Why cut recreation facilities that bring in money?
Taxpayers and visitors to the city benefit from all the green spaces we have in this wonderful community.
We have golf courses; public parks; swimming pools; skateboard facilities; soccer and baseball facilities, tennis courts; walking, jogging and bike trails; dog exercising areas, etc., for anyone and everyone to use at their leisure.
But not all of these areas are equal. The golf courses and swimming pools are fee-based, but all the other facilities are free for all to use.
Never miss a local story.
Maybe organized teams must pay a minimal fee for the use of baseball and soccer complexes, but in general they are open to the public for non-organized use.
Golf courses and swimming centers are generating and bringing money into the city for the upkeep and maintenance of these operations.
The other operations are only providing recreational enjoyment, and dollars for their upkeep come from the taxpayers, no matter if they utilize them or not.
I don't see talk of shutting down these operations to save tax dollars and balancing the budget. I can't imagine what the overall cost is for water and electricity, the maintenance of the grounds, etc., of all these sites.
Meadowbrook Golf Course has been a city icon for new golfers, youngsters and seniors for years. This little gem of a course should never be considered for closure.
Maybe we should start adding more taxes to support all these recreational areas.
I was watching the KET programs The Victory Garden and This Old House recently, and each devoted segments to the danger of putting mulch around trees.
They made a point of saying the mulch must not touch the tree and must be kept back three or four inches from the tree.
The effect of putting mulch close to the tree is that it keeps the lower tree and roots too wet, causing then to rot and die.
All over the country and state I see people making this mistake with mulch. I also see many of these trees slowly dying, beginning at the upper branches.
What a waste of money and trees. Please get out there and gently pull that mulch back about 3 or 4 inches.
KET has it all: suspense, music (country to classical), travelogues, comedy, nature, how-to programs, art, news, medical, history, science, antiques, movies, etc.
Try it, you'll like it.
Smaller is better
Oh, how I miss the small Kroger store on Old Paris Road. It was just great for us older folks who enjoyed shopping at a smaller store.
We are lost. We need another small grocery there, such as a Sav-A-Lot. Maybe Lexington can bring one in at this location.
When you get to be 90 years old, it's hard to cruise the aisles of these superstores, hunting for the few items we need. The small Kroger was handy and met our needs. Think about it and help us older folks out.
A crazy electorate
A recent letter asked if we are insane when Republicans try to give the rich more tax cuts.
No, GOP lawmakers, like Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, are not insane, because the rich pay for their election campaigns.
But the letter writer might be right about the electorate, who are either too lazy to vote or too dumb to figure out which party is lying.
When most of the money went to the rich, after President George W. Bush's tax cuts, demand fell and, by the end of his two terms, 650,000 jobs a month disappeared.
House Speaker John Boehner keeps repeating the Republican lie that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Like the insane who keep doing what has failed miserably in the past, GOP leaders ignore the 20 million new jobs created during the Clinton years, when he raised taxes and ended the deficit.
Republicans get away with these big lies because the media are owned largely by the billionaires or big corporations who want lower taxes so they can become even richer.
The Senate is a millionaires' club, yet Kentucky voters keep sending Mitch McConnell back to Washington to look after his own selfish interests instead of telling the truth.
Maybe Kentucky voters should pay more attention to who is lying about tax increases and jobs.
Welfare drug testing OK
Some people are claiming random drug tests of individuals who apply to receive welfare would be unconstitutional, an infringement on people's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
I, in no way, see this as unconstitutional. If I have to give my consent to random drug tests to get and keep a job, why shouldn't those seeking to get assistance from the government, with the aid of my tax dollars, be subjected to the same?
If it is constitutional to drug test job applicants, shouldn't it be constitutional to drug test welfare applicants?
The 1996 Federal Welfare Reform Act in fact authorized the random drug testing of those individuals seeking and receiving welfare benefits.
Some states say this is not a feasible option because of the cost. If drug testing is implemented and a percentage of those seeking and receiving welfare are disqualified from receiving the benefits, wouldn't the drug testing have paid for itself and possibly even saved money?
By any other name
In his April 10 letter, Mark Looy, the chief communications officer for Answers In Genesis (the outfit that wants the state to subsidize its latest shrine to American gullibility) states that the Ark Encounter project is an "educational complex" and that the Herald-Leader should not refer to it as an "amusement park."
Well, I do not speak for the Herald-Leader, but I cannot see anything educational about presenting fairy tales as historical events. The Book of Genesis has no more claim to reality than the Tooth Fairy or Bigfoot.
This outfit's building a replica of Noah's Ark is not one bit different from Universal Studios building a replica of Hogwarts Academy of Harry Potter fame.
I think referring to the Ark Encounter as an "amusement park" is quite charitable. I've got another label for it: a shameful embarrassment.