Government Waste
Government Waste
Who Does Lancaster’s Town Attorney Work For?
Gary S. Howell
Elected and appointed officials are supposed to work for the taxpayers. After all, taxpayers pay their salaries. Mr. Sherwood’s letter raises the question; “Who does he really work for?”
Sep 6, 2006, 19:19
Government Waste
Developers get no respect: Part 3: Nor do they give any!
Lee Chowaniec
Residents do understand the value of economic development and its impact on their quality of life. At the same time, residents expect developers, businesses and local government agencies to act responsibly when spending taxpayer monies for commercial and residential development that adversely impact their and environment best interests.
Jun 3, 2006, 21:04
Government Waste
Developers get no respect: Part 2: IDA abuse
Lee Chowaniec
Developers showed up at a recent Amherst Town Board meeting complaining that the town was taking an anti-business approach in passing a resolution directing the Amherst Industrial Development Agency to not provide tax abatements to any new buildings until all the existing office buildings are at least 95% occupied, and also to complain about a recent moratorium on development in a floodplain.
Jun 1, 2006, 10:16
Government Waste
Developers get no respect: Part 1: Amherst Town Board meeting
Lee Chowaniec
Developers believe themselves to be the primary economic engine of a community and often times cannot understand why their projects and proposals lead to controversy and legal challenges, and why their future proposals lead to suspicion and their personal mistrust and disrespect.
May 30, 2006, 08:25
Government Waste
Pork by any other name is still pork
Lee Chowaniec
When questioned on his thoughts on the sharing of the sales tax with the cities and other municipalities, County Legislator Dr. Barry Weinstein echoed what many of us believe to be true; the sharing is nothing more than “pork”.
Mar 13, 2006, 08:08
Government Waste
Lancaster Civil Lawsuit: Part 9: The bottom line
Lee Chowaniec
The intent of this series was simply to present the reasons and essence of the citizen lawsuit against the Town, without bias or insipid interpretation. The lawsuit against members of the Town Board was instated because the plaintiffs allege the public was misled, that the public were given no voice in a process they deemed flawed, and that later on they continued to observe their Town administrators and officials act in their self-interest, rather than in the best interest of the community.
Dec 1, 2005, 18:25
Government Waste
Lancaster Civil Lawsuit: Part 8: Who pays the bills?
Lee Chowaniec
Lancaster taxpayers will be responsible for paying out the $1.9 million bonded for the purchase of the 3949 Walden Avenue (Colecraft) building. The same taxpayers will have to pay the $101,000 spent in feasibility, schematic design and evaluation studies, etc. More importantly, will taxpayers get stuck with paying for the town costs associated with the lawsuit, even though the town is insured against such litigation?
Nov 29, 2005, 09:45
Government Waste
Lancaster Civil Lawsuit: Part 7: Double-speak, selective amnesia and denial
Lee Chowaniec
Up to now, the lawsuit series has concerned itself with the purchase of the 3949 Walden Avenue (Colecraft) building and the associated costs with determining realistic monetary expenditures to accompany needs, rather than satisfying everyone’s wish list. It is now fitting to examine the player roles in the process - namely, Town Board members.
Nov 27, 2005, 11:08
Government Waste
Lancaster Civil Lawsuit: Part 6: Mr. Giza goes to Washington.
When the Town of Lancaster purchased the 3949 Walden Avenue (Colecraft) building to house the merged Town and Village police forces, residents were told the total purchase and renovation costs would fall somewhere between $4 to $5 million. Not even close!
Nov 23, 2005, 01:14
Government Waste
Lancaster Civil Lawsuit: Part 5: Trautman schematic design study reviewed
Lee Chowaniec
Sometime in late 2004, Town Board members and officials held three meetings with consultant Clough Harbour & Associates (CHA). Discussions were held on how to lower the build out costs envisioned with the Trautman Associates schematic design study for the 3949 Walden Avenue Building (Colecraft). CHA was hired shortly thereafter to evaluate the Trautman report and find ways of lowering the $11.3 million build out price tag.
Nov 20, 2005, 22:41
|
