3 ms·
It's not as though cities and towns are using fine dollars to educate children and feed the homeless. They're not. They're using it to pay more police salarie
by dsfyu404ed 7y ago
It's not as though cities and towns are using fine dollars to educate children and feed the homeless. They're not. They're using it to pay more police salaries so they can write more tickets. They're simply using the money to further their own existence. God forbid the towns be forced to find an alternate way to pay for, reduce or cut a service in the face of shrinking revenues.
- duxup 7y agoI think the article adequately describes how difficult it is to "find an alternative" particularly when the state legislature is cutting off those paths.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoAlternative for what purpose? These towns and counties already have basically nil for services.
- duxup 7y agoPresumably for whatever services the town might want to offer. Police, fire, water, sewer, etc. I think we can all imagine what those things might be from city to city. Believe it or not small towns do offer some services, it might not be much compared to others, but little is still something that needs to be funded. I can understand a bit of the rural vs urban issues in the US when I see a lot of arguments here that because they offer very little (perhaps just compared to an outsider's point of view) ... that means they shouldn't have any? Meanwhile as the article notes state legislatures cut off funding from the state / limit their ability to gather funds by other means.