Lot of "stuff" going on in town. I think this bond election is going right down to the wire. There are some pretty strong emotions on both sides of the question. I soon hope to have an interview with the assistant city manager to discuss some of the questions posed to me. I'll get back with the answers. Another issue that I don't hear much about is the liquor option. That will be on the ballet, also.
I don't want to get into a big religious issue. However, there's bound to be some religious discussion on this question. I honestly don't know God's opinion on the matter. That's above my pay grade. However, I feel we're on pretty good terms and I have received no heavenly guidance on the matter. Therefore, I feel I have been left to my own devices.
I am for approving the liquor option. Current estimates are that Rowlett would receive approximately $500,000 per year in tax revenue from the new businesses. Also, new jobs would be created and additional real estate values would be added to the tax base. By the time it shakes out, a good bit of mutual value can come from this.
I grew up in an open saloon state (Indiana). I came to Texas in 1966. In Indiana, the liquor stores are very closely regulated by the Alcohol Control Board. The Board will come down like a ton of bricks on any liquor store owner that does not properly manage his business. They are extremely powerful, and they do not tolerate any nonsense. Anyone caught selling liquor to a person that doesn't need it will not want to get up the next morning.
When we lived in "dry" Smith County (Tyler), there were many sad stories about children killed or maimed from a journey to a "wet" county. I never once heard of that during my early years in Indiana. I'm sure it happened rarely, but I never knew of it.
I will vote in favor of the liquor option.