Okaloosa County's Judicial Center
A couple days ago, I posted a blog about the Northwest Florida Daily News libertarian-driven philosophy on our opinion pages. I explained that part of that philosophy is a belief in less, not more, government involvement in our lives.
In response, an anonymous blogger wrote: "Pat - What a great blog post. I only wish it were true. Too often you support the growth of government (Judicial Center!) "
Indeed, in my own column I have supported the need for a new Okaloosa County judicial complex to replace the current complex, which violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, and is a security nightmare. So the county should replace it.
But I think the county can replace the current judicial complex AND pay for it by cutting spending in other areas. Government -- federal, state, county -- seems stuck in a pattern of constant growth, and I'm against that non-stop growth.
I hope this clarifies my position on the judicial complex.
posted by Patrick Rice @ 4:01 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
Just a few comments for you Pat. If current growth holds true, the North end of the county either has or will shortly supass the South end in population, yet the new Judicial Center has only been discussed being placed in the South End. The County seat in Crestview should have the Court House. You say Crestview has a Court House, yes it does and it is vastly underused. Haveing been summoned to jury duty this week, why was I required to travel from my home North of Crestview to serve in the South End. On that particular day, numbers 1 -116 were required to show up for potential duty. After 3.5 hours 6 jurors were selected. If security is so poor at the Court House why the hell are we paying Charlie Morris the pay he receives. And why are there numerous deputys, two in the court room I was in drawing a paycheck. I did not at any time during my four hour stay feel uncomfortable or insecure. A handful of people have planted a seed that the mental midgets has grown, we need better use of our facilities, better palnning, a more efficient use of peoples time and elect or appoint a group of judges that are not to lazy to travel to the County seat. If this Monday was a classic example of our court house situation, we do not need a new court house. Well we get one, you bet because we continually elect a group of spend happy, limited vision, tax happy group of politicians that are interested in their own vision of what is good for the rest of us. I'v tried to get rid of them with some success, Msd Tucker is gone but one only read the minutes of County meetings to see Mr Jazzmano has fell right in lock step with the rest on them. We simple can't win!
Pat - thanks for clearing up your position on the judicial center. I agree that we should pay for necessary services with cuts in other less-necessary areas – that is the conservative/libertarian philosophy. However, when you write in your influential column that you support the judicial center, it only gives the greedy commissioners political cover to continue pursuing their “shrine to big government.” I actually think you are a great editor – one of the best we have had in a long time – but BEFORE you lend your support to more government spending, I think you should demand that the county offer a show of “good faith” by cutting waste before they rip more money out of the pockets of taxpayers. Too often the spending comes first and the potential cuts come………never.
P.S - Great comments, Tom!
The new judicial center is not an element of governmental intrusion into our personal rights. I too believe that we should have less government. However, the judicial system is one of the governmental agencies that do not impose itself on the individual, the individual imposes him- or herself on the judicial system. Like requesting water and garbage service, a customer must go to the certain branch of government and request service. The government does not force itself on the customer. So it is with the judicial system. And, fortunately or unfortunately, at this time, and projected into the next decade, the south end Courthouse Annex carries the largest number of "customer requests." I believe the number is 70%+ of all cases are handled at the south end. Certainly, that is driven by population, but until the population is shifted and the demand continues for twenty+ years, as Judge Fleet recently reminded the Commissioners, the south end is where judicial and associated governmental services should be placed.
I believe one of the real problems of local governmental spending is not the vote to spend, but the choices of who should get the spent money. Some contractors and service providers see local governments as cash cows. For example, some under-bid, then bring in change orders that significantly increase prices in the long run. You hardly hear about the efforts by contractors to value engineer a project or allow self-purchasing by the local governments to reduce the cost of contracts. Instead, purchasing departments are strapped when there is only one or two bids in competition for any project and those bids are by known firms who have added a nice cushion in their profit pockets on the backs of the taxpayers. Third parties get an awful lot of tax money.
I support the Editorial team of the Daily News and their presentation of the news. Keep up the good work!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home