Though I am delighted to have stirred interest with my previous letter, it is disturbing to see how misread it was by its critics.
My letter discussing the potential perils of reliance on debt and the increasing size of ours, was quite clear. It simply urged that risks should be weighed along with the rewards. I concluded by pointing out that when voices of balance have arisen they have systematically been blunted
But my point was apparently missed by Mr. Gorsky who urges engines ahead full speed towards grandiosity at any cost so that future generations will have something to praise us for. By example he recounts our nation’s past glories as the Hoover Dam and Golden Gate. But what apparently eludes him is that the at-risk per capita for each his examples was less than pennies, while the debt risk of our proposed projects ranges beyond tens of thousands per each taxpayer.
Good people can disagree, but I have no wish for the Grand Coulee Dam here, nor the associated risk of debt necessary for such grandeur. Tourism, second homers and newcomers have always come to enjoy Grand Marais for what it is. We can debate what referendum’s passage really authorized, but suffice to say that it never was a carte blanche for unrestrained grandiosity. I remember consolidation of services and cost savings. Regardless, it is the task of representative government to conform to public sentiment. When government ceases to listen but rather opts to chase its own paths of glory, it is no longer representative.
My response to Mr. Wilkes’ criticism will have to wait for a future week’s edition due to space constraints of the “Letters” format.
Vilnis Neilands
Grand Marais
Leave a Reply