SPLOST participation

I understand the logic behind J.T.'s SPLOST column, but I also think it's the exact opposite way to go about approaching the issue. It seems to me that if the goal is to maximize the funding in a particular SPLOST cycle, as well as limit unwanted projects, more citizen input ought to be encouraged.

If nothing else, the tennis center situation should have taught us this. While the project arguably has long-term economic potential, it's one that was included based on the passion and commitment of a handful of folks in the community. Additional folks arguing for or against other projects would result in an impact on the decision-making ability of the SPLOST committee and Athens-Clarke County Commission.

Likewise, there's an implied argument here that no other projects ought to be considered to ensure that the funding for the jail is approved ... that other projects might result in the defeat of the entire slate. I disagree with that assessment on its face, but I also think it's foolish to not recommend any projects based on the projected income of the upcoming SPLOST.

The jail is be projected to cost $80 million (or less, hopefully), but SPLOST 2011 will bring in more than that total, and that funding must be allocated to projects. And, ranging from the revitalization of the H.T. Edwards Building into a non-profit/small business center to necessary infrastructure improvements throughout the community, there are much smaller price tag projects that merit construction and deserve consideration.

The onus, then, is on the SPLOST committee to use appropriate judgement in evaluating this projects and the more information and community feedback they receive, the better.