Although many would like to put it behind us, the Bancroft vote remains a watershed not so much because of which side won, but because it delineated two natural and very different constituencies. Roughly same in numbers, both sides wanted a definite say in how their own tax dollars should be spent. But one side also wanted to have a say in how the other side’s tax dollars should be spent.
Democracy is always about spending other people’s money. And it always needs to be checked. Luckily, all the candidates are on record about their Bancroft votes, and that delineation can be helpful now.
Which candidates were for and which were against the Bancroft referendum? When we go to the polls on May 14, whom do we want to entrust with the power to spend our money? Bancroft advocates or Bancroft adversaries?
The advocates showed themselves to be inclined to spend other people’s money. Which is to say they appear ready, willing and able to overlook the great axiom of civilization, “The Strong Must Protect the Weak.”
The adversaries seem more inclined to protect — pocketbooks, small and large, private and public.
Maybe we undecided voters should consider voting on principle. If we believe the strong must protect the weak, then which candidates are most likely to spend or not spend our tax dollars wisely? Such as schools, services and infrastructure. Not luxuries, turf and things we can live without.
Leave those lovelies to our good donors and volunteers.
Walter Weidenbacher
