FROM THE HALLS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT

FROM THE HALLS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT

 

On 31 January 2013, what started out as an ordinary County Commissioners meeting took a surprising turn.  Instead of the usual drone of “Yes” votes, the hall was treated to a display of serious fiscal responsibility and concern for taxpayer dollars.  Butler County’s Department of Community Development had requested the approval of the County Commissioners for the rehabilitation of two properties, the project totaling $200,000, where they had determined a need existed.  One property on Bibury Road in Fairfield suddenly provoked an unusual conversation.  An unstated amount of money, part of the $200,000, was to be spent on a number of repairs to this particular house.  Part of the funding was to be a grant and part was to be an interest free loan.

The discussion began when Commissioner T.C. Rogers questioned the appropriateness of this expenditure.  He stated he knew the street and that those houses ran about $150,000.  As Commissioner Rogers probed the situation it came out that the house had no mortgage, that the resident had a clear title to the property, and that the owner was living on Social Security, child support for a handicapped child, and some other minor income streams.  The problem was that the owner’s income would not permit her to make the necessary repairs.  Community Development wanted to step in because a handicapped child lived there.  At this point Commissioner Dixon got into the discussion.  His particular concern was that this individual had a house that she could not maintain and that she would be back in a few years asking the county for further repairs.  He asked what part the loan would be repaid and was told $20 per month ($240 per year, so to repay any substantial part of the loan would take decades).  At this point he said, “We want to help the truly needy.”  Because the first project of the two in the $200,000 project involved the “truly needy” it was allowed to proceed.  However, for the Bibury property, Commissioner Dixon, obviously referring to the fact that the property owner had an asset worth $150,000 asked why, if someone had resources on that scale, the county government had an obligation to intervene.

He then went on to say, “This does not qualify as a low-income [home].”  The point being this individual was not destitute, but, in fact, had a substantial asset, the house.  Commissioner Dixon obviously felt that the individual asking for government assistance should, instead, move into something she could afford—that it was not the duty of the county to insure and protect any citizen’s wealth.  The best Dixon quote was: “You can’t go around fixing things just because you have a program.”  The need should be substantial and real—anyone who has resources should exhaust those resources before the government should intervene.

It is appropriate for us to express our gratitude to Commissioners Rogers and Dixon for watching out for taxpayer interests.  Yes, the “truly needy” need to be taken care of, but it is not the duty or the moral obligation of the county (or any governmental entity) to fix someone’s home, just because “you have a program.”