You may have read that a majority of the Owego Town Board voted not to participate in a proposed study to review highway procedures throughout the county, towns and villages. A grant opportunity was offered for a study to include consolidation issues, best practices and efficiencies. It sounds like an excellent offer of help, which would be expected to result in an overall saving to taxpayers. I would like to explain my no vote and why at other times I have not voted in favor of grants.   It is my understanding the county is moving forward with the proposed grant and study with the municipalities that voted in favor of participating. There is to be grant funding up to approximately 200,000 dollars for the project. The county is then obligated to contribute 10 percent (about 20,000 dollars). This obligation is incurred whether or not the project finds that savings will be realized as a result of the study. To the best of my knowledge none of the highway superintendents were asked their opinion on this project. That begs the question: If you don't ask the people who do the everyday work for input on the advisability of accepting such a grant, how can you move forward?   

 One municipality had a ballot issue whether or not to build a new highway garage. How would that final decision affect the supposition that the grant would bring savings for county taxpayers? Facts and information are always fluctuating due to special needs in various parts of the county. At some point good intentions have to be replaced with more common sense and fiscal responsibility. As a matter of fact, the growth of local and national grants and obligations incurred as a result of the routine acceptance of them, needs to be re-examined.

 It should be understood that every community cannot expect to have every amenity when the same amenities are being sought and approved across the board. How many riverwalks, "revitalized downtowns," sports stadiums, rail trails, tourism campaigns, river use initiatives, and the like can be successful everywhere they are voted in? How can all of them be successful in attracting economic benefits vs. the cost of implementing them? Those of us who travel with our jobs and other responsibilities have begun to notice that any place you go has or is building exactly the same amenities geared to attracting the same tourism dollars. All of them everywhere are largely approved because of grants - money from somewhere else that has strings attached and often-financial commitments up-front. It is money that originates from the local taxpayer in the first place.

 Many grant enticements have-little noticed strings attached such as; funding that will underwrite the first year or two, but has an obligation for the municipality to continue the project on their own once the grant money on the initial implementation of the project is expended. Some might remember that some cash strapped towns and villages accepted grants and funding for hiring needed police officers several years ago. When the grant had been spent, the municipality had to continue paying the officers. If they did not then the grant money was to be returned. 

 It is very important to learn who underwrites the grants and why.  Many, if not all grants are offered in order to entice acceptance of them as part of a larger systematic change. Once the preliminary steps are in place, other grants often appear with similar financial enticements.

 Consolidation is now appearing as a new buzzword.  I am always in favor of looking for ways to save money and working with other municipalities to cooperate where it can be mutually beneficial. But, I am definitely not in favor of giving up local governments and ceding decisions to a higher and often less responsive governing body.  Local government is, for the most part the most efficient form of government for local issues.

 Major consolidations, like the one recently floated to eliminate Tioga County are almost always calculated to achieve power. Regional governments sound great on paper and in some cases might be more efficient.   In actuality you have fewer elected officials representing more constituents, and becoming less responsive in the process. Why would you accept the advice of the State Government Task force representing one of the most irresponsive, inefficient forms of government in the country? Don't forget how many "regional" oversight bodies the federal government has already slipped in.

 In any single column, only the surface of most issues can be covered.  Taxpayers and residents need to begin researching on their own, to check for motives and costs that aren't always noticed until after the fact. The crossover issue in most issues involving grants and the beginnings of consolidations seems to be using grants to ease into the process. The process the often erodes fiscal responsibility, freedom and local control. Perhaps people should consider a quote from Carol LaGrasse, who has an excellent web site devoted to land use and the agendas affecting it-www.pfamerica.org.

 "Lavish grants are used to promote regional planning and land use controls, regional government, government land acquisition, rails to trails…..indoctrinate children in preservation values, and promote other agendas which work in concert against the future of rural populations and to diminish private property rights and private property ownership."

 There are grants that serve a useful purpose. I supported some in the past and I am sure I will in the future. But before you reject these concerns as being "radical," you should do some research on your own. Informed taxpayers and voters should do that on all issues not just this one.