You are the owner of this article.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: A rebut to the rebuttal on SPLOST

  • ()
Letter to the editor

When I wrote my editorial letter concerning our proposed SPLOST package, I promised myself that if someone wrote in disagreeing with me, I wouldn’t reply because he or she was entitled to their opinion. But Mark Webb’s reply distorted a few facts. I do not want this to become a “spitting contest” between us, because the SPLOST vote is too important for our community.

Mark Webb is an acquaintance and generally reasonable; however, he is wrong about the SPLOST and me. I have been to Atlanta quite often, and I have seen the traffic snarls, and I don’t want Rome to become like that. Our traffic problem in Rome is not petty, it’s a serious situation. Just ask the firemen, policemen and emergency vehicle operators who have to weave in and out of it to get to emergencies.

I decided to look up in the SPLOST law what the funds could be used for and this is what I found concerning road and bridge construction, and I quote:

“The SPLOST law expressly allows the expenditure of SPLOST funds for:

l Acquisitions of rights of way for roads, streets, bridges, sidewalks and paths.

l Construction of roads, streets, bridges, sidewalks and bicycle paths, including resurfacing.

l Relocation of utilities, roads, streets, bridges and bicycle paths.

l Improvement of surface-water drainage for roads, streets, bridges, sidewalks and bicycle paths.

l Patching, leveling, milling, widening, shoulder preparations, culvert repair, and other repair necessary for preservation of roads, streets, bridges, sidewalks and bicycle paths.

l Major equipment.”

I have ridden a city bus, walked to work. The bad traffic in this city is something that affects every citizen in Floyd County and is not just a self-interest project. Also, I said that I wasn’t going to vote for the SPLOST package. I wasn’t encouraging or discouraging anyone to vote for or against it, I was giving my opinions on it.

Editor’s note: Mr. Webb is allowed a rebuttal 10 days after publication of his original letter (Aug. 16), after which this subject for these two gentlemen shall be closed.