You can argue against the alleged merits of taxation if you so desire — certainly there are reasons to do so. Nobody enjoys the experience of paying taxes — of watching your hard-earned money, the literal fruits of your labor, going to pay for society’s upkeep.

But we live in a world where we do, in fact, have to pay taxes — and at that point, we may as well see some benefits from at least some of our money coming home.

Instead, we are forced to sit here, yet again, watching other towns whose leadership is less indecisive reap the rewards of our labor.

Monday night, Lock Haven City Council punted in the years-long, will-they-won’t-they saga regarding the renovation of City Hall vs. constructing a new police building.

We do not have a stance with regards to the actual building’s proposed architectural specifications.

We understand the amount for whether or not to build new or rehabilitate is costly, even with city staff working to reduce the cost for a new construction.

Regardless, we do take issue with the disrespect shown to the already-acquired $1.5 million in grant money which the project would have brought into the city.

One of our stories on the front page of today’s edition quotes City Planner/Interim Manager Abbey Roberts, who emphasized these grant funds, whether state or federal, can often be considered “free money” by some, but it’s the return of taxpayer money into the city.

“A total of $1,500,000 in grant funding that was awarded, or returned, to the taxpayers of the City of Lock Haven, will be turned back to the federal and state programs,” she said.

There are two critical issues with this:

— This means that money that would have returned to our taxpayers will likely instead go on to benefit another community downstream; and

— The value of the city’s word is now in doubt, both due to having withdrawn a promise to their police officers and due to the optics of returning grant money being absolutely terrible in the halls of power that award grant monies. Lock Haven may now be deemed unreliable, and in the world of highly competitive grants where there is never enough to go around, the odds that we may be passed over in the future increase.

These dots connect: losing out on future grant monies will increasingly, over time, mean that fewer and fewer of our taxpayer dollars return to the places we live, work and call home.

This is, at minimum, disrespectful to the city’s taxpayers.

Let us be clear.

We understand and respect the challenges that come with positions such as council members and school board members who must collaboratively chart the course for our communities — and who must do so across often highly divided ideological ground. It is oftentimes a difficult and thankless job.

That said, we cannot in good conscience remain silent on this issue — it is simply too big.

Perhaps State College or Williamsport can afford to snub grant money — not that they do — but Lock Haven is too poor to be able to pass our taxpayers’ money off to someone else. As of 2024, Clinton County as a whole is in the bottom third of the poorest counties in Pennsylvania, with a 13.1% poverty rate. The city of Lock Haven, taken by itself, has a 25% poverty rate. We need whatever help we can get, and as much of our money to come home to roost as possible.

Perhaps City Hall can be renovated and the concerns about the naysayers will be proven overblown.

At this point, with the police building nixed, we genuinely hope that is the case. We can disagree with an action, in particular one that causes a loss of grant funding, and still hope that things work out.

Regardless of the eventual fate of City Hall, though, the damage to the City’s honor will be a far more stubborn stain.

The police officers who work in substandard conditions will now have a nagging thought in the back of their minds: are they willing to potentially put their lives on the line for a city that breaks its promises to its police? The next time council extends a recruitment incentive to our police force, what proof is there that it will actually happen?

This is not something easily undone.

And as for the taxpayer, since council is comfortable returning $1.5 million of taxpayer money, we hope that something else is in the works behind the scenes to enrich the lives of those of us who break our backs to pay into the system. If we cannot have a new police barracks to help keep our community safe, hopefully at least we can have a consolation prize of some sort — something that could provide comfort or a feeling of safety to city residents.

Reassurance that their council members are seeking to responsibly bring growth and funds into the city would be a welcome start.