I’m quite willing to pay taxes if it means getting rid of our city’s drainage problem. Shelling out $45 million to fix our sporadic traffic lights isn’t something I take issue with, either.These essential provisions, as well as other beneficial initiatives, are part of East Baton Rouge Parish Mayor-President Kip Holden’s bond proposal.But I still refuse to vote the bond through.The reason is simple. The aforementioned essentials have been soldered together with expensive nonessentials, creating a shoddy chunk of all-or-nothing legislation.What results is an aggravating quandary. We must choose between funding nonessential projects such as the Alive river front development, or we can allow our drainage and traffic issues to persist and worsen.This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this bond — it was rejected last November by a margin of 3,000 votes. One would think our public officials would’ve taken the year which has lapsed to learn from their mistake, but this repeat performance, absence of wisdom and responsible modification suggests otherwise.Not only is the unaltered bond being proposed again, but a special taxing district, which excluded the cities of Baker, Central and Zachary, was initially implemented. However, the ensuing outcry later caused the tax district to dissolve a week later.Evidently our public officials are excellent at splitting the parish. One must then wonder why they have such difficulty splitting the bond between their wants and our needs.It would be quite a hefty separation. The most controversial item in the bond is Alive, which is a $225 million attraction consisting of a museum, zoo and aquarium. The suggested funds for Alive account for 25 percent of the total bond funds.This is the issue which may kill the proposal, not only because of money, but because many believe the details for the Alive project haven’t been adequately planned.Critics have pointed out the state doesn’t even own the land slated to be used for the Alive project. The land in question, which is situated near the Hollywood Casino in downtown Baton Rouge, is partly owned by the Illinois Central Railroad Company. In the past, this has stopped construction by the railroad. Currently, the verdict is still out as to who can lay claim to the land, but parish leaders do not consider this to be a problem for some reason.They have stated they will not pursue resolving this issue until Nov. 15th — the day after the bond will be put to vote.If Alive cannot be built on the land, then it will have to be built elsewhere, but no one knows where that will be or how much more it may cost.But even without the land ownership issue at play, many, like myself, oppose Alive simply because we do not need it.”Why should we be spending money to do for the private sector what the private sector should do for itself?” said Fred Dent, spokesperson for Tax Busters, an organization which met with other anti-bond groups last Wednesday. He was referring to the fact 81 percent of Alive will be paid for by taxpayers, then run by Audubon Nature Institute.All of these objections have not been without effect. There are rumors the bond may be removed from the November ballot and pushed back to be voted on next spring, but a concrete decision will not be made until October 12th.Perhaps our leaders will have ample time to split the bond properly if voting is pushed back to the spring.Otherwise, parish officials will be stuck in a stalemate with voters because of their unwillingness to compromise for the sake of progress. And it’s a stalemate we can no longer afford.Linnie Leavines is a 19-year-old mass communication sophomore from Central City. Follow her on Twitter @TRD_lleavines.—-Contact Linnie Leavines at [email protected]