Serving the Need or Trying to Impress

I have always wondered about people who seem to want to impress me with the material things they acquire. I mean, really, why does one spend money on a Rolls-Royce when a Ford will get you down the road just as well other than as a status symbo? Why would you buy a purse or a pair of shoes for $300, when you can purchase one that will do the same job and last just as long for less?

Status symbols are a waste of your money that you can put to better use on other things. The people who really know you are seldom impressed by material things and the people who don't know you really do not care.

There was a time in my life when I bought many tools of one particular brand. They were a bit more expensive than some other brands, but they were of a higher quality and came with a lifetime warranty too. They truly lasted longer and if you broke one, it was replaced. Now that it has become a common practice for tool manufacturers to match what that brand offered, my toolbox has filled up with a hodge-podge of tools by different brands. As a matter of fact, I seldom buy that original brand anymore as I usually can find the right tool of comparable quality and with the same guarantee for less money.

There is a difference between wanting a specific item to meet a specific need or personal desire and wanting it to try to impress people. I have several possessions that I could have bought something else in place of, but I chose to purchase this particular item because it will do what all the others will plus it does something else that none of them are designed to do. I could use any lawnmower to cut my grass, but the one that I have can also pull a plow. I have a bit of trouble walking distance so I could have bought a powered vehicle to get around the mall or a store, but, as many stores have these for customer use, I bought an ATV for those places I like to go in the fields, woods, and forests where I could not go without it. My point is that I do not waste my money on things that serve me no purpose other than as a status symbol and cannot understand why a person or entity would do so.

Now, to the nitty-gritty.

The City of Brazil is breaking ground for a new water tower next week. I have driven many thousands of miles around this country and I have seen water towers that look like many things, for example, a peach in Georgia, a rocket, a cactus, a wheel of cheese, etc. What is ours planned to look like? It will look like a water tower and will cost less than if it looked like something else. To me, that is a very sensible choice as the money spent was taken from the taxpayer. Then we have the Clay County Justice Center that looks like it was designed to be a motel. Almost every time I go past North Clay Middle School, I wonder what the great round window in the front of the building cost and, more importantly, what it would cost to replace it if necessary? Does the looks of the building add to its functional ability or lessen the cost of its upkeep? How much did the public pay extra over a plain square building designed to meet its required function to accomplish "the distinctive look" of these buildings? This same principle applies to almost all purchases. Would a public official work better if they were working at a desk made of teak instead of one built to the same design of, say, maple? Does it matter if a maintenance garage is made of wood, steel, or stone to the maintenance performed within it or does it matter only in the cost of the upkeep and the cost of the building's upkeep?

As a community, we can decide to spend a lot of extra money in a very democratic fashion in an effort to impress people in the community who will not be impressed as they know the community for its pros and cons or people from other places who, simply, will not care either way.

When spending public money, "Take your pound of flesh, but not one drop of blood"!