Guess you and Clubhouse were wrong. I don't think ND knows how to fold... I think if more people spent more time talking to ND on the issues that are important to them they would be happy knowing they had an advocate on the town board.
Rotterdam officials want tax vote delayed Council members say public should have more time to consider plan
By PAUL NELSON, Staff writer First published in print: Tuesday, June 8, 2010
ROTTERDAM -- At least two Town Council members want to delay a controversial referendum that would create a new tax district to help support an ambulance company over concerns that some residents are being unfairly shut out from the vote.
"I don't get the feeling that people are aware of the vote and what they are voting on and the details that go along with it," said Councilman Gerard Parisi. He said fellow council member Nicola DiLeva is on board with the suggestion to put off the scheduled June 29 vote and recently sent an e-mail urging town officials to instead hold the vote on Sept. 14, when primary election voting takes place.
If the proposal is approved, property owners would pay an added 10 cents for every $1,000 of assessed value for the service.
Supervisor Francis Del Gallo said his administration opted to go ahead with the referendum even though it had been approved by his predecessor.
Parisi says the vote has fueled some consternation in Rotterdam since the town recanted on a promise to allow residents to vote by absentee ballots and had earlier decided to limit polling to Town Hall.
Attorney Frank Salamone, who lives in town, contends that not allowing absentee votes in effect robs the elderly, military personnel, and the homebound of their right to vote.
"They keep changing the rules or the explanations for the rules in order to limit the vote," said Salamone, a Town Council candidate endorsed by the Republicans. "It doesn't seem they are working to ensure as open and fair election as possible."
But Town Board Attorney Michael Godlewski countered that the alternative to the existing plan would be to require residents to register in advance then show up to vote again on June 29.
"Our feeling is the method we have chosen was the preferred method," he said, adding that municipalities who routinely flout the law. He expressed anxieties that Rotterdam would face a potentially costly legal battle from the loser in a close race where absentee votes determined the winner.
Parisi, himself a lawyer who previously served as Rotterdam town attorney, offered a different assessment of the law related to absentee votes. He said the law that Godlewski referenced applies only because the town has decided to only allow people who own homes and businesses to vote, not renters.
Guess you and Clubhouse were wrong. I don't think ND knows how to fold... I think if more people spent more time talking to ND on the issues that are important to them they would be happy knowing they had an advocate on the town board.
I have to agree with you on that...she was impressive...she kept her word when she promised me that she would go to bat for us on this one.
OMG You talk like you are a player. You are a certified nut job who needs to get a life. What about the cat law? Isn't that more your speed KR?
This nut job is the only one who was able to slow this scam...the cat law was passed long ago (you voted for it, remember?)...and you are in no position to judge intellectual fitness, Diane. I'd rather be an effective nut job than have your empty head.
Instead of accepting information they did not have then and there, the town attorney decided he was going to have me removed from the meeting... I got up and left voluntarily as I told them of their refusal to listen to the same information they should have been sharing with the public long ago.
I don't believe they could have had you 'thrown out'....UNLESS.....they thought you were threatening physical harm. Which I doubt. Perhaps you were 'over talking' them, which pissed them off. The only recourse they could use was to recess the meeting. But to have you thrown out for 'talking'.....I don't think they can do that. So it appears that you really could have stayed.
As far as ND.....I'll make my decisions on her decisions 'issue by issue'. She was dead wrong about her vote for sync. It wasn't based on the law. It was a 'fluff' vote. Her rant about the schenectady school system/raucci was not called for and out of place. Her vote in favor of BI was in direct contrast to her vote regarding sync. But I will give her her kudos for the rems vote. Like I said....it will be 'issue by issue'.
The issue isn't "when" the vote takes place. It is "why" are we forming a taxing district? I don't think a taxing district is necessary to fund a non-profit. I believe the REMS issue should be taken up year by year. I still haven't heard a single council person state WHY they want to create a taxing district. By making this an argument of WHEN, they are pushing the debate past the crux of the issue, which is WHY.
We the taxpayer need to focus on the why and not concede to creating a taxing district and putting it up for referendum.
RU satisfied Peep?
The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are. ~ H.L. Mencken
Guess you and Clubhouse were wrong. I don't think ND knows how to fold... I think if more people spent more time talking to ND on the issues that are important to them they would be happy knowing they had an advocate on the town board.
I would love nothing more than to be wrong. I have just seen too much deception, acting and people not doing what they say they were going to do to be optimistic. But we will see how the saga plays out. It is far from over yet.
The issue isn't "when" the vote takes place. It is "why" are we forming a taxing district? I don't think it is a taxing district is necessary to fund a non-profit. I believe the REMS issue should be taken up year by year. I still haven't heard a single council person state WHY they want to create a taxing district. By making this an argument of WHEN, they are pushing the debate past the crux of the issue, which is WHY.
We the taxpayer need to focus on the why and not concede to creating a taxing district and putting it up for referendum.
RU satisfied Peep?
Why? Because rems needs much more money to run their non-profit service than the town presently gives them. Why? Because rems clearly has financial and business leadership issues and a taxing district gives them an open constant flow of taxpayer's money. Why? Then who will be the overseers of rems? At least now that they are being funded through the general fund, the town can keep a close watch on their comings and goings financially. Why? Cause this is what rems wants!!!
Logged
