Interest in cost

WHILE I am sure no one wants to perpetuate this correspondence, Mr Ablett’s inadequate letter (No Cost To Ratepayers, News 6 February) on this subject demands a response.
If we are able to make savings in council expenditure, surely these funds would be better spent on improving services to the ratepayers of Casey or in reducing the rate burden imposed on ratepayers.
Why do we need this Taj Mahal. Where is the real economic benefit to justify this project?
In my world if you borrow money, then you have an obligation to pay it back with interest.
Who provides the money to pay back such loans other than the ratepayers of Casey?
Simple economics suggest that these loans must be paid from rate income. The alternative suggests reductions in already overstretched services.
The extremely vague term “external funding” does not provide any assurance that this funding comes without any corresponding liability of some sort to the ratepayers of Casey.
Mr Ablett’s response provides no comfort to me, nor should it to the ratepayers of Casey. His reply does not address any of the issues I raised.
Where is the business case which we have a right to see to justify this expenditure?
The article on the next page of your newspaper regarding the precinct being used to display of national treasures suggests to me that other larger forms of government should be paying for this monument to ego.
The problem with this is that we still pay as taxpayers for the whole project.
Taxpayers are already sick and tired of unnecessary expenditure when basic services are struggling to meet needs.
In the current environment when we are all being asked to rely less on government handouts it seems to me that this project should be shelved indefinitely.
I challenge council to provide full details of this project rather than the “bread and circuses” approach currently used.
Ray Baker,
Lynbrook.