I am writing in response to the OBSERVER’s View (Oct. 6), which highlighted the Paint CHQ program and the editors’ concerns about the use of county resources for the mural project.

The editorial notes that the Paint CHQ program did not use county funding, because the County Planning Department found alternative sources to carry out the mural project. However, it also mentions that county staff time was spent on this initiative, leading to the argument that this time was a waste of county resources and taxpayers’ money. I appreciate the editorial’s acknowledgment of these concerns, but find them enormously petty.

The article highlights the need for job creation in our community, which is a concern for all of us. We need more jobs to support our residents’ livelihoods. However, it would be foolish for the government to seek solutions without tapping into the resources of its entire ecosystem, including its volunteer citizens when they organize into nonprofits or other groups. It doesn’t seem smart for the government to blockade itself against the grassroots efforts to make things happen that the government, by itself, cannot make happen. When public and private entities share the same goals, it is modern best practice to blend the two into forms of collaboration.

Many studies demonstrate the positive outcomes of public-private collaborations. For instance, the Brookings Institution, in its report on the “Role of Nonprofits in Public Policy,” indicates that non-government groups can provide valuable insights and even data that can inform government actions and lead to policies that address community needs.

Additionally, a study by the Harvard Kennedy School found that community organizations are often more effective at mobilizing citizens than government entities, resulting in higher participation in local affairs.

The National Civic League reported that such partnerships lead to resources being sent into underserved areas of the community.

I applaud the OBSERVER in consistently telling its readers through its editorial pages that the Shared Services practice is ideal because it saves taxpayer expense. I believe that, in the Paint CHQ case, the collaboration between the County and groups like the North Shore Arts Alliance is the same thing as shared services between separate municipalities. Seventeen local artists completed apprenticeships that will boost their own marketability (artists sell their stuff and the County gets the sales tax); visitors and locals now see vibrant images telling stories of our county history, culture, and environment; the public has responded enthusiastically; and the public sector built important networks with local people who care and will work for free. Everyone benefited.

So I ask, is the OBSERVER suggesting that our local governments avoid at all costs improving their municipalities when it means blending their efforts with the volunteers and non-profits that share the same goals? I hope not.

Christine Davis Mantai is a Fredonia resident.