Mikolajczyk: I’m offering another ‘Modest Proposal’

Why do Fountain Hills voters continually vote against supporting vital infrastructure? A 2009 road study warned that our roads will continue to deteriorate. The roads have, yet voters repeatedly reject any reliable tax source to fix the roads. 

Our public schools deteriorate. Voters rejected critical infrastructure bonds to fund security doors, safer facilities and energy-efficient upgrades.

Why are we so cheap? Is Fountain Hills the poster-child town for the Greedy Greys – older voters who vote against everything if it doesn’t benefit them personally? Here are some identifying clues.

The Retirement Waystation Voter: They moved here to enjoy their retirement. The weather is pleasant; the golf is good. Fountain Hills is not their forever home. It is a temporary retirement waystation. When age infirmities arise, they will return to their children in whatever cold-weather state they came from. They don’t care about roads that will last 20-30 years, or schools that educate children who are not theirs.

The I-Got-Mine Voter: They are older voters, often on fixed incomes. They are permanent residents, but see no personal benefit from the long-term quality of roads, schools or much else. If the town is not maintained and their home values decline, their response is, “So what, if my kids get a little less inheritance? I won’t be paying more taxes while I’m alive.” 

The Kill-the-government voter: An anarchist, ultra-conservative view that government is evil; government should cease; and the best way is to deprive government of funds to operate. Their ”Starve the Beast” strategy means opposing taxes, regardless of their use. 

How many of these descriptions apply to you?  

I once “modestly proposed” that Fountain Hills might benefit financially without public schools or school-age children to support. Upon reflection, might we be better without the Greedy Greys?

Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.