Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Lakewood Votes No

  1. #1
    Member Linda_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    God's Own Country ... the Southern Tier
    Posts
    8,222

    Lakewood Votes No

    Another village rejected Kevin Gaughan and his cohorts attempt to sell a pig in a poke as a "good thing" by voting down the proposal to dissolve the village of Lakewood into the town of Busti and replace village government with special taxing districts to provide.

    The vote was 848 to 353 (71% vs 29%) against dissolution, despite a well organized campaign by dissolution supporters who claimed there would be a 10-20% tax savings. Obviously, as in Williamsville and Sloan, the Lakewood voters didn't believe the propaganda.

    Fredonia is considering unincorporating, but I'm not sure if they are going about it by referendum to force dissolution or if they are doing it in the more traditional way of studying it first and getting a plan together. The Fredonia mayor favors dissolution.

  2. #2
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    Or they all believed the wrong propaganda..

  3. #3
    Member mikenold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    7,594
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    Or they all believed the wrong propaganda..
    This is the truth of the matter. They have been mislead to think that the vote causes dissolution instead of the actual case that the vote just forces the study. A second vote could be taken for dissolution if the study found that it would save the taxpayers money to dissolve.

    I personally am torn between the dissolution or the village being able to break away independent of the town. If Depew could become a free standing commonwealth, this would be another way towards savings for village residents. I know first hand that I pay almost as much to Cheektowaga as I do to Depew while Cheektowaga provides virtually NO services at all to Depew residents.

    The bottom line: I would like to see either dissolution of Independence.
    **free is a trademark of the current U.S. government.

  4. #4
    Member leftWNYbecauseofBS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    10,873
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    Or they all believed the wrong propaganda..

    Does it matter? Isn't this how it should work?

    In all of these votes, there has been a ton of information put out and each village was given the opportunity to make a choice. If they made the wrong choice, it was theirs to make.

    From what I can tell, Williamsville staying a village in Amherst has little to no effect on the TOA. If they want to stay a village..so be it.

    Can't really bicker about votes from the people IMO.

  5. #5
    Member Linda_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    God's Own Country ... the Southern Tier
    Posts
    8,222
    Quote Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS View Post
    Does it matter? Isn't this how it should work?

    In all of these votes, there has been a ton of information put out and each village was given the opportunity to make a choice. If they made the wrong choice, it was theirs to make.

    From what I can tell, Williamsville staying a village in Amherst has little to no effect on the TOA. If they want to stay a village..so be it.

    Can't really bicker about votes from the people IMO.
    Exactly. Moreover, the real issue IS propaganda. I don't think it's an accident that the three villages in the southern tier that voted to dissolve this year -- Perrysburg, Randolph, and East Randolph -- all did so after going the "traditional" route of studying the issue and coming up with a plan with the town to continue village services and THEN putting it to a vote.

    The three villages that recently voted overwhelmingly NOT to dissolve all tried the "new" process of forcing a yes or no vote BEFORE there was any study or any plan or any agreement with the town on services. That says voters aren't nearly as stupid as Gaughan and the "dissolve the villages" crew think they are. They are NOT going to go into something based on glowing promises of lowered taxes that have no basis in fact made by people who are pushing their own anti-representative government agendas.

  6. #6
    Member cookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Over where the sun rises
    Posts
    3,592
    Quote Originally Posted by mikenold View Post
    This is the truth of the matter. They have been mislead to think that the vote causes dissolution instead of the actual case that the vote just forces the study. A second vote could be taken for dissolution if the study found that it would save the taxpayers money to dissolve.
    Mike, what you are describing is the process for CONSOLIDATION, not DISSOLUTION. I'm not exactly sure what the difference between the 2 are, but they have different processes.
    Here is a simplified explanation with flow charts:
    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...Q7PtgLUnc5mreg

    Williamsville and Sloan were VOTER INITIATED DISSOLUTION referendums.
    In that situation, the first vote is on whether or not dissolution should occur. If it passes, a plan must be drawn up within 180 days. If no one challenges it, the plan is considered accepted and the village is dissolved. If the plan is challenged, another petition must be filed, and another referendum. If the vote on the plan fails, no dissolution occurs. If the vote on the plan passes, the dissolution occurs.
    The state does not require any studies to be done prior to any of the referendums on voter initiated dissolutions. It's up to the village (hamlet, special district, etc) to do that before voting.

    If you look at page 13, this is what is says:
    Unlike a board-initiated dissolution, in a voter-initiated process the dissolution plan will not be developed until after the referendum on whether to dissolve passes. The plan must contain the same information as in a board-initiated process (see page 10). Once a proposed dissolution plan is prepared by the governing body, voters have the opportunity to conduct another petition drive to require a second referendum, this time on the dissolution plan itself.

  7. #7
    Member cookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Over where the sun rises
    Posts
    3,592

  8. #8
    Member dtwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Seneca, New York, United States
    Posts
    4,636
    This was already pointed out to him: http://www.speakupwny.com/forums/sho...047#post671047
    “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Member mikenold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    7,594
    Quote Originally Posted by cookie View Post
    Mike, what you are describing is the process for CONSOLIDATION, not DISSOLUTION. I'm not exactly sure what the difference between the 2 are, but they have different processes.
    Here is a simplified explanation with flow charts:
    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...Q7PtgLUnc5mreg

    Williamsville and Sloan were VOTER INITIATED DISSOLUTION referendums.
    In that situation, the first vote is on whether or not dissolution should occur. If it passes, a plan must be drawn up within 180 days. If no one challenges it, the plan is considered accepted and the village is dissolved. If the plan is challenged, another petition must be filed, and another referendum. If the vote on the plan fails, no dissolution occurs. If the vote on the plan passes, the dissolution occurs.
    The state does not require any studies to be done prior to any of the referendums on voter initiated dissolutions. It's up to the village (hamlet, special district, etc) to do that before voting.

    If you look at page 13, this is what is says:
    Unlike a board-initiated dissolution, in a voter-initiated process the dissolution plan will not be developed until after the referendum on whether to dissolve passes. The plan must contain the same information as in a board-initiated process (see page 10). Once a proposed dissolution plan is prepared by the governing body, voters have the opportunity to conduct another petition drive to require a second referendum, this time on the dissolution plan itself.
    This is exactly what I have been saying all along, one vote to force the process. If anyone does not like the outcome a second vote would be initiated. In Williamsville and Sloan voters were clearly misinformed and voted on incorrect information.
    **free is a trademark of the current U.S. government.

  10. #10
    Member Linda_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    God's Own Country ... the Southern Tier
    Posts
    8,222
    Quote Originally Posted by mikenold View Post
    This is exactly what I have been saying all along, one vote to force the process. If anyone does not like the outcome a second vote would be initiated. In Williamsville and Sloan voters were clearly misinformed and voted on incorrect information.
    Nope, that's NOT what the law says. There can only be a second vote by a second petition process.

    • It's takes 10% voter sigs to force a dissolution vote.
    • If the dissolution vote passes, even by 1 vote, a dissolution plan has to be created.
    • As few as 5 people petitioning the court claiming that they don't like the dissolution plan can force a court-ordered dissolution plan to be set in motion.
    • Only after a dissolution plan is created can a petiton force a second vote on the dissolution plan. That petition must be signed by at least 25% of the voters.
    The voters in Williamsville, Sloan, and Lakewood weren't stupid enough to vote for dissolution without having concrete plans agreed to between the towns and their villages. They refused to fall for the "This will save you big $$$. Just trust me on this!" BS they were fed by the pro-dissolution crowd.

  11. #11
    Member mnb811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Boston formerly Lackawanna
    Posts
    2,613
    Spoken like the true democrat against any disruption to status quo that you are.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Residents get 6 votes in recent elections
    By ILOVEDNY in forum USA Politics and Our Economy - President Joe Biden
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 16th, 2010, 07:29 AM
  2. Alden Measure Passed by 32 Votes
    By Enough in forum Town of Alden, Elma and Marilla Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 1st, 2009, 08:54 AM
  3. Another politician buying people's votes with other people's money
    By WNYresident in forum Albany NY State budget Capital and Governor Kathy Hochul
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 27th, 2008, 04:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •