In reading in the Bee "Heard" a concerned taxpayer was unhappy with Mayor Schroeder's push to have year round events. This concerned citizen felt that more concentration of tax dollars should go to addressing the sewer problems, road work and rat infestation.
First ask yourself what & who benefits from this? The Village is spending a lot of tax dollars for large ticket items like a new fire truck, I think they can spend taxpayer money more wisely IMO.
This must be an element of the so-called new "PROGRESSIVE" era promised by the new Mayor. Makes one think did people understand the meaning of "PROGRESSIVE?"Originally Posted by shortstuff
In this case, it may be argued that expanded Special Events may lead to a form of expanding government, in order to expand private wallets. That does not sound like a policy that a conservative would sign on to, unless the conservative has a "special interest" in pursuing such a policy. IMHO.
As the saying goes, you get what you pay for. In this case, you got what you voted for.
In fairness, Mayor Schroeder did not mislead anyone. He said he wanted "Progressive" government, and the people got what they voted for.
Wouldn't expanding special events expand the money in the wallet of the mayor's dalliance partner the current Town of Lancaster councilwoman?
Georgia L Schlager
There were concerns expressed in 2016, which suggested that Russ Sugg's proposed "Citizens Advisory Committee" was a needless additional burden on the Village of Lancaster government. I am specifically referring to remarks in the June 30, 2016 edition of the Lancaster Bee which held that the Village of Lancaster had an attorney, and the attorney was in the perfect position to supervise the ethical behavior of village personnel, and therefore, such a Committee was not necessary.
"Who better than the Village Attorney to run ethics?," I believe was the operative quote in the June 30, 2016 edition of "The Bee."
That exact same edition of "The Bee" also related remarks that such a Committee was a political ploy; something for Russ "to hang his hat on."
Moreover, there were also expressions by some Lancaster officials of citizen disinterest, with implied concerns that the training of the citizen-participants would be difficult and costly.
Seriously?
I look at it this way:
(1) I think that it is fair to assume that an expanded "Special Events" calendar may, in a sense, needlessly add to the burdens of village government.
(2) I think it appropriate to question whether there exists significant citizen interest in expanding the "Special Events" calendar.
(3) I pretty sure that such an expansion would increase government costs.
Hmmmm?
The concerns of additional burdens on government, citizen interest, higher government operating costs, can and should be disregarded for the fun and games of "Special Events," but were prohibitive obstacles toward the adoption of citizen-based ethics reform.
Perhaps, the two "issues" are not mutually exclusive?
He told ya so. We miss you Government Watch Dog Sugg.
Last edited by mark blazejewski; June 22nd, 2017 at 07:22 PM.
Why wouldn't the Mayor Schroeder push for more events year round. This way his Partner in crime will be able to take more of a cut from more of these events. Their master plan.
More events that he gets to sign off on means more Money $$ for Dawn Gaczewski.
With so many concerned taxpayers complaining about the excessive taxes in the village, I would think it be fiscally prudent for the board to start looking at ways to reduce the tax burden, not increase it. The board no longer has a board member that sits on that board that looks out, challenges and debates the issues. The village residents need to take it upon themselves to become more involved by attending those village meetings. Voice your opinion and challenge the board.
Let's remember this is an election year.....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote