*Menu
Search
Submit
McCook Gazette
Letter to the Editor

Skip federal funds

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Dear Editor,

I'm just wondering, has anyone done the math on the building costs for the renovation project to the East Ward School? The 27 units will be built at a cost of $153,038.14 each.

That seems very high to me. Why not skip the federal funding for such a renovation project and spend much less, fixing up some of the existing houses in town and the surrounding towns. It seems to me that would be a more prudent way of creating affordable housing in our fair city.

Federal grants and money are not free, no matter what you call it. We will all end up paying more taxes to fund all this "free money!" Even buying existing homes, would be a better option than tearing down the "old school" and renovating it.

Just wondering.

Ruth Ward,

McCook

Comments
View 8 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.

  • I agree with Ruth, this is nothing more than an ego play by McCook Housing Authority. Shouldn't our goal be to put McCook in an economic position to reduce the need for subsidized housing? The people attracted to subsidized housing tend not to be employed, or at least, employable, thus adding stress to those who do work by adding to their tax burden. So as you can see, this is not free money.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 1:37 PM

  • Ever hear of somebody being handed something in life they didn't expect? Something that changed their whole world including their source or income? (i.e. work, career) Sometimes these folks have had a devastating injury or illness. Or being left by a spouse who may have been abusive or just left and took everything with them. These people need some help in getting back on their feet and thus is one purpose of subsidized housing. Some are elderly who do not need a nursing home or assisted living. They are still capable of living on their own but can't afford a house. Those are the people you are labeling "not to be employed, or at least, employable, thus adding stress to those who do work".

    Are we to cast those out who arent able to work at jobs to afford a house? What happens to them if there is not subsidized housing? They end up living on the streets and doing whatever they have to to care for themselves and sometimes their families to include small children.

    Yes there are pry those who take advantage of the subsidized housing, just like in every other government program. But you shouldn't lump all of those living in subsidized housing all into the group of unemployed or unemployable people. I have not had to utilize that program but I know of people who have while they went back to school or other training and got themselves back on their feet and moved out of that housing.

    Just something to think about.............

    -- Posted by love2liveinmccook on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 6:51 PM

  • I have no problem helping people, but this is insane.

    -- Posted by remington81 on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 8:48 PM

  • where were all of you people when bush was running up the debt?

    -- Posted by president obama on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 6:32 PM

  • Love2live, You made a miserable day tolerable. Good on you.

    -- Posted by hulapopper on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 9:28 PM

  • it seems that for the years the republicans were in charge alot of people on here wrote posts defending the administration, now it seems they spend their time tearing it down.

    -- Posted by president obama on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 7:37 AM

  • A group of business people wanted to take this over and finish the apartments. This would have been a tax paying enterprize. Somehow the Housing Authority got it instead of the business people, and now they want to gut what has already been completed, and expand to the former playground area. Crazy.

    Wonder how a non-tax paying entity ended up with this property, instead of a tax paying group of business people. Something stinks in Denmark, or at least East Ward.

    -- Posted by goarmy67 on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 1:58 PM

  • A business owns the property and that business chooses who it wants to sell the property to, that's how a "non-tax paying entity" is purchasing the property.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 4:36 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: