Dear Editor,
I am dismayed by the lack of understanding by a vocal few regarding the courthouse issue. The recent "Weary of wasted expenditures by local government" letter is another example. The issue seems to be buying land rather than using land already owned by the county. Don't these people realize that if there is to be a new courthouse there will be a tax and the land side of this cost is very small. Maybe 1 million dollars out of 34 to 37 million dollars? Maybe even less than a million if the Highway 90 site is chosen and the front parcel sold off. For this expenditure you get 4 lane highways, good infrastructure, and a site more centrally located and accessible to the majority of the county population.
I don't take Commissioner Salter's remarks as derogatory towards East Milton, but more in line with being a responsible commissioner with the best interest of the whole county as a consideration. I don't think the "public is stupid" and I think they understand that if there is to be a new courthouse there has to be a way to pay for it. I also think they will vote for the location that makes the most sense for the majority of the population as far as accessibility and infrastructure is concerned, and not be swayed by the fact that one site over another might require a purchase of land that would make up a very small percentage of the total cost. Personally, I could not vote for a tax to fund a site that lacks infrastructure and accessibility by the majority of the population of the county. That is a waste of money.
Ray Slingerland,
Milton, Fl
This article originally appeared on Santa Rosa Press Gazette: Cost of courthouse land small in comparison