Village residents form group

[gorja]

From the Lancaster Bee-

Village of Lancaster residents form group, unite against dissolution.
On March 13, Village of Lancaster residents gathered to address concerns arising from the threat of dissolution. The threat arises from publicized efforts of others to undertake a petition drive in a manner now authorized by the recently enacted New N.Y. Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment Act.

During the meeting, the group adopted the name Voters Opposed to Elimination, formulated its mission and elected officers.
Chosen to serve as chairman of V.O.T.E. was Gary S. Howell, and vice-chairs Garth Kraemer, Anthony Guarino III and Dawn Gaczewski were named.

It was resolved that the mission of V.O.T.E. is to resist the attack on the Village of Lancaster, and V.O.T.E. will seek to educate Village of Lancaster neighbors on the unfair and unfavorable consequences of the threatened petition drive, Howell said.

V.O.T.E. also will seek to educate village neighbors, through various media, that any referendum at this time would be uninformed and likely have unintended and adverse consequences.

The following eight points will be disseminated to Village of Lancaster residents through the group:
1.) Under the procedure mandated by the new legislation, villagers would not be informed of the manner and effect of dissolution. The assets of the village would be dissipated by sale or surrender to the town. The referendum would be conducted before a dissolution plan was formulated and studied. A referendum would be conducted prior to any commitment from the town as to the manner in which village assets, such as fire and Department of Public Works equipment and personnel, would be utilized and allocated.

2.) In the event a referendum should pass, the newly enacted law does not allow enough time for a dissolution study to be prepared before dissolution must be effected.

3.) Speculation as to savings would likely prove unfounded. In fact, the tax burden to village residents would likely be increased as special districts are created, as the cost of town government increases to accommodate the loss of village services, as village residents find that they are statutorily committed to satisfy village debt and as the services of village employees are replaced by services of town employees with higher salaries.

4.) The recently enacted statute does not provide the appropriate manner to consider dissolution. The appropriate order for considering dissolution of a village is reversed. First, a plan involving and committing both the village and the town should be finalized. Then village residents should be provided the opportunity to determine whether dissolution is preferable in accordance with the defined plan.

5.) The newly enacted petition process itself is flawed. It allows outsiders to influence the fate of our village. Historically, besides notaries, only village residents could carry petitions to dissolve their village.
“Because of an unwise and legally questionable feature of the new law, non-residents can be solicited to carry petitions,” Howell said.

6.) Petitions to dissolve a village threaten loss of representation. Dissolution means residents will give up direct control over planning, zoning, development and the character of the village. Village government creates and strengthens the image and value of our neighborhoods.
“Dissolving village government will dilute our control over the community in which we live,” V.O.T.E. stated.

7.) Dissolution will also eliminate services provided by the village, such as the village-sponsored sidewalk replacement program, school sidewalk snow removal and programs that are presently undertaken to renovate the Central Avenue Business District.

8.) Dissolving village government contradicts basic principles of American government by weakening representative Democracy.

“Our mission includes the goal to defend and protect this principle,” Howell said.
After the meeting, V.O.T.E. Howell said, “We are confident that when the facts are presented, the majority of village residents will agree that the Village of Lancaster is a treasure worth preserving”.

Anyone interested in joining may contact Howell at 440-4688 or vote4lancaster@hotmail.com.

I'm not a citizen of the village but I wholeheartedly agree that foremost a plan should be had before referendum.

With all due respect Mr Howell, I do disagree with the agenda of this group which seems to be no dissolution no matter what the benefits may be.

I wonder if any other groups will be formed with their objective being collecting information and communicating it's findings unbiasedly.

[Lee Chowaniec]

I'm not a citizen of the village but I wholeheartedly agree that foremost a plan should be had before referendum.

With all due respect Mr Howell, I do disagree with the agenda of this group which seems to be no dissolution no matter what the benefits may be.

I wonder if any other groups will be formed with their objective being collecting information and communicating it's findings unbiasedly.

Gorja, as someone who lived in a village for near 30 years and was hell-bent on dissolution, I favor your position. A plan is needed before referendum is initiated. Residents have to become informed of the nuances of dissolution and not influenced by an outsider (Gaughan) who is hell-bent to reduce government at any cost. Gaughan was told he was putting the cart before the horse at the recent Lancaster Village meeting. When Gaughan was asked for specifics relating to worker status, debt loads, etc. he responded that he has a plan and that it would be presented at later debates. Didn't John Kerry have a plan that he said would be brought forward after he won the presidential election?

I am in total agreement that we have too much government in Lancaster (Town and Villages). Should dissolution not take place because a cost/benefit analysis determines it, government should be reduced where there is a total population somewhere around 45,000 and we still have 15 town/village board members and over 15 Planning and Zoning Board members.

[4248]

While well meaning, I believe Mr.Howell and his group have formed to "Stop" the dissolution.

I also believe this statement,"8.) Dissolving village government contradicts basic principles of American government by weakening representative Democracy" is totally misleading.

When you have "One Main Core Group" running a Town and Village - how does reducing the number of them - reduce "Representative Democracy"

Thats false as far as Lancaster as a whole is concerned, no one Elected Town or Village Official has a "Defined Area of Representation" - therefore no one area should receive more or less representation.

If you wrote down and listed - (which has never "Officially" be done) - the actual "working hours" and the "Stated Duties" of either Town or Village Officials - one could not define who they represent.

As far as services are concerned - that too is a myth inspired by those who would maintain all the little tax funded pockets of control. The only true difference is who appointed which "Patronage Job" to which "Party Loyal" - for the most part.

As far as cost of Governance or services provided - sooner or later under the current system - they will all end up costing tax payers far more than if they were consolidated or hired out privately - especially when you consider all the tax funded benefits and tax funded life time pensions.

Emotions, fear and "Political Territory" has way to much influence over common sense. There will be numerous excuses spun out by all concerned - most notably the "Controlling Party Faithful."

Like the Peace Bridge and many, many other issues - lets just study it until the cost of the studies equal the original savings projections - then study it a few more years until the actual cost of progress is greater than we ever imagined it could be.

Like the ColeCraft/Court House/Police Building and such - the final result seems to be the same - tax money spent - more tax money spent and taxes are raised.

Thats my 2 cents. - next week that will be 4 cents - then a dime because of inflation and mandated costs!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gshowell]

I'm not a citizen of the village but I wholeheartedly agree that foremost a plan should be had before referendum.

With all due respect Mr Howell, I do disagree with the agenda of this group which seems to be no dissolution no matter what the benefits may be.

I wonder if any other groups will be formed with their objective being collecting information and communicating it's findings unbiasedly.

I need to ask what you would consider the benefits.

If it's cost, we don't believe it will reduce costs. We believe it will increase costs. We have experience in this community with the consolidation of the police department. After consolidation, the town and village tax for police services went up. We were told the increases were temporary. The cost never went down. As a matter of fact the cost continues to climb.

There's more to dissolution then just money. Right now, the village controls planning, zoning and development in our community. If the village dissolves that control goes to the town.

What do we lose? Let's look at recent events. When the library closed in Depew, the town wanted to sell it to a business. In order to do that, the property would have to be rezoned. The people who live in that area of Depew did not want another business near their homes. The village of Depew refused to rezone and the people who live in the area got what they wanted. If Depew didn't have control over zoning, the residents would have been out of luck.

According to Kevin Gaughan, somewhere between 340 to 400 people have already joined his group to dissolve the village of Lancaster. So, to answer your question, a group to dissolve the village has apparently already been put together.

[gshowell]

When you have "One Main Core Group" running a Town and Village - how does reducing the number of them - reduce "Representative Democracy"

Assuming you mean the "One Main Core Group" is the Lancaster Democratic Committee, that doesn't apply to the Village.

The Village board is composed of two republicans, two democrats, and one conservative.

[gorja]

Originally posted by gshowell:
I need to ask what you would consider the benefits.

If it's cost, we don't believe it will reduce costs. We believe it will increase costs. We have experience in this community with the consolidation of the police department. After consolidation, the town and village tax for police services went up. We were told the increases were temporary. The cost never went down. As a matter of fact the cost continues to climb.

There's more to dissolution then just money. Right now, the village controls planning, zoning and development in our community. If the village dissolves that control goes to the town.

What do we lose? Let's look at recent events. When the library closed in Depew, the town wanted to sell it to a business. In order to do that, the property would have to be rezoned. The people who live in that area of Depew did not want another business near their homes. The village of Depew refused to rezone and the people who live in the area got what they wanted. If Depew didn't have control over zoning, the residents would have been out of luck.

According to Kevin Gaughan, somewhere between 340 to 400 people have already joined his group to dissolve the village of Lancaster. So, to answer your question, a group to dissolve the village has apparently already been put together.

The Gaughan group is the dissolve at all costs group, the V.O.T.E. is the don't ever dissolve group. I was referring to a group who have an openmind with no preconceived agenda and just want to know all the facts of what the benefits (if any) and losses are of dissolution without being pressured by either of the other two groups.

Your point is well taken about rezoning because this town board will rezone a rezone before you can say "Aye-yii-yii-yiii"

[therising]

Like the Peace Bridge and many, many other issues - lets just study it until the cost of the studies equal the original savings projections - then study it a few more years until the actual cost of progress is greater than we ever imagined it could be.

or...we could just do it, and then worry about the results afterward.

Like the ColeCraft/Court House/Police Building and such

Right, because they did it first, and then worried about it afterward, right?

Are you even aware of your own irony??

[shortstuff]

.....the airport...
point is people reject change period.

[gshowell]

I wonder if any other groups will be formed with their objective being collecting information and communicating it's findings unbiasedly.

Even if you get information you believe is "unbiased", when you get it, it may be too late.

Under the N.Y. Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment Act, dissolution through petition, the petitions are circulated, approved, and referendum held before a dissolution study/plan is required.

By law, the referendum will ask a simple question, "Shall (insert type and name of local government entity) be dissolved", "yes" or "no".

In other words, the vote to dissolve is held before a study/plan is required. Under the new law, you are voting on a pig in a poke.

Can a village do a study/plan beforehand. Yes. But there are problems. First, the average dissolution study costs $59,000 plus. It's money that most villages don't have laying around. And, it's a cost the village tax payers pay alone.

Unless the village can get a grant. However, with the state in the financial condition it's in, the chance of getting a grant is slim.

If you read our press release, you will see that the majority of issues we raise have to do with the flaws created by the N.Y. Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment Act.

Gorja, you may want to look into some of the village dissolution studies available online. They are easy to find. Many of them show that town taxes will increase after dissolution.

That's another flaw in the law. Village residents get to vote, but Town residents, who may be adversely impacted, don't have a vote.

In Lake George, town residents, whose taxes are projected to rise by 9%, some town residents are saying this is taxation without representation.

[gshowell]

.....the airport...
point is people reject change period.

On the humorous side, I'm a short, fat, white guy who is (sometimes) frightened by change.

On the other hand, if you read about the new law, it's doubtful that is is change you can believe in.

[therising]

What's the status in the Village of Lancaster? Are they waiting for money to do the study (i.e. before the referendum?)

[gshowell]

What's the status in the Village of Lancaster? Are they waiting for money to do the study (i.e. before the referendum?)

The village of Lancaster applied for a grant to do a study. They have not been notified whether they will get the money or not.

[4248]

or...we could just do it, and then worry about the results afterward.

Like the ColeCraft/Court House/Police Building and such

Right, because they did it first, and then worried about it afterward, right?

Are you even aware of your own irony??

The Cole Craft deal - had you been around when it started, youd know - was a IDA hatched friendly buyout for a member by a member.

It was then partly being pushed on the Village as a part of the "Police Consolidation Plan" -

Then after getting money for a study - Supervisor Bob Giza backdoored the Village and signed a contract with full knowledge or consent of all party's.

Then Bobby and Co remebered they have already a plan in the works to build on Pavement and Pleasantview. OOOOOOPSS!

But the Supervisor did manage to steal the building from the Village - so I guess leaving it rot for seven years is OK.

Hea, whats another $8-10 Million tax dollars when it comes to Lancaster wealthy Voters/Taxpayers?????:rolleyes:

There is no comparrision between ColeCraft and Village dissolution/Consolidation. The ColeCraft deal was another back door Town Deal mixed in with false promises by Supervisor Bob Giza that there would be tax savings - never happened - never will.

Dissolution/Consolidation - if done honestly - and without Town Hall back door DEM Deals, could reduce the size of Government and consolidate services. Yes a few jobs would be lost - a few tax fed carreer Political Figures would either fade away or resurface under the "Party Titles" they so deserve.

[4248]

.....the airport...
point is people reject change period.

N.Y. Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment Act.
is a means of empowering Voters. First you need to reach and convince people/taxpayers/voters to sign the petition.

Then taxpayers/residents/voters decide by either voting it down or passing it. Then because that is true Democracy - action is affected.

Its ironic that when people are finally given a chance to "bypass Political Party rule" they get real shaken about it.

Maybe Giza and Co is correct in their beliefs the average voter needs them to decide our tax dollars fate.

A couple well placed rumors, some scare tactics and away we go.

[*] When it comes to school spending - its no coincidence cutting "Family Favored Programs" are the ones held over taxpayers/voters heads - "Its for the kids"

[*]Town Board spending issues and they roll out, "Loss of Services, Closing the Senior Center, reduced after school programs and the Supervisors all time favorite - IF IT SAVES ONE LIFE"

Lets just spend a few hundred thousand more tax dollars and talk, while the true "Game Insiders" figure out how to rig the outcome. Lets not actually empower ourselves - lets not see what a open vote would bring! Lets wait for the "Son's of Patronage" to figure out how they can control the results.

Let the petitions, taxpayer and the Voters decide.

You will never ever get the total honest answer from Politicians or Town Government - they thrive on building Government.

[gorja]

Originally posted by gshowell:
Even if you get information you believe is "unbiased", when you get it, it may be too late.

Under the N.Y. Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment Act, dissolution through petition, the petitions are circulated, approved, and referendum held before a dissolution study/plan is required.

By law, the referendum will ask a simple question, "Shall (insert type and name of local government entity) be dissolved", "yes" or "no".

In other words, the vote to dissolve is held before a study/plan is required. Under the new law, you are voting on a pig in a poke.

Can a village do a study/plan beforehand. Yes. But there are problems. First, the average dissolution study costs $59,000 plus. It's money that most villages don't have laying around. And, it's a cost the village tax payers pay alone.

Unless the village can get a grant. However, with the state in the financial condition it's in, the chance of getting a grant is slim.

If you read our press release, you will see that the majority of issues we raise have to do with the flaws created by the N.Y. Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment Act.

Gorja, you may want to look into some of the village dissolution studies available online. They are easy to find. Many of them show that town taxes will increase after dissolution.

That's another flaw in the law. Village residents get to vote, but Town residents, who may be adversely impacted, don't have a vote.

In Lake George, town residents, whose taxes are projected to rise by 9%, some town residents are saying this is taxation without representation.

If anyone wants some information they should check out the Center for Government site-
http://www.cgr.org/research_shared.aspx

Here's the Village of Seneca Falls dissolution document site; population 6700 voted 1,142 to 1,037 for dissolution on March 16. Village taxes will go down; town taxes will go up.
http://www.cgr.org/senecafalls/documents.aspx

Here's the Village of Perrysburg dissolution site; also voted to dissolve on March 16. Village taxes will go down; town taxes will go up.
http://www.cgr.org/perrysburg/