Page 33 of 53 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 495 of 787

Thread: The Cansdale Cabal and the "Integrity" Party

  1. #481
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Lee Blunt View Post
    Throwing mud now is way to late LANC, where you 3 months ago when you might have had a chance to get that message out? Lazy politicians deserve to loose.
    No thrown mud, look at the reality. Who is making up all the signs in the Village (Hint Schroeders tenant).
    If you want to talk patronage read between the lines.
    Schroeder is a Full time political hack that has learned play both sides of the fence,and take care of himself and his better half.
    Peoples opinions are guided by what they hear and not the truth.

  2. #482
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanc View Post
    No thrown mud, look at the reality. Who is making up all the signs in the Village (Hint Schroeders tenant).
    If you want to talk patronage read between the lines.
    Schroeder is a Full time political hack that has learned play both sides of the fence,and take care of himself and his better half.
    Peoples opinions are guided by what they hear and not the truth.
    Surely you do not object to the rights of the minority, part and parcel of which is the taxpayer/resident right to free expression, correct?

    Just think of the seeming disregard for the opinions of many taxpayers and residents which may be in play here Lanc. With or without their consent, taxpayers paid for the project with their public tax dollars; and yea, grant money ultimately comes from the taxpayers.

    These people are only freely expressing their concern(s), much of which stems around the potential confusion and safety issues which may attend the project.

    What is most concerning is that private residents are compelled to pay for signs because their voices seem to have been otherwise stifled and shunned by an arrogantly majority.


    And this touted so-called broad public support was based on what, a survey of residents which needed to be cut from a village newsletter or in lieu thereof, a technolgically troubled online poll?

    More questionable, a virtual public hearing at the height of Covid; a time when residential priorities were focused on their own economic survival?

    IMHO, it may have been much more wiser and fairer to have deferred such an impactful decision until the restoration of normal residential life.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; March 8th, 2021 at 03:33 PM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  3. #483
    Member Frank Lee Blunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    592
    Or Mark, they might have waited for a true VOTE by the peeps, instead they took grant money that locked them into to few choices and then fashioned a rebuild of the VOL with a very small peramator to work with. A true "Cart before the Horse" situation It turned out the way it has because Lynne Ruda pushed her idea through the board with the help of the Cabal. Now the villagers will have their rightful say and be represented by a true oversight committee, not the PLAY BANK guy that runs it now. Once Ruda is gone Tom Sweeney will have to answer some very interesting questions.......Stay tuned readers,it's getting very enlightening.
    Frank Lee Speaking....

  4. #484
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Lee Blunt View Post
    Or Mark, they might have waited for a true VOTE by the peeps, instead they took grant money that locked them into to few choices and then fashioned a rebuild of the VOL with a very small peramator to work with. A true "Cart before the Horse" situation It turned out the way it has because Lynne Ruda pushed her idea through the board with the help of the Cabal.
    Hey Just My Opinions Blunt,

    I am in the process of reviewing the published record of the events leading to the Roundabout(s), and I am struck by the timeline.

    As I understand that timeline, Mayor Schroeder appears to have performed his executive duties with due diligence and impartial consideration.

    While always favoring village revitalization, the Mayor, as time went on, seemed to become less and less enthusiastic for an acceleration of the project; a nearly-two year process of enlightened maturity, in which he engaged all ideas with deliberation, education, and thoughtful assessment. His appears to have been the glaring antithesis of whimsical decision-making by impulse.

    Throughout, Mayor Schroeder, IMHO, cautiously and consistently, voiced his concerns regarding what he perceived to have been a lack of a full public understanding of the project.

    It seems to me that the Mayor also appeared to have shunned a strict reliance on a suggested "survey" and social media, as adequate measures of public sentiments. In the Mayor's words:

    “My stand is I think we ought to provide and exhaust every opportunity for the public to be made aware of it...I just think that we could do a better job than what we’ve done."
    Furthermore, I note with interest that during the springtime of the Covid lockdown, Trustee Rudz's concerns appeared to support the Mayor's position. From the Lancaster Bee:

    "Trustee Paul Rudz asked, especially in light of the pandemic, if the village might stretch out the project to help collect more information and get more accurate renderings out to the public."
    In fact, a Board consensus in late April seemed to agree with the combined Schroeder-Rudz holdings. Again from the Lancaster Bee:

    "The board agreed that the later date — with bids in 2021 and construction in 2022 — would make the most sense for the the village, especially considering the slowdown from the pandemic and other major construction in the village, such as sewer projects and the West Main Street Extension build."


    Last edited by mark blazejewski; March 8th, 2021 at 07:17 PM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  5. #485
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    From Facebook
    Tom Sweeney
    Attention VILLAGE OF LANCASTER RESIDENTS: Under normal circumstances I don’t get involved with politics but in this case I will make a 1-time exception. It is now clear that if these folks get voted in, they will be throwing away $500,000 in local direct taxpayer $$$$ that has been spent on work to improve and grow our Village of Lancaster. This would be a TRAVESTY! If we simply complete the work that 4/5th of the board voted for and 65% of survey respondents agreed to, it will be 100% FUNDED BY GRANTS that don’t affect Village taxpayers directly. This discussion has been in the works for decades. I do respect the opinions of others but the facts are they are safer, climate smart and move traffic more efficiently allowing us to grow. Let’s respect the past while we build for the future. PLEASE SHARE IF YOU AGREE.

    Georgia L Schlager

  6. #486
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,300
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    If we simply complete the work that 4/5th of the board voted for and 65% of survey respondents agreed to, it will be 100% FUNDED BY GRANTS that don’t affect Village taxpayers directly.
    Just My Opinion:

    How about a serious, thoughtful process to identify a true need before searching for the appropriate grant, rather than grabbing at any available grant, and then desperately searching for a so-called need?

    Nah, if there exits a problem or a "TRAVESTY," as your quote suggests Gorja, perhaps it is one that 4/5ths of VOL Board may have created for itself?

    Why did not the consenting 4/5th of the Board's members heed their own cautions?...


    Trustee Paul Rudz asked, especially in light of the pandemic, if the village might stretch out the project to help collect more information and get more accurate renderings out to the public."
    "The board agreed that the later date — with bids in 2021 and construction in 2022 — would make the most sense for the the village, especially considering the slowdown from the pandemic and other major construction in the village, such as sewer projects and the West Main Street Extension build."

    Furthermore, when considering "Travesty" within the meaning of post #385, why do the words "65% of survey respondents" come into my mind?

    Moreover, I understand that Federal Grant monies are immediately frozen in cases of eminent domain litigation.

    In that regard, should such a challenge(s) arise, how much in taxpayer dollars will be spent to defend against those challenges?

    Also, during any work stoppages necessitated by any such legal challenge(s), what of the disruptive impact to the transiting public as the case(s) await adjudication?

    Again, IMHO, Mayor Schroeder appears to have been "Spot On" in his cautions:

    “My stand is I think we ought to provide and exhaust every opportunity for the public to be made aware of it...I just think that we could do a better job than what we’ve done."
    Too often in my lifetime, have previous village boards acted with impulse rather than with deliberative caution. I vividly recall how in 1972, the "Big H" was considered to have been Lancaster's economic "silver bullet," only to ricochet and hit the village residents and village businesses in the back end.

    I also recall the grandiose plans for the Lancaster Towers, replete with first floor stores and dining areas. How did that work out?

    I also seem to recall a whimsical water meter-change fiasco in the mid-1980s

    Nah, Schroeder was right when he called for steady, thoughtful prudence and more precise measures of need and public attitude.

    "TRAVESTY," to be sure; the right word directed at the wrong actors.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; March 8th, 2021 at 10:40 PM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  7. #487
    Member Frank Lee Blunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    592
    WOW.....readers all I can say is WOW!!!!!

    With bold political calculation, Mayor Lynne Ruda informed the Citizens of the village and all voters, If you don't vote for me YOU will have to pay 500,000$ back to the people she took money from for HER pet project. YOUCH....

    After trying to blame the REAL Mayor for the voters not supporting her, the REAL Mayor informed her rightly so, that he imagined the project would continue as planned. He reminded her that the majority of the board had made their decision and even though he voted no, he respected the outcome.

    At which time Mayor Ruda reminded us all of the consequences of not VOTING for HER!!!!!! A 500,000$ fine for the VOL residents.....

    Not sure how that's going to go over with the Villagers

    Frank Lee Speaking....

  8. #488
    Member Frank Lee Blunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    592
    Well the recording of Mayor Ruda's threat of a 500,000$ fine for not electing her to be the REAL Mayor is making it's rounds. Sometimes the best laid plans of men and mice go astray, Holding the threat of monetary punishment over the heads of the voters is the way of someone who would rather tell you what to do than to LISTEN to you and you're opinion readers, is it not?

    When a politician can put their self in a position where they can force the voter to VOTE for them or pay a price it's not right. The voter cannot be told how they MUST vote. When a politician becomes that pretentious, no matter who it is, they have put the citizens in an untenable position!

    MARCH 16th will tell what the people want. There are enough concerned VOL voters this time. What's best for the VOL cannot be found by a outright THREAT from a candidate for The Mayor of Lancaster

    Not good Lynne Ruda.........
    Frank Lee Speaking....

  9. #489
    Member Frank Lee Blunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    592
    So Gorja once again you're the leadoff batter they send to the plate for a swing at this? Tom Sweeney as the DEVELOPER has a seat as the TREASURER on the very CDC that doles out money to him and his family. A project that has very few competitive bids on anything. A project that bought back the land that the CDC (Jim Allen) sold to him at a great great price. When Sweeney needed money to operate his other business concerns , he was able to sell back plots of the project back to the VOL and put money back into his pockets. Now you feel the villagers should have to pay the penalty for these underhanded move by RUDA, MAUTE, QUINN, RUDZ.

    I'm pretty sure if this project is stopped it wouldn"t be by any VOL politician. It will be a law suit and federal court injunction that costs the VOL a large legal fee that will go into many many thousands of village tax dollars.

    So keep carrying their water for them Gorja. If Lynne Ruda was so smart why did she get the VOL in this predicament where a lawsuit could cost the entire citizenry.

    When you think small you can only accomplish small things. Lynne Ruda and Company have left the VOL citizens in a very precarious spot.

    And to blame it on the NEW COMER? C'mon man!

    Watch what the news channels do with this Cabalist.
    Last edited by Frank Lee Blunt; March 9th, 2021 at 10:17 AM.
    Frank Lee Speaking....

  10. #490
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Lee Blunt View Post

    I'm pretty sure if this project is stopped it wouldn"t be by any VOL politician. It will be a law suit and federal court injunction that costs the VOL a large legal fee that will go into many many thousands of village tax dollars.
    Spot On Blunt!

    Even those private residents who oppose the Roundabouts recognize the current reality; seemingly, they to simply just do not want future encore performances. To wit, there is a great difference between the slogans "No More Roundabouts" and "Stop The Roundabouts."

    That is why I am perplexed by this comment, which in my opinion, disingenuously raised a strawman argument; a veritable tempest in a teapot....

    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    It is now clear that if these folks get voted in, they will be throwing away $500,000 in local direct taxpayer $$$$ that has been spent on work to improve and grow our Village of Lancaster. This would be a TRAVESTY! If we simply complete the work that 4/5th of the board voted for and 65% of survey respondents agreed to, it will be 100% FUNDED BY GRANTS that don’t affect Village taxpayers directly.
    Just My Opinion:

    Indeed, perhaps a greater concern should focus on the potential cost to the taxpayers stemming from potential litigation; a defensive necessity that may result from the accelerated decision made by the "4/5th" of the VOL Board members?...

    The board agreed that the later date — with bids in 2021 and construction in 2022 — would make the most sense for the the village, especially considering the slowdown from the pandemic and other major construction in the village, such as sewer projects and the West Main Street Extension build."


    Last edited by mark blazejewski; March 9th, 2021 at 10:51 AM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  11. #491
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    Hey shortstuff,

    We will agree to disagree on this one.

    In light of the previous voter litigation of the so-called issue, my position "That was then and this is now" arises from my concern about "What the future holds."

    Just my two cents.
    Agreed, that we can agree to disagree respectively. Past bad behaviors are just that, behaviors that lends itself to be repeated. But time will tell I always say

  12. #492
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    As a non-resident of the village, I have no horse in this race.
    I just don't like the village Dr's ethics.


    Good old Dr Seuss

    Georgia L Schlager

  13. #493
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,300
    Just My Opinion:


    I understand that final vote came in September, 2020, and was done so significantly in response to the so-called "survey" completed in August, 2020.

    The resolution was to accept and approve the initial project proposal and final design report for the Village of Lancaster Roundabouts Project and authorize Schroeder to sign the report, contingent upon review and approval by the New York State Department of Transportation.
    Ah, more words to suppress opposing voices, eh?

    If your posted meme is true, in that it would seem that a "No" vote automatically constituted a "throw-away" of $400,000, what was the purpose of, what was IMHO, the flawed survey?

    What was the purpose of the subsequent VOL vote?

    Was that "survey" a genuine undertaking to measure public support in order to guide the Board, or was it a sham exercise, perhaps with a flawed methodology, to present to the public, a somehow manipulated residential approval of a "fait accompli?"

    Just askin'.

    After all, the entire Board had previously indicated, in large measure because of Covid, that the "sensible" thing for the VOL would be to defer the bidding process until 2021 and construction until 2022.


    Trustee Paul Rudz asked, especially in light of the pandemic, if the village might stretch out the project to help collect more information and get more accurate renderings out to the public."
    The board agreed that the later date — with bids in 2021 and construction in 2022 — would make the most sense for the the village, especially considering the slowdown from the pandemic and other major construction in the village, such as sewer projects and the West Main Street Extension build."

    Ya know Gorja, something akin to a "PAUSE;" kind of like the Covid "Lancaster Pause?"

    Was the Roundabout project more essential than food?...

    "Going to get a loaf of bread at the grocery store to me is no longer essential," Ruffino said.
    Did Trustee Ruda suggest that the "environmentally-friendly" issue of the Roundabouts took priority over the urgent issues associated with the Covid era?

    Clarification Please!
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; March 9th, 2021 at 04:14 PM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  14. #494
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,300
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post

    BTW Gorja, if the results of that so-called "survey" were reversed, would those voting in favor of the Roundabouts then have voted "No?"

    Would a negative public sentiment somehow have immunized the VOL against a $400,000 waste or loss?

    Again, just askin'.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; March 9th, 2021 at 04:32 PM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  15. #495
    Member Frank Lee Blunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    592
    Gorja , IT'S TO LATE !!!!!!!!!!! Should've done this picture 6 months ago. The current crop of the Snake Gang are all lazy and to late to the table. The citizens are awake, trust me, I do walk among them and hear their complaints. The Mayor is going to get elected and so is the NEW COMER. Lynne Ruda just destroyed the NO INTEGRITY party's plan. Nice pick Cabalist.
    Frank Lee Speaking....

Page 33 of 53 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Party Labels are now considered a "Brand" to be sold to the public
    By 4248 in forum USA Politics and Our Economy - President Joe Biden
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 27th, 2014, 03:21 AM
  2. Tax fed career "Party Player's" and "Sons of Patronage" produce nothing.
    By 4248 in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 27th, 2012, 10:26 AM
  3. Mr. "Servant of the People", start "showing me" you work for "US"
    By avet in forum Albany NY State budget Capital and Governor Kathy Hochul
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 28th, 2005, 01:03 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
  •