After beginning a town council meeting where long-term planning was shown to be a total facade in Christiansburg, on to the First Reading of the fiscal year budget.
The facade broke when discussing land use adjacent to a troubled waterway, adjacent to a nearly $18 million boondoggle and inches outside of an existing historic district. It further shattered when discussing contributions to human service or economic development organizations was suggested for cutting. The facade completely shattered when talking about safety in new neighborhoods, where streets have been designed for speed and sidewalks distained by developers and town leaders.
Apparently, it's okay for the town to seek donations to support their already well-funded recreational programs -- scoreboards, program advertising or even furniture and equipment -- but woe to any organization which tries to offer other services to members of this same community. Cut the library, funds to those who have suffered brain injuries, numerous children's or services for the elderly.
If one removes a one-time gift to the town and a one-time withdrawal from its own piggy-bank, the town actually has a budget that falls short $1 million dollars.
Is this due, as per Councilman Wade's comment, that council jumps in without facts and finds something costs three times more than what they thought (like the aquatic center)? Is this because the Town Charter and Comprehensive Plan are foreign and neglected documents, rather than policy which leads these leaders? Is this because they may spend another $163,000 to provide a much expanded bus service in town, instead of $46,000 on a system very few use?
Is this shortfall due to overspending or because the global economy has tanked with effects impacting Christiansburg, reducing tax revenues from non-property related sources? Is this because they still feel a moral obligation to give raises to "at-will" employees? Is it because they collect 7% lodging taxes and give $100,000 to a regional tourism development initiative?
If Councilmen Wade and Vanhoozier spent decades on the Planning Commission why weren't long-term traffic patterns, greenspace or pathway costs considered. They wouldn't need to be the council members now opposing picking up the tab for what citizens are asking for (but developers were not required to build)?
Fees paid by developers represent a minute portion of the town's overall revenues, and have not been increased for years and years. Increases will be considered at the council's next meeting on May 19th. That's when the Second Hearing occurs, and changes can be made to the proposed budget.
In the meantime, citizens best spend some time going through the budget and looking at what it does and does not provide. What services are important to you?