Stephen Poorman

Lock Haven

Mails here in South Florida were filled with angry opinions surrounding The Express Editorial “Repudiation of Taxpayer’s money, a disservice to council halls” (April 29, 2026). One writer plans to cancel their subscription because The Express “supported the construction of a new police station” (which it really didn’t do), and they attached the Editorial. Prior to placing it under my magnification plate, I too was angered.

However, the first six paragraphs were definitive and the more reading, perhaps the newspaper might best serve the community when it raises issues not considered. In this case, topics such as honor, disrespect, loss of funding, stubbornness, breaking promises and safety along with a plea for a reassurance, were not previously at the forefront of heated arguments.

There is no one who purported the construction of a second city building to house a police station was more bizarre than I. After reading architectural and financial studies, I concluded it was a “dumb and dumber” concept full of foolish insanity and totally absent of logic.

Yet in all of the heated exchanges, no one discussed a lack of honor, disrespect, loss of funding, safety or a “breach of contract.” But, The Express did. It perceived there may be “another side to the story” and published “Our View.” If there was a written, signed, binding contract to accept the money I was unaware of its existence. I know that signing it prior to due-diligence would have been premature.

I do not intend to debate whether the majority of council or The Express was on the best side of the topic. But if the Editorial was intended to redirect some thought to the disadvantages of returning $1.5 million dollars to Harrisburg, the newspaper did its job. And while I don’t happen to agree that its issues and concerns held more weight than the ultimate conclusion of City Council, I did not find “Our View” to be a biased stance at all.

I’m aware some council members toiled over such an important decision and determined the more costly “disservice” to local taxpayers would have occurred had construction begun.

So, regardless of your own personal opinion, perhaps the Editorial may just emphasize a “repudiation” could have occurred between the parties and there could be “fallout.”

Today we have differences of opinions regarding two wars, the economy, due-process, socialism and democracy. Years ago City Council members were replaced with the “Clean Sweep” team as “anti-dikers” hotly-debated with boating enthusiasts/residents and amphitheater proponents. I recall debating live the flood protection system with the late Bill Piper on WBPZ and found his opinion to be enlightening.

So, I wouldn’t be too quick to cancel a subscription simply because other considerations are brought to light.