Quoted from CICERO

If it's such a "no brainer" and many Rotterdamians feel the same way as you in supporting a new taxing distirict.  Then those half brainers sitting on the town board should have NO PROBLEM taking a PUBLIC POSITION FOR THE RECORD supporting the creation of this REMS new taxing district.

DVOR, you have dinner with FDG, do you know if he supports a new taxing district?  While you're at it, find out if Matt, Nicki, and Bob Gods support the new taxing district being put up for referendum.

FDG has expressed opposition to the tax district but believes it has to go to a vote because the last administration promised one.

Nicki does not support the tax district and believes there is no need or justification for a vote...that it should just go directly out to bid.

Matt doesn't seem to favor the tax...but is unclear about the vote.

Godlewski fully supports both the tax and the vote, with the hope of passing it of course.

Gerard supports the vote...unclear where he stands on the tax.

I support the tax district but believe it is up to people to decide -- and when it is put to a vote the
choice should be clear and transparent  --  yes - for the tax district and keep REMS .. ..no - against the
tax district so privatize it.

If the people are given a clear choice -- allowed to hear all the arguments for both sides -- I can
live with whatever the outcome is.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I know the position of at least 1 of the 3 - and you are free to ask them like I did

Oh, it's a secret?  This is a public policy issue, you would think they want the public to know.  But hey, more proof of Revitalize Rotterdam's commitment to transparency.

Quoted from CICERO

Oh, it's a secret?  This is a public policy issue, you would think they want the public to know.  But hey, more proof of Revitalize Rotterdam's commitment to transparency.

I am sure that if you ask them .. they will share their opinions.  I am not paid to be a spokesperson
for anyone so I won't act as such.

Quoted from gadfly

FDG has expressed opposition to the tax district but believes it has to go to a vote because the last administration promised one.

Nicki does not support the tax district and believes there is no need or justification for a vote...that it should just go directly out to bid.

Matt doesn't seem to favor the tax...but is unclear about the vote.

Godlewski fully supports both the tax and the vote, with the hope of passing it of course.

Gerard supports the vote...unclear where he stands on the tax.

Wasn't it a 5-0 vote to create the taxing district?  If a few board members fundamentally opposed it, why did they vote yes to create a district?

And isn't FDG's logic counter intuitive?  If the last administration was swept out of office, wouldn't you scrap the taxing district, because it played a large roll in the GOP losing.  

Quoted from CICERO

Wasn't it a 5-0 vote to create the taxing district?  If a few board members fundamentally opposed it, why did they vote yes to create a district?

And isn't FDG's logic counter intuitive?  If the last administration was swept out of office, wouldn't you scrap the taxing district, because it played a large roll in the GOP losing.  

The current administration has not voted on the creation of the tax district. The previous administration voted 4 to 1 in favor of
the map study that would create the district. Its official creation was originally slated for a Board vote until oppositon to the
district started to swell and threatened the Republican incumbents, who then backtracked and called for a vote that should
never happen. It was, by the way, a convenient out of a political deal in which Tommasone et al were about to be screwed out of the
Conservative Party ballot lines...promised in exchange for the tax district and the elimination of Mertz. It was too late to do anything
about Mertz, but they could now change course on the tax district part of the deal.
The only solid supporter on the current Board is Bob Godlewski, who attempted to ram it through in a midsummer
vote while everyone was on vacation...with absentee ballots pulled at the eleventh hour. That is when I had to explain the whole
history of this recurring nightmare to DiLeva, and eventually Martin. Once informed of all of the facts and options, DiLeva opposed
the tax district, moved to cancel the pending vote and secured the votes to do it.
As for FDG, I know he is not in favor of the tax but, again, somehow thinks the vote should move forward on a tax district we do
not need...claiming to be keeping a promise made by the last administration.

Quoted from gadfly

The current administration has not voted on the creation of the tax district. The previous administration voted 4 to 1 in favor of
the map study that would create the district. Its official creation was originally slated for a Board vote until oppositon to the
district started to swell and threatened the Republican incumbents, who then backtracked and called for a vote that should
never happen. It was, by the way, a convenient out of a political deal in which Tommasone et al were about to be screwed out of the
Conservative Party ballot lines...promised in exchange for the tax district and the elimination of Mertz. It was too late to do anything
about Mertz, but they could now change course on the tax district part of the deal.
The only solid supporter on the current Board is Bob Godlewski, who attempted to ram it through in a midsummer
vote while everyone was on vacation...with absentee ballots pulled at the eleventh hour. That is when I had to explain the whole
history of this recurring nightmare to DiLeva, and eventually Martin. Once informed of all of the facts and options, DiLeva opposed
the tax district, moved to cancel the pending vote and secured the votes to do it.
As for FDG, I know he is not in favor of the tax but, again, somehow thinks the vote should move forward on a tax district we do
not need...claiming to be keeping a promise made by the last administration.

Thank you! You are dead on!!!!!!!!!

A non-guaranteed ride to a hospital for a non-guaranteed outcome........typical government planning.......

fear breeds irrational thoughts.....

again......BLS versus ALS

you cant afford it and I cant afford it, there are NO GUARANTEES(except taxes and death) and National Healthcare is coming.........

It was announced at the town meeting last night that the "public hearing" scheduled for 9/15 regarding Mohawk v. REMS will not include
open public comment. Those who wish to make comments or ask questions have to submit them to the Board on index cards in advance.

who's holding the the league of women voters????

what if one side doesn't show up???

Quoted from gadfly

It was announced at the town meeting last night that the "public hearing" scheduled for 9/15 regarding Mohawk v. REMS will not include
open public comment. Those who wish to make comments or ask questions have to submit them to the Board on index cards in advance.

typical fdg.
They must have heard Mohawk was coming

Quoted from gadfly

It was announced at the town meeting last night that the "public hearing" scheduled for 9/15 regarding Mohawk v. REMS will not include
open public comment. Those who wish to make comments or ask questions have to submit them to the Board on index cards in advance.

How is anyone suppose to submit a question BEFORE they hear the presentation????  

Quoted from bumblethru

How is anyone suppose to submit a question BEFORE they hear the presentation????  

Osmosis I guess.  Of course that word may be too big for FDG to understand. I say bring in the psychics
and mind readers.  Add them to the ever growing town hall circus.

What does Robert's Rules say about public comments?

Quoted from MobileTerminal

What does Robert's Rules say about public comments?

Due to the nature of the presentation, I would NOT recommend they 'choose' what questions can be addressed and which ones can't. I don't believe that 'fairness' would prevail.

They have had presentations before where public comment was allowed. It should be the same in this case. This is vital information where the public should be able to ask the important questions when deciding who will handle their emergency calls with a possible hike in their taxes.

The 'people' will ultimately be voting on this issue in the end....NOT THE TOWN BOARD!!  So the 'people' should be allowed to present their questions and concerns publicly  the night of the meeting. IMHO