Editor’s note: This is a companion column to “Vote Yes: A community center will help our community come together,” also published in the April 10 edition of the Courier-Herald.

I want to make it clear I am speaking only for myself here. I have always strived to advocate for the best interests of our community. Today, I come to you with a matter of significant importance: the proposed “multi-generational community center” bond, which includes funding for a senior center among other private entities. While the community center concept may seem appealing, I must express my heartfelt opposition to this initiative.

Let me be apparent from the outset: my opposition to the “multi generational community center” bond is not driven by a lack of empathy or concern for the needs of our residents. On the contrary, it is rooted in a deep-seated commitment to fiscal responsibility and fairness. I firmly believe that it is incumbent upon us to prioritize the financial well-being of our community and ensure that any decisions we make are in their best interests.

One of my primary concerns with the proposed bond is imposing additional taxes on our hardworking taxpayers. While the burden may seem small to some, I am acutely aware of the cumulative impact that even modest tax increases can have on our residents, particularly those already facing financial challenges. We must be mindful of the sacrifices made by our neighbors and strive to alleviate rather than exacerbate their financial burdens.

At its core, taxation represents the government’s authority to compel citizens to surrender a portion of their hard-earned income for the collective good. While this may seem justifiable theoretically, the reality is far more complex. Policymakers often wield taxation as a tool of community responsibility to coerce compliance and manipulate public sentiment. By framing taxation as a moral obligation to support the community’s welfare, authorities exploit feelings of guilt and altruism to silence dissent and quash opposition.

Pushing taxes under the guise of community responsibility is a coercive practice that undermines individual autonomy, perpetuates dependency, and stifles economic prosperity. Instead of resorting to manipulation, we should focus on fostering voluntary cooperation, promoting economic freedom, and upholding the principles of individual liberty and autonomy. Only then do we respect the rights and dignity of all citizens.

I question whether it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund private entities. While I understand the importance of fostering partnerships with community organizations. It is not fair to expect taxpayers to subsidize the operations of private organizations, especially when our community has pressing needs of its own.

Furthermore, I am deeply concerned about the ongoing financial burden that the upkeep of the community center will place on our community. While the bond may cover the initial construction costs, the long-term maintenance and operational expenses could strain our resources for years to come. We must consider whether it is fair to saddle our taxpayers with these obligations, especially when many are struggling to make ends meet.

I am committed to finding solutions that prioritize the well-being of our community while upholding principles of fiscal responsibility and fairness. While I may oppose the community center bond, our goal should be to explore alternative funding mechanisms and ensure that our resources are allocated to reflect our values and priorities.

In conclusion, I want to assure you that a genuine concern for the welfare of our community drives my opposition to the “multi-generational community center” bond. I believe that it is our responsibility to make decisions that are in the best interests of all residents, particularly those who are most vulnerable. Let us strive to create an equitable, compassionate, and financially sustainable community for generations.