The popularity of change is increasing (Our new President was elected on a platform of change). I have noticed that our local civic leaders have also adopted this philosophy of "Change for the sake of change".

The new police station is very pretentious, close to the bakery and will certainly escalate "Police presence". Although I am having difficulty understanding how a burglar preparing to kick in my back door is going to be deterred by those wonderful antique globe "Police" entrance lights...those lights are not visible from my house. This approach to law enforcement investment is certainly a change from spending tax dollars for additional patrol cars, additional physically fit patrol persons and increased patrols.

Also, I see that they have added a new utility building and an asphalt parking lot around the wonderful and grand new city garage out by the sewage treatment plant (where clean-up days was held in the "old days"). Perhaps, with a modest 20 or 30 percent increase of our property taxes and a city sales tax, we could purchase a new city snow plow to put in that garage and maybe some paving for the muddy dirt streets that lead to that new asphalt (this would eliminate the need for city manpower to keep hosing off that muddy asphalt).

I am quite sure that the new city hall (slash Library) will be splendid and grand as well. But choosing bricks and mortar over employees may temporarily (until the increased real estate tax levy is applied) affect future city services. We may have to accept less costly administration, forego economic development management, learn to appreciate cloudy bleached out drinking water and the price of that building permit to plant a petunia in your front yard will probably escalate...small price to pay for "change".

I assume we have put aside money (that would certainly be "change") for a crossing light so that kids traveling from school to study at the new library will not be flattened by a truck - flattened children are not attractive to a city - even when flattened on fancy walkways.

I am confident that the endorsement of Government Subsidized Housing Development will continue within the city as private residences become economically prohibited - when government pays the rent, things like tax burden and city service quality are not questioned - more city revenue and less city service. Oops, that's not change.

Karl Marx would have become physically aroused at the possibility of a city where non tax paying government buildings out number privately owned taxable commercial properties. I guess change can be a truly marvelous thing.
Terry Minnick
Staples, Minn.