As a general rule, I favor limited government and lower taxes. Yet I also believe providing parks and recreational facilities for community benefit is a good purpose of local government.

The proposal for a $25 million Marietta parks bond forces us all to carefully weigh the pros and cons. I believe the people should decide if they collectively want to pay for a collective benefit in a better park system. Then the question remains for each of us - yes or no?

You may not believe we need more or better parks at any price, or choose to vote against the bonds for whatever reasons make sense to you. Fair enough. You're entitled. I have withheld an opinion on this either way until it appeared the council was close to putting this issue on a ballot.

The city council has struggled for some time to achieve a consensus to put a bond proposal up for a vote. One reason is there have been three positions, all with merit, shared at times among various council members and the mayor: 1. parks are good, and this is a good time to sell bonds and buy property; 2. economic times are bad, maybe later; 3. the plan should be more specific (how much per park) before being presented to the voters.

Of course another reason to oppose the plan, either on the council or by the voting public, is disagreement with the specifics once they are produced.

At last month's meeting, the city council with a four-to-three decision supported by Mayor Bill Dunaway approved a plan that did not specifically earmark funds for individual parks, only generalized categories such as land acquisition and improvements. This first step was followed on Aug. 26 when the council as a committee of the whole approved by a five-to-two margin a more specific spending plan. A final decision by the council will occur at tonight's meeting, and if approved will be on the Nov. 3 ballot.

While all on the council can speak with logic and passion for their position, Councilwoman Holly Walquist's arguments are most persuasive to me, including: parks are critical to attract and maintain both desirable businesses and residents; parks provide a better quality of life to the community; property values are down, a good time to purchase; interest rates are low, a good time to lock them in; property is scarce, delay may permanently prevent any more acquisitions; the economy will likely recover in a few number of years, well short of the life of the bonds.

So the "bad economy" argument has two sides: it may be "bad" for people and businesses that might have some higher costs through taxes and fees (if not offset in future budgets some other way), but it can be a "good" time for the city to sell the bonds and acquire property. And the "bad economy" argument may well be moot in the relative near future compared to the life of the bonds.

How would the bonds affect you? Assuming a 7.75 percent interest rate (the max allowed) and a 20-year term the $25 million bond issue will cost the city about $2.5 million per year in principal and interest, or about $40 per person. If passed through completely to property owners, the city staff estimates the tax on a $100,000 home will increase by $24.56 per year. The actual impact per person and household will vary depending on property values and how the city manages the added cost in the overall budget process, either by increasing fees and property taxes and/or lowering other costs and services.

It is virtually impossible to justify improving parks by an economic return on investment. The value is the improved quality of life in a community. The annual cost per person and residence seems reasonable to me for a significantly improved park system.

If the city council gives final approval tonight, then you can decide in November if the proposed park improvements are important enough to issue these bonds, the more specific spending plan is acceptable, and if in fact there are advantages to issue bonds and improve parks now, not later.

I will vote yes.

Stephen Imler of Marietta is a retired business consultant.