A city starved for funding should sell whatever it can


A city starved for funding should sell whatever it can

EDITOR:

Youngstown can readily fund a facility for its Municipal Court and possibly afford new facilities and offices for a much-needed and enhanced law enforcement presence without raising its already high municipal income tax rate. Sell the Youngstown Water Department; better yet, sell the entire Mahoning Valley Sanitary District.

The state of Indiana sold its toll road for a lump sum of $3.5 billion that earns more annual interest than it earned in its entire 50 year history.

Selling a government-owned or controlled entity such as water/sewer utilities requires legislative approval. I urge any member of city council and any state legislators from the area to propose such legislation.

Perhaps one of our Mahoning County commissioners can likewise suggest a county-owned nonproductive asset that could be sold to generate funding for the county courts.

Mahoning County real property re-evaluations are being conducted. Surely most should show a decline in value, resulting in lower taxes. Don’t count on that. Any unchallenged increase will result in higher taxes, but probably not in sufficient amounts to satisfy budget demands. Sale of assets would go a long way toward solving the dilemma.

Atty. CARL RAFOTH

Youngstown

Leviticus has good advice about personal relationships

EDITOR:

The writer of a letter June 23 made it clear that as a Christian she believed we should ignore the writing of Scripture in the book of Leviticus that states that man should not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. She responded to a writer who said that the Bible, in Chapter 18 of the book Leviticus clearly defines the gay lifestyle as deviant.

The subsequent writer replied that if someone thinks being gay is biblically wrong, then we should not wear cotton-poly blend because the book of Leviticus says wearing a garment made with two different fabrics is a sin. She advised the first writer to hush up about the gay lifestyle if she wasn’t willing to follow the other command also.

I would like to point out that Leviticus 18 also says don’t have sexual relations with your mother, your sister, your son’s daughter, your daughter’s daughter, your aunt, your daughter-in-law, your sister-in-law, your neighbor’s wife, or an animal.

The writer pulled one verse out of Scripture to say that it is now fine for man to sleep with man. If that is true, then it would also stand to reason that she would believe all the other types of sexual relations mentioned as sin must be fine also. Why just one? How do you decide that one verse on sexual immorality is wrong and not the other verses?

Somehow I find it hard to imagine that if her husband slept with the neighbor’s wife she would be OK with it. God does not change and His word does not change simply because some in society don’t agree with it. You cannot pick and choose from the Bible that which you want to believe. All of God’s word stands as truth, whether you choose to believe it or not.

SALLY DUBINSKY

Youngstown

More like this from vindy.com