Not knowing Paul Raudonat well, but being on committees with him, I came to look at him as a straightforward, honest person that carries his saddle bags on both sides of a horse, not taking sides. After reading Paul’s Oct. 13 “Letter to the Editor,” I see that I was wrong. His information is misleading, and many things were untrue.

This is part of the problem, people put out whatever it takes to persuade others to swing their way. Setting people straight with the TRUTH compelled me to write this response. Data is available to back up my information.

This past June, Union residents did vote for five options concerning the future of the Thompson Community Center.  Roughly 31 percent of 1880 registered voters in Union voted, not 50 percent. The options were to retain and renovate the buildings (205 votes), sell or lease for senior housing (160), sell to renovation specialists (87), demolish the buildings (40) or sell on the open market (105).

Paul stated some were adamant not a cent be spent on the center, citing inflation and COVID–19 as reasons. People did not want to spend a cent until the citizen’s decided what they wanted to do with the building. Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a building only to tear it down, sell it or retain a developer to convert it into elderly housing?

Paul stated that the sponsors of Article 2 (to be voted on in November) want to spend money to conduct an engineering study when there is already a 4-year-old engineering study available.

Inflation has gotten worse. Is Paul willing to tell the public it will still be $3 million?  I am sure another $1 or $2 million will be added to that figure.

Nothing is being done to educate the taxpayer as a result of this petition. I am sure they are smart enough to want the current estimate of renovations. Taxes are way up this year and will be years to come, mostly due to this decision. Taxpayers should be concerned and have the facts.

I do not see where tens of thousands of dollars come in when all that needs to be done is an update of the cost figures from the original report. I think that is a very effective use of taxpayer funds. Would Paul write a blank check, not knowing the final figure? This petition was circulated to get a true cost, and had 218 signatures, which is more than the number of votes option 1 received.

There is no “anti-TCC, anti-community services absolutists” holding anyone hostage. These efforts are to help protect the taxpayer. I am really surprised and shocked by your words, Mr. Raudonat. I guess your horse only carries a saddle bag on one side.

To the 1880 registered voters in Union, vote as you feel. Yes to accept the petition and get an updated cost, or no to move forward with a blank check.

Greg Grotton


Related Headlines