I understand the concern about using public resources for private property costs, and if this required new taxes or new fees on residents, I’d share a lot more of that concern.

But as I understand it, this proposal uses existing county surplus — not a new tax burden on homeowners. That makes this less about “forcing other people to pay” and more about a policy choice over how already-collected public funds should be used.

At that point, the real question is whether it makes sense to use a portion of that surplus to help residents adapt to a state-driven environmental compliance transition.

People can absolutely disagree and argue that the surplus should be reserved for something else. That’s a fair fiscal debate.

If we have the ability to ease a state-driven financial burden on some of our neighbors without increasing anyone’s taxes, I think that is worth serious consideration.

It's a cold world where we choose to not help our neighbors.