'Socialistic' way of helping ends up hurting the poor

Why do rec district proponents (Jan. 26) suggest an average family will pay $3-$4/month when the official proposal is up to 60 percent higher (and applies to every $100,000 of taxable value)? What happened to their $5-$11/month increase for the average family (Nov. 3, 2005, and Dec. 10, 2006)? Why not run the numbers for property that could easily increase to $400,000 without an increase in the owner's income?

Why was there no mention on the Sandpoint Centre Corporation Web site of busing children until after people voiced concern for outlying areas? Are we to think that a hoped-for grant will cover the cost of duplicating the schools' routes to (and from) Clark Fork, Athol, Samuels, etc. Will private or home-schoolers be included without extra cost? Might we need to create a new public transportation district also?

Do you believe renters won't pay the tax increase? They know the landlord must pass along his costs. They know that he only gets the $50,000 homeowner's deduction on the house in which he lives, not the rental, too. The renter will pay proportionally more than a homeowner. Do you people think stores aren't going to pass along the increases in their property taxes? The Sandpoint Centre's socialistic way of "helping" the poor will actually hurt some of the families it claims to help.

I have four young children and will vote "no" for conscience's sake.

VERNON SPENCE JR.

Cocolalla