LETTERS TO THE EDITOR|
Alcohol sales should fund Hartselle’s needs
To The Daily: Influential Hartselle cliques dictate/direct the actions of the majority — the tail wagging the dog.
Everyone recognizes the need for new schools and would like seeing Hartselle the “best” school system in the state. But Hartselle does not support increased taxes. Hartselle schools were initially funded on an apparent perpetual revenue source. But cliques have diverted school funding for other agenda.
Hartselle contracted a consulting firm for definition of new/expanded revenue sources for continued growth, including schools. An immediately available revenue source was identified that would fund all educational needs plus other necessary and “nice-to-have” infrastructure. This legitimate source, known for years but opposed by influential cliques using “perceived” fears and ideas, is alcohol sales.
These cliques ignore fact and reason, saying only, “It isn’t right.” Everyone must think for himself. Ask yourself and others, “Why is it not right?” Weigh all known facts, not “perceived fears.” This issue ultimately becomes one of mortality. Issues regarding morality are “individual” choices. Each person must answer for his/her own sins, not the sins of others. To forbid individual choice/action on the basis of “perceived” wrong is more wrong than the action itself.
Hartselle pours millions into Decatur’s coffers — money which would more than fund Hartselle’s new school, infrastructure and programs. Decatur supports a dry Hartselle, providing more revenue for Decatur. Hartselle cliques, “perceived” fears and definitions of sin, attempt to shame Hartselle into supporting their unfounded desires/dictates. They dictate higher taxes for everyone, while a “no tax” revenue source, totally funded and supported by choice, is available — “free money.”
Realistically, nothing is “free.” There are responsibilities that go with anything worth having, particularly something of this magnitude. That responsibility is the discretionary control of the revenue source and its use, as well as that of the resulting revenues. I’m positive the citizens of Hartselle are capable and willing to accept and perform those responsibilities.
James L. Nix
Former owner offended at property’s depiction
To The Daily: We would like to apologize to the neighbors at Eighth Street Southeast. My wife and I bought the house in 1958 and lived there four years. We moved to Hartselle and began renting the house. We have always tried to be good neighbors, even through the years we rented the house.
After the last tenant destroyed the inside and I had bypass surgery, I gave the house to my son. We made all the repairs to put the house in first-class shape, inside and out. My son decided not to rent the house anymore, fearing destructive renters. He sometimes works late and spends the night there or will take his lunch break there. He has kept the yard mowed and leaves raked. The house is furnished and all utilities are in place. The taxes and insurance have been paid. The vehicles are maintained and the tag is current on the camper. Your article stated that the camper has a tag that expired in 1991. We found a tag lying on the bumper, face down, that could only be seen by a trespasser, that expired in 1999. We can only assume what happened to the other tag.
For The Daily to imply the house is vacant is to jeopardize my son’s safety and the contents of the house. How many times he stays there should be his business.
The yard was mowed and trimmed on April 21. We didn’t deserve to be on the front page of The Daily, in living color, on April 22. The article implied that one operational vehicle parked in the driveway, and used to tow a camper that is properly stored in the backyard, is using the front yard as a parking lot.
We are very much offended.
Thomas D. Kay