Oahu is an island bathed in ideal climate, filled with beautiful treasures and visited by tourists from around the world. From the Koolau Mountains to the honu who inhabit our coastal waters, we are truly blessed.

But even with these natural wonders attracting close to 9 million visitors in 2016 and a major contributor to our economy, the people who live and work here — from the jobs that provide our basic services, to the ones that promote aloha and who make this vacation paradise possible — find themselves living in one of the most expensive places in the country.

And while they don’t have the means to enjoy breakfast and 18 holes at Ko Olina or a three-day spa weekend at the Kahala Resort, they do have their neighborhood parks to enjoy a hard-earned day off with ohana. And that’s all these folks really want.

I urge you to take a drive through the North Shore on the weekend or drive up the Leeward Coast and take a good look at those beach parks filled with families enjoying their Hawaii. Those parks, as well as other city assets are, as the Star-Advertiser says, in a state of decline. And whether we scold our elected officials, who come and go via the whim of the electorate, or seek to cast blame on the city/county employees (who I suspect are directed to put tourist areas as their No. 1 priority) is academic at this point because the need for continuous maintenance exists and it requires an ongoing investment.

Apparently the declining condition of neighborhood parks, vandalized public restrooms or even the unsafe conditions of Farrington Highway is not that important to those who live in Kailua, Lanikai or Kahala — and hence their ardent opposition to City Council Bill 78 (CD1) with far-fetched scenarios of Times Square-like neon lights popping up from Makapuu to Pupukea.

To suggest that this sponsorship bill is a gateway to public sector dependence upon private sector cash discounts the reality that government and the services it provides wouldn’t exist without it. It’s called taxes. So should we ask hard-working families — who are already over-taxed and many of whom are living multigenerational because of unaffordable rents, as well as the high cost of food and gasoline “imported” from the mainland — to pony up once again?

Let’s be clear: Nobody is advocating plastering the island with unsightly billboards. No one wants to turn Waikiki into another Ginza. But to reject a reasonable effort to raise revenue by fear-mongering is simply ludicrous. It’s bad enough Oahu loses millions in annual revenue because activists saw to it that advertising is forbidden on buses.

I ask you: Does a city bus void of an advertisement add to the natural beauty of the island? Does a small 2-foot by 4-foot placard advertising a plate lunch special traveling through the concrete and steel of downtown take that beauty away? Regardless of how myopic that ban is, this bill is not even proposing we go there.

In a time when the majority of Oahu’s citizens are facing increasing demands on their hard-earned dollars, and given the increases in spending we see in the mayor’s latest budget proposal, along comes a common sense bill (that incorporates a trial period of only five years), which can provide an avenue of financial resources to help maintain city assets in exchange for modest recognition without having to ask the taxpayer to dig deeper into their pockets.