Taxpayers should not subsidize SARC

The proposed property tax levy (Feb. 10 ballot) is classic example of a special interest group claiming they deserve a subsidy from the population at large. However, a facility used by only a minority of the community should “pay its own way.”

Sequim’s bowling alley recently closed due to insufficient business. There was no agitation for a tax subsidy to enable it to stay open. I believe Sequim had a movie cinema which closed some years ago. Why wasn’t a subsidy offered to them? One of my favorite Sequim restaurants recently went out of business (along with at least four others). I don’t recall any proposal for tax-supported subsidies to keep them open. These examples illustrate the fact that companies will fail if they try to provide services (or products) which customers are not willing to pay sufficiently for. SARC should be required to operate by the same standard.

Furthermore, a tax-supported subsidy is unfair to businesses that SARC competes with.

If SARC can’t remain solvent without a taxpayer subsidy, it should close, and sell its facilities to a private company.

Loren Howerter

Sequim