwest Nebraska?"

Duh?! Fact is, folks living in those towns subsidize McCook! They do a lot, if not most of their shopping here. Profits from their purchases of our goods and services allow McCook citizens to earn a living, pay taxes on their business property, taxes on their homes, etc.

I'm pretty sure they buy a product that provides that councilman a paycheck. These folks pay McCook sales taxes, which subsidizes McCook farther.

Imagine what would happen if those getting "free" Humane Society services suddenly vanished or quit doing business here.

We would be getting bids on rolling up the streets, not on a 51⁄2 million dollar monument to self-indulgence.

My head exploding (I really hate it when that happens) was a result of pressure building up since an Aug. 17 Gazette article where Bruce Baker called the proposed municipal building a "prudent layout." Editorial comments don't belong in news articles, regardless, the proposed building is about as prudent as using a Ferrari for pizza delivery.

Let me illustrate, based on plans published in the Gazette and doing a rough scale, the building appears to be five times as long as it is wide! That is excessive waste. Example: To build a 2,000 square foot building, you can build it (a) 100 feet by 20 feet (length five times width like the proposed building) which requires 240 lineal feet of exterior wall, or you can build it (b) 40 feet by 50 feet, 180 feet of exterior wall (25 percent less). It obviously takes more material and more labor to build (a) therefore (b) should cost at least 20 percent less.

The design is typical government waste and we cannot afford it. We must defeat this folly.

Someone once said the only thing that keeps government in check is the court of public opinion. Court is in session.

Presenting my case against the powerful and their propaganda makes me feel like I'm trying to push a chain uphill ... what the heck, it keeps me out of the saloons.

'Nuff said

Bill Frasier

McCook

Comments
View 6 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Great stuff Bill! Believe me yours is not the only head exploding! Bout time our city council wakes up!

    -- Posted by remington81 on Thu, Sep 16, 2010, at 12:51 PM
  • Mr. Frasier.....at it again. Starts off talking about how silly it is for a councilman to question why McCook Humane Society spends money boarding dogs from all over the southwest part of Nebraska and turns around and puts on his architect hat and starts bashing the design of the safety center. I didn't know you were an engineer and an architect...along with alot of other things, Must of had one too many. I just can't believe that you grew up in McCook and now you're back in McCook and bashing everything that they are trying to do for the good. Have you ever gone to a council meeting and asked questions about the public safety center? And remington81, I believe that the current city council in McCook is doing a terrific job of running the city. If it is that bad maybe the two of you should rent a house together out here in Colorado. Instead of bashing and knit picking every decision and question that the fine city council people come up with, maybe the two of you should just shut up and get lost for a while. I for one am tired of your negative and sarcastic comments! Or here's a better idea. The Humane Society is in bad need of volunteers. I would bet they would LOVE to have you BOTH down helping take care of all of western Nebraska's dogs!

    -- Posted by McCook Supporter on Thu, Sep 16, 2010, at 9:16 PM
  • Well said McCook Supporter.

    I know in the current economic state of our country that a new municipal facility is not going to be a popular topic. But this is something McCook has been in need of for a long time.

    As for Mr. Frasier, I would add that on top of being neither an architect or an engineer, he has likely never worked in public safety (police/fire/EMS) or city government. With all of the above making him one of the least qualified people to be saying what the design needs of the new facility should be.

    Yes, he is from McCook. But he moved away to make his living elsewhere. Then he moved back and knows what is best for the entire city. Just ask him.

    'Nuff said?

    -- Posted by bntheredunthat on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 12:26 PM
  • Where else is he going to go shopping at 2.70 a gallon?

    -- Posted by president obama on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 12:53 PM
  • Reality check here.............. Alright, yes if you make the building 40 X 50 rather than 20 X 100 you get the same square footage with less exterior walls. I'm sure that you were quite proud of this grand numerical calculation upon conception, however..... unless you intend to JUST have 4 walls and a roof, there are issues involved in organizing individual space inside the box.

    I'm sure that the architect is attempting to limit the Fire Rated walls which span from the fire rated floors all the way to the fire rated ceilings in structures called "demising walls". It is cheaper to install an exterior cladding on a building and to keep Mr. Frasier's scale theory in mind, that extra 40 feet of exterior walls will be replaced by not 1 but 2 demising walls running the length of the structure.

    Save 40 feet of exterior walls but add an additional 40 feet of demising walls. This is office type space not a warehouse...... did that calculation really make sense or did you do the math and stop at "Hey, here's a bit of something to complain about."?

    If the City doesn't continue to repair and replace it's infrastructure and facilities, then WE as taxpayers will be faced with a quite inconvenient decision to make when we don't have the choice. "Wait until the streets, emergency buildings, shops, parks and sidewalks are all in such disrepair that they HAVE to be addressed, then which do we do first and how many of the tax payers that saved on their taxes, actually put extra aside to pony up for these repairs when the City has no choice? (The answer is none.... not one tax payer that saves on taxes will ever put that savings toward the repair of their city)

    This is how towns die out and fade away. They don't spend money on repairs until the repairs become overwhelming, then it's too late and prospective businesses won't even slow down to look at the dilapidated town let alone consider setting up shop. And so falls the house of cards.

    Sorry to say, but the West Ward School with all of it's grandeur, prompting fond memories of a day less complex, has existed beyond it's useful and most likely it's expected life span.

    Every day it stands is one day more expensive it is to remove, and it truly is a health issue.... failing walls, and mold to name just 2 out of the many concerns it poses to the public.

    Regardless what the resulting lot turns into, the building must become a less threatening and dangerous structure.... before the tax payers become the liability holders of an unfortunate accident within it's walls.

    It's time to let it go.

    -- Posted by PensiveObserver on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 11:09 PM
  • The individuals wanting to rehab the old school have emotional points. Those that would rather have a building designed specifically for the need also have points. It must be noted that more than one proffessional firm has indicated that it will cost more to rehab than to build new. Rehab estimates have been tens of thousands of dollars more. The city could use federal funds to demolish the building but because some individuals contacted the State Historical Society those funds are on hold and it is possible that if the city moves ahead with the plans to take the old building down, local taxpayer dollars to the tune of almost $100,000 would need to be used instead of the federal funds. The decision looks like two issues: 1)should the city rehab the old building at a more expensive cost to local taxpayers--and have a facility not designed specifically for the purposes intended and 2)will the process be drug-out so long that the city loses fedreal funds and local taxpayers be holding the bag to take the old building down? Currently it appears the city wants to do the project in the least expensive manner, yet is listening to the people and will let the taxpayers vote on the final project.

    -- Posted by dennis on Mon, Sep 20, 2010, at 10:46 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: