
- NewsNews from Amherst and the region.
- BriefsPolice logs, births, deaths, weddings, more.
- OpinionOpinion pieces and letters to the editor.
- Arts & LeisureEntertainment, arts, foods, gardens, more.
- ClassifiedsJobs, apartments, cars and more.
- Bulletin BoardHundreds of events from across the region.
You make some good points, but it seems to me that setting core priorities doesn't entirely solve the problem. Does "adequate" funding mean giving the core programs everything they ask for? Who decides what's "adequate"? For ex., public works: while I'd consider clean drinking water non-negotiable, I could live with less frequent road resurfacing if it meant more money for the library. Likewise, I think performing-arts programs strengthen our schools, but some good people may consider them a frill we don't need, especially if we could fund a social-service worker with that money. You see the dilemma. Thanks.
Skeptic Monday, May 28, 2007 at 09:52 PM