Dear editor:

The bond issue vote scheduled for Feb. 26 is about one thing and one thing only: the re-election of Mayor James Perkins Jr. I believe that this is the sole reason the election is being held a mere six months before the mayoral election.

If mayoral politics were not the sole reason for the bond issue, the bond issue vote could have been held last February &8212; 18 months before the mayoral election. Consider that the first repayment of the bonds is scheduled for March 1, 2009, in the amount of $1.4 million. Today is there more than $1.4 million in the bond repayment account? Yes; therefore, the bond issue vote could have been held on Feb. 26, 2007, with the first repayment of $1.4 paid of March 1, 2008, but a February 2007 bond vote would have been too far in advance of the mayoral election to help Mayor Perkins get elected.

Recently, the mayor has tried to generate support for the bond issue by talking about the needs of our &8220;infrastructure&8221; to be met by the bond issue. But I would ask the thinking public, is a $2 million movie theatre &8220;infrastructure&8221;? Is $1 million in lease cars and public works equipment for $400,000 for cameras to spy on citizens &8220;infrastructure&8221;? Is paying more than $500,000 merely to have the bonds issued and for bankers and attorneys &8220;infrastructure&8221;?

Above all, citizens should remember they are buying a &8220;pig in a poke&8221; if they vote for the bond issue. It does not matter what the mayor tells people the money will be spent for.

The city council will decide how and for what every penny of this bond issue will be spent. Those projects may or may not be what the public has been told.

What we really want to tell the voters is that the bond issue is not about the city&8217;s infrastructure but about whether the city can survive four more years with the structure we have in City Hall.

Sincerely,

Cecil Williamson

Councilman Ward 1