Cemetery or Swimming Pool?

Which one is the more important public service? Maintaining the cemetery or keeping open the local pool next summer? That's the issue in the big city of Marysville, Ohio. Or is it?

I read in the local paper tonight that there were some concerns expressed about Marysville's decision to lay off the cemetery workers to help manage the city budget. And there is talk of keeping the pool closed to save money.

Sounds like city leaders plan on really tugging on the emotional levers to get passage of a half percent income tax increase on the next election ballot.

Earlier this year, the "ask" was for a half percent income tax increase to build a new police station/city hall/fire station (whatever). Now, we're talking about shutting down existing services.

If we need to generate more revenue to maintain essential services (like maintaining the cemetery), then it's probably a good idea to just be straight with voters. But now, it really feels like the story has changed.

Are we being asked to increase taxes to build new stuff, or to just keep the lights on in some departments? Or are the cemetery and pool issues being used as emotional leverage to get the funding for the new facilities.

What is the real story? Or is there some manipulation going on?

If the city is in the dire financial situation being reported in the paper, then we probably shouldn't be thinking too much about new bricks and mortar.

If my household budget is struggling to pay the bills, I'm not thinking about building a new house or buying a new car.

The same type of fiscal prudence should rule the day at city hall.