I lean toward fluoridation but see both sides. I had to vote against it because of the way it was done. “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt.
This debate started with a citizen complaint about lack of fluoridation. Water Committee Chair Kelsey Swindler helped put it on the ballot as an “advisory election.” What a break for the pro-fluoride side. This conveniently saved advocates of fluoridation from putting it on the ballot by referendum. This is what you do if you feel strongly about your cause. It is not easy. The chair said she did not want the pro-fluoride side to go to all that trouble. I heard her say it; I was present during the meeting. I was suspicious that city hall wanted to just push this through and voiced this concern. They arranged to have it put on the ballot, but not really. Councilwoman Swindler also told us that the initial cost, $315,000, would be covered by grants.
After this advisory election passed, it was revealed that grants would not be available. Without grants, it appeared to be a dead issue, but no, Councilwoman Swindler and others found money in the water fund!
Tax and spend, or in this case if you have it, spend it. Would fluoridation have passed if it were by binding referendum and we knew the cost up front? Why didn’t pro-fluoride advocates mount a referendum before now?
Thanks to City Hall, they did not have to go to all that trouble.