Wow, a local republican blogger gave Ken Ulman a “B+” for his first year as
She (Gail Bates) and Republican County Councilman Greg Fox worry that county government will expand and spending will increase to pay for Ulman's initiatives, including his proposed medical plan for uninsured residents, which has drawn national attention.
I agree with this, but I find it ironic that Fox is pushing for a $114 million dollar horse park, and yet he has a problem with Ulman’s spending on pet projects. Ulman wants to spend $500,000 on what I think is an overblown disease prevention plan that is married to a prescription discount plan. Fox wants the State to spend $114 million on a horse park. Who says political self interest is better than economic self interest?
16 comments:
FM,
Fox hasn't decided whether he would support the complex or not. Don't put words in his mouth. Fox said he supports exploring the idea and if the analysis that is returned is negative he would not support the effort.
BTW: If Larry had asked I would have given Greg an A+, Calvin Ball an A, Courtney Watson and A (A-). Still out on Mary Kay and Jen. The County Council as a whole gets and A.
Don’t be naïve, you’re smarter than that. The task for is simply looking for a site to put the park. No economic analysis is being done at all. Regardless, the fact that Fox is even entertaining a tax of $114 million dollars on the citizens proves my point. Regardless of whether the economics of the horse park are good or bad, this is an investment private investors should make, not the government.
David, it is good to see you back in your old form, back pedaling on you weak moment with Ken and promoting Greg.
The horse park is a great idea, if done without county government support.
Greg, a conservative republican, should know this. Now, it looks like he was thoughtlessly abandoning his conservatism, or just jostling for votes, at the taxpayers expense.
Jim Adams
Jim, back pedaling? Just a short time ago you were applauding me for being honest. I guess in your book I am worthy of your praise when I support your position but worthy of name calling and criticism when we diverge. I support Greg therefore I could not have meant a word of what I said to Larry Carson about Ken Ulman. Nice.
FM. Given your libetarian bent I appreciate your position, that Gov't should not be in this kind of business (horse parks or gas stations). I have to problem with your position at all and I would not insult you in a fruitless attempt to persuade you otherwise.
I consider myself a moderate conservative. I believe that there is room for Gov't in these types of enterprises - if they can be proven to be economically beneficial and private enterprise can't do it. Granted this isn't an interstate highway system but it may provide economic benefits much like the highway system does. It remains to be seen.
An economical analysis should be done and Greg should be seeking one or explain why he isn't.
Again, I have not seen Greg come out and say "Damn the torpedos! Lets build a horse park." Greg wants to study the idea.
David, I had just read the Sun paper article. Carson presented you in a way that sounded as if you were being objective, he even mentioned your one complaint. I felt this was reasonable, I even agreeded.
Then after posting to your blog I read F.M. Your back pedaling here, and this is not name calling it's identifing your actions.
As far as criticism, I criticize myself for being too quick to believe you could be objective.
The last part of your comment to me on this blog is a little too incoherent to respond to, but I will give it a try.
As far as your support for Greg, it is understandable. The last time I saw Greg, I told him I felt he was going a great job. I even mentioned that in front of my fellow Democrats at our last club meeting.
But the horse park idea, as supported by the county government, is folly. It has the great potential for creating an unnecessary expense that would have to be borne ultimately by the taxpapers, and to Greg it could play havoc with his political career. Politically a plus for us Democrats, but I see no reason to see county taxes increase, just so we can beat him in the next election.
As always I put citizens first, politics, a distant second.
Jim Adams
I certainly would not support it if it meant increased taxes. I have not heard Greg say that he would support it if it meant increased taxes either. What did Greg tell you when you spoke?
My reaction to FM post has only to do with FM saying that Greg is supporting the horse park no matter what. It has less to to with my support for Greg.
Of course the horse park will generate higher taxes (or lower services somewhere else). How do you think we pay for things that the Government does? With good looks? GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS TAXATION!
Of course it is.
What Fox and others want to know is if a horse park can sustain itself. It could end up being an Amtrak or it could end up generating revenue.
Show me an analysis where anyone is trying to determine the revenues that can be generated from the park along with the cost of those revenues. Fox has an MBA; he is not stupid. If he cared about the potential revenue of this park, and he thought the County government should use tax dollars in the casino of horse park construction and management, then he would have had an analysis done. He hasn’t. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder.
I think Greg is looking for public acceptance, to cost justify there should be a group of professionals whose job it is to evaluate this type of project, not a citizen task force.
Jim Adams
Jim, you are right. But it seems like Greg is putting the cart before the horse by nailing down public support with no basis for estimated benefit.
I agree with Jim. How Greg approaches it and whether in the end he supports it are two different things.
The Horse Park is a part of the governor's plans for slots and racing. Minutes of the Horse Park Task Force meetings are posted online. Most telling are the governor's views which say slots are good for horse racing, and horse racing will advance equine aggriculture in the state. It will also take the new taxes on us all and build a horse park which may, we hear said,gain national fame and international events.
Government will take the University of Maryland's research farm of 900 acres and bring horse racing to Howard county with $114 million in public funds. That does not include all the road improvements to such an isolated place. The university is openly opposed, but it is a state university and the governor may change their minds before he is through with them and their budget.
Of course there may be other sites in other counties, but none can match HOCO"s location for gambling enthusiasts from metro Washington and Baltimore.
What would Ken do?
First of all, no one is planning a horse park. Good grief people. It's simply a possibility.
Secondly, revenue from the park is not the only advantage. We're talking about jobs, and an industry that supported this county for many years.
But slots on the Univerity of MD site!! Yike!! I'd fully support the horse park, but don't want the gambling culture in my back yard.
Anon 6:03 ... that is what I have been trying to say.
"What Fox and others want to know is if a horse park can sustain itself."
When will that conversation be had? So far its nothing but a bunch of equine-industry folk scouting potential sites.
Post a Comment