The guest editorial from the Sept. 14 edition has to be one of the most disappointing and divisive editorials/letters I have read in your publication.
It seems safe to assume that the writer is doing all right financially, can afford the override and, therefore, can avail herself of the various government services she listed.
However, not everyone is as fortunate. With gas approaching $4 a gallon and grocery prices rising substantially every week, many people are having problems making ends meet. As such, they may not be able to afford the extra $127.44 year. And, for all we know, many of those who voted against the override regretted their decision but were left with no financial choice in the matter.
There are probably many reasons people didn't support the over-ride:
* Many elderly people live on fixed incomes. Should they be considered to be "on their own"?
* Some people haven't received pay raises in years. Should they be considered to be "on their own"?
* Many are unemployed and using resources such as the TEO food pantry. Should they be considered to be "on their own"?
* Others may be dealing with medical problems that are sapping any and all of their disposable income. Should they be considered "on their own"?
This us-versus-them mentality is not productive, tolerant or respectful to those who have differing views and voted accordingly.
Besides, if per chance some financial calamity were to happen to the editorial