http://www.speakupwny.com/article_4402.shtml
Mr. Howell, I have been reading your reports on Village dissolution and thank you for your insight. You and I had attended Mr. Gaughan's presentation at Eddie Ryans and found Mr. Gaughan to be clueless regarding having any plan in place at that time when questions and issues were put before him by the attendees. He said at the time that he would reveal his plan later. Well, according to your report he still lacks a sound plan.
As a former 28 year resident in the Village of Depew, on both the Towns of Cheektowaga and Lancaster side, I favored village dissolution from the get go. As someone who now lives in the Town of Lancaster, no longer a village resident for 17 years, I now have reservations and agree on the benefits of a cost/benefits study.
As a Town of Lancaster resident who seen a tax increase happen when the Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster combined police forces, my concern now lies on what, if any, tax increase could incur should dissolution/merger take place. Hopefully your series will shed some light on that matter.
What I can’t understand with Mr. Gaughan is how he can advocate for smaller government, which I am all for, gets the public riled up to reduce town government size from 5 -3, and is content to let small villages run with 5member boards. Your thoughts please.
I believe if nothing else Mr.Gaughan has spurred open debate and informational exchanges - at Village, Town and now State level.
Study after study, politically correct statements, term limit conversation all sound good - but nothing changes. Tax payers foot the bill, government grows and spending increases.
Whats actions would you propose that we could bring to a referendum/vote?
What recourse do taxpayers have when Politicians promise to cut spending or reduce patronage and then don't?
#Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !
There is but one recourse for me and that is with rare exception to vote every incumbent out of office. As former New York City Mayor Koch has been saying recently: There are those in office who are not very good and then there are the really evil ones.Originally Posted by 4248
I believe if nothing else Mr.Gaughan has spurred open debate and informational exchanges - at Village, Town and now State level.
Study after study, politically correct statements, term limit conversation all sound good - but nothing changes. Tax payers foot the bill, government grows and spending increases.
Whats actions would you propose that we could bring to a referendum/vote?
What recourse do taxpayers have when Politicians promise to cut spending or reduce patronage and then don't?
My initial knee-jerk reaction to the question of whether, or not, the Village should be dissolved was "of course it should, taxes will decrease." But, like most knee-jerk reactions, my reaction was an uninformed one.
Is the Village necessary? No, I'm not sure that it is. As far as services go, I don't particulary care about who picks up the leaves I put at the curb - as long as they're picked up. I'm not sold on the notion that the Village provides better services.
So, if I can be absolutely convinced that taxes will go down if the Village is dissolved, then I'm all for it. Even if its a minimal decrease - say $100 a year - my feeling when it comes to my money, is that it's better off in my pocket than someone else's.
But, as of now, there is absolutely no proof that taxes will decrease. So, to dissolving the Village -- without any basis of reality, is just plain mindless.
There is something about the whole thing that just doesn't make sense to me. The same number of resources (with the exception of the trustees and a few other "officials") would be needed to maintain the service levels seen in the village today, right? Yes, there would be some saving that I am sure would be realized, but would it really be back in our pockets? I'm thinking that if it was, it would be pennies, not dollars. But, I have yet to see any real data to support any theory of savings.
Honestly, I haven't really been keeping up with the whole Gaughan thing. But, from what I have been reading and seeing, it's not all it is cracked up to be anyway. Let's call it what it is - you can have an idiot in office regardless of it being a village or a town.
Personally, I look at the service lost when the VLPD merged with LPD. It was supposed to be this great thing, saving a lot of money while improving services....does anyone really believe that? I don't want to take my chances with anything else. I moved into the village knowing that I would have to pay a little more for certain conveniences.
If you live in the village and are worried about your services, don't dissolve the village. I live in the town; believe me, no one picks up leaves. [When you mow, you double cut and it becomes mulch. Out here, that includes your leaves .]
Another point -- made by Lee -- is about representation. Do you honestly think that by decreasing representation, you will be better off? seriously? If you wound up with a combined board and there were 3 people on it, you would have just 2 decide the fate of the town or any issue? To me, that is sheer idiocy. Better to have the 5.
My daughter lives in the village and so does a sister [in Depew]. neither wants them dissolved.
IMHO, the sooner Kevin Gaughan is run out of the villages and back to Hamburg, the better. Who is he to impose himself on every village in the area?
I agree.
I am on the horns of a dilemma with this village dissolution question.
If as Hillary tells us "it takes a village to raise a child", what will happen to the child if we follow Mr. Gaughan's call for village dissolution?
What about the kids...I'm just sayin.
Why not dissolve the County Government?.......Do we really need that layer of Gov......Everyone already has a town, Village or City Government now? The way I see it.......the County takes the biggest single chunk of our property taxes.......taxes I am sure most residents in the Towns and Villages never see anything back in return for.
Good point tango. We need to downsize no matter which way we look at it. Too much government. I think it needs to start local, like the saying goes, "politics begin at the local level." True.
Sorry for the delay, I had out-of-town family visit, and I was showing them the "Wonders of Western New York".
To Lee: To be honest, at this point in time I cannot tell you what effect village dissolution will have on Town taxes. If Kevin Gaughan's plan is accepted, it's almost inevitable town taxes will rise because it's doubtful the town needs all Village of Lancaster and a percentage of Depew's DPW employees. A cost increase that will be shared by village and town property owners because it is a shared service.
To the rising, and everyone else asking cost questions. At this point in time no one knows whether village taxes will increase or decrease. The weakness in the law is you vote to dissolve your village before a plan is in place. Can a plan be created before the vote? Yes, if the village has the time and money. If Gaughan comes before a plan is in place and finishes before a plan is worked out, then the voters will be voting on the unknown. I Lancaster trying to come up with a plan first? They are in the process of putting the pieces together. I'm not sure where they are right now. Even if a plan is worked out, it has to be remembered that the town has the final say. Even if they agree with the plan now, they can change their minds later.
To Buffalo Transplant. It's not the number of representatives, it's the quality. Go to Village Board meetings and Town Board meetings, what I mean will be clear.
To Tango Down. I had a conversation with a State candidate last weekend. that topic came up. You can't really get rid of a county government. But you can change it's form and substance. That was what we discussed. What we need to do is change the form and substance of Erie County government. Unless, of course, you like it.
Right now, in Lancaster, you have a large Village Board and a large Town Board. Do you really want to see both boards dissolved and only 3 people (Gaughn's ideal) deciding everything? I don't. Get 3 village people, it will be all village - 3 town, it will be all town. 2 of 1 and 1 of the other? They can hold the item hostage. This isn't just a Lancaster item, it is all burbs. Personally, I think you need a board of 5 -- esp. if (God forbid) the village is dissolved. That is for the protection of the citizens all over the town.
I have friends in New England where they still hold Town Meeting ONCE a year. The budget is read, the people vote line-by-line, yea or nay. Arguments are made if an item is a problem. Items are passed or not. The Town Clerk ( the only elected official) operates on that budget all year. I have been to one of these meetings and found it very refreshing.... the people run the town ( granted, the town has 4,000 people and that includes all children as well -- maybe 350 showed to the meeting, held at the school.) no screaming, ranting, raving -- just simple discussion. We could learn from people who still follow the old traditional govt. the country was founded on.
Thank you as it makes perfect sense to me.gshowell;669166]Sorry for the delay, I had out-of-town family visit, and I was showing them the "Wonders of Western New York".
To Lee: To be honest, at this point in time I cannot tell you what effect village dissolution will have on Town taxes. If Kevin Gaughan's plan is accepted, it's almost inevitable town taxes will rise because it's doubtful the town needs all Village of Lancaster and a percentage of Depew's DPW employees. A cost increase that will be shared by village and town property owners because it is a shared service.
This is the crux of dissolution. You have nailed it. If anyone doesn't understand this and the need for a study prior to voting for or against disolution,, they should not be voting.To the rising, and everyone else asking cost questions. At this point in time no one knows whether village taxes will increase or decrease. The weakness in the law is you vote to dissolve your village before a plan is in place. Can a plan be created before the vote? Yes, if the village has the time and money. If Gaughan comes before a plan is in place and finishes before a plan is worked out, then the voters will be voting on the unknown. I Lancaster trying to come up with a plan first? They are in the process of putting the pieces together. I'm not sure where they are right now. Even if a plan is worked out, it has to be remembered that the town has the final say. Even if they agree with the plan now, they can change their minds later.
Dreamer, but then again you believe in the Easter Bunny.To Buffalo Transplant. It's not the number of representatives, it's the quality. Go to Village Board meetings and Town Board meetings, what I mean will be clear.
Vote out every incumbent!To Tango Down. I had a conversation with a State candidate last weekend. that topic came up. You can't really get rid of a county government. But you can change it's form and substance. That was what we discussed. What we need to do is change the form and substance of Erie County government. Unless, of course, you like it
I do believe in the Easter Bunny. At least the Easter Bunny gives me something I want! Chocolate.....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
