Discussing Downsizing in Hamburg

[MarkLV]

Bringing up Gaughn's parking tickets is just political swag. I've had a parking ticket reduced in the COB. Its no big deal whatsoever. Even less so for lawyers who litigate cases in the city. Probably saved his clients a few bucks in fees along the way.

There appears to be a lot of people who are not aware of what is and is not a special election.Town Law Section 80 provides: "Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a biennial town election for the election of town officers and for the consideration of such questions as may be proposed by the town board or the duly qualified electors, pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, shall be held on the Tuesday next succeeding the first Monday in November of every Odd-Numbered Year. All other town elections are special elections. A town election, or special town election held pursuant to this Chapter, shall be construed as a substitute, for a town meeting or special town meeting heretofore provided to be held by law, and a reference in any law to a town meeting or special town meeting shall be construed as referring to a town election or special town election." Since this is an odd year, November 3rd could only be a Biennial Town Election and not a Special Election. Town Law Section 64(5) in pertinent part provides: "If the appointment be made to fill a vacancy in an elective office, the person so appointed shall hold office until the commencement of the calendar year next succeeding the first annual election at which the vacancy may be filled." Therefore the filling of a vacancy in an elective town office at the biennial election is also not a special election in this year because it is an odd year if held at a general election in an even numbered year then, and only then, would it be a special election. Likewise the presence of other propositions does not render it a special election either. The two propositions referenced above were one county proposition and one statewide proposition to amend the State Constitution. According to the Municipal Home Rule Law a proposition to amend the County Charter in a manner that changes the powers of an elective officer (in this case the County Executive) is subject to a mandatory referendum and the resolution of the Erie County Legislature stated that is should be presented at this past general election. The State Constitution Art. XIX section 1 provides that any proposition to amend it passed by the State Legislature it shall "submit each proposed amendment or amendments to the people for approval in such manner and at such times as the legislature shall prescribe." Likewise the State Legislature directed that it be submitted to the people at this past general election.

Good god dtwarren, listen to yourself talk!! Town Law Sections, State Constitution Articles, Municipal Home Rule Law, County Charters, State Legislature, etc. While I don't doubt for one second your knowledge of board of elections minutia, give some credit to the general voting public!

While you are profound at citing the Letter Of The Law, it seems you ignore the Spirit of The Law.

[dtwarren]

Spirit of the law has nothing to do with a clear and unambiguous statutory scheme.

[dtwarren]

Originally Posted by notredamgrad

It is simple. You schedule it on that day and that is it. If there is no objection the day is good. It becomes the burden of the objector to present the proof.

I am sure that if it were presented at the general election and it failed to pass Gaughan and his people would be pressing for a new election on those grounds. So why take the risk? The petition was clear in what it was asking for a special election.

All the petition needed to say is:

I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a registered voter of the Town of Hamburg, County of Erie and State of New York, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby request pursuant to N.Y. Town Law § 81 that the following proposition be presented to the electors of the Town of Hamburg:

Proposition 1: Shall the number of councilmen be reduced from four to two in the Town of Hamburg?

This verbiage was known to Mr. Gaughan for over a year and before his first petition in West Seneca was invalidated. Using this verbiage there would have been no doubt that it could have been presented at the town biennial election this past November 3. For whatever reason Mr. Gaughan continues to find it necessary to include extraneous verbiage that is not necessary and the cause of a lot of issues.

[Hamb.voter]

MarkLV,
If you would have read the article you would have seen that he is not an Attorney and you would have also noticed that it was over $1200.00. Read the article. He's a political oppointment and a Hamburg Village Trustee, A drain on us.

[Frank Broughton]

Originally Posted by InFromTheCold

You have no idea what you are talking about. But your stupidity is refreshing.

Originally Posted by HamburgDemocrat

nowhere in the law dt cited does it say that the downsizing vote couldn't have been held during the general election, friggin idiot

G i r l s - stop the fighting now....... haha

[Frank Broughton]

Originally Posted by HamburgDemocrat

because oh wise one dt warren there is nothing in the logical construction of the law to prohibit the two elections from running simultaneously. steve walters did what steve walters wanted to do because he didn't want the board downsized and he didn't want the election to happen during the general election because that would increase turnout. what a little weasel. if steve walters thought for a split second that the downsizing election wouldn't be valid he would have allowed the two elections to happen on the same day to invalidate the vote. . .he's slippery.

Who is slippery?

[Frank Broughton]

Originally Posted by Hamb.voter

He is on the Hamburg Village Board and is a piece of S##T.

And what does your childish name calling make you a piece of?

[HamburgDemocrat]

Originally Posted by dtwarren

I am sure that if it were presented at the general election and it failed to pass Gaughan and his people would be pressing for a new election on those grounds. So why take the risk? The petition was clear in what it was asking for a special election.

All the petition needed to say is:

cut the crap man up and admit that nothing in the law prohibited the downsizing election from running concurrent with the genral election and that all of this time wasting money wasting BS was an attempt by walters to squash turnout in both elections and get the referendum voted down. stevie walters hid behind the tortured logic of his town attorney ken farrell winning the battle but losing the war. stevie j is in for a rocky ride during term 2. joe collins and jon gorman will eat ol steve for breakfast

[dtwarren]

Why don't you admit that you have nothing that says that it can except your opinion. The objective evidence demonstrates that Kevin Gaughan and his followers do not give a crap whether or not they cost taxpayers money to hold special elections. This was the only one out of five petitions that he and his followers submitted that but for his sloppy petition language could have even been held at the same time as a general election.

He knew that his petitions were sloppily worded and admitted as much in Judge Mintz's courtroom in open court last October. He and his followers know that it will now be two years before any of these measures take effect and there is at least one more general election where even under his sloppily worded petition the proposition can be submitted to the voters at a general election do you truly think he and his followers will wait until then to submit more petitions to municipalities? Of course not he and his followers will continue to cost taxpayers in other communities money to hold special elections before then.

Why the rush? In my opinion he wants to get this passed in as many municipalities before there is an actual example in Evans and/or West Seneca that prove his position of what effect this will have as being wrong.

So for you to even argue that the cost of special elections is a concern for him or his followers is specious.

[notredamgrad]

Originally Posted by dtwarren

Why don't you admit that you have nothing that says that it can except your opinion. The objective evidence demonstrates that Kevin Gaughan and his followers do not give a crap whether or not they cost taxpayers money to hold special elections. This was the only one out of five petitions that he and his followers submitted that but for his sloppy petition language could have even been held at the same time as a general election.

He knew that his petitions were sloppily worded and admitted as much in Judge Mintz's courtroom in open court last October. He and his followers know that it will now be two years before any of these measures take effect and there is at least one more general election where even under his sloppily worded petition the proposition can be submitted to the voters at a general election do you truly think he and his followers will wait until then to submit more petitions to municipalities? Of course not he and his followers will continue to cost taxpayers in other communities money to hold special elections before then.

Why the rush? In my opinion he wants to get this passed in as many municipalities before there is an actual example in Evans and/or West Seneca that prove his position of what effect this will have as being wrong.

So for you to even argue that the cost of special elections is a concern for him or his followers is specious.

You are trying to to blame Gaughan for the special election instead of Steve? It is over and Gaughan and the people who wanted downsizing won. I just hope they keep on going and downsize the village next. I am sick of paying three taxes.

[dtwarren]

Originally Posted by notredamgrad

You are trying to to blame Gaughan for the special election instead of Steve?

I stated the facts. Even under your tortured view of why there was a special election but for the wording of the petition Mr. Walters would not have even had an argument as to why it could not be held at the same time as the town biennial election. The root cause of why it was not held at the same time is the sloppily worded petition drafted by Mr. Gaughan.

It is over and Gaughan and the people who wanted downsizing won. I just hope they keep on going and downsize the village next. I am sick of paying three taxes.

Couple questions:

Why did you initially move into the village since you obviously knew you would be paying three taxes before your house closing?

Why do you think you would not be paying three taxes after the village is dissolved?