Big Money Buys Votes On The Amherst Town Board

[WNYresident]

BIG MONEY BUYS VOTES ON THE AMHERST TOWN BOARD
By James Tricoli
May 18, 2004, 18:45

Article from www.amhersttimes.com
James Tricoli - Editor

The Battle of Moratorium fell to the power and money of builders and developers. The badly beaten citizens of Amherst, whose houses are scared with open cracks in ceilings, basements, living rooms and dining rooms, found no relief as their Town Board voted the building moratorium down.

What does the average Amherst Joe do to get the money to save his home? If he decides to stay and make the necessary repairs, which have been running about $80,000, he must sit at the kitchen table with his wife and discuss how they are going to use their life savings. They have to weigh the cost of their children’s education, their daughter’s wedding, and they need to secure their own financial future. The dream of a cruise and so many other things is lost. The pain and sorrow they feel is intense. They didn’t cause this problem but will have to pay for it without any help from the government. Do the builders realize or care how much $80,000 is to hard working people who don’t have that kind of disposable money?

Monday night’s Town Board meeting was a chance for both sides to address the Board. The outcome was a forgone conclusion. You can’t defeat an enemy who owns the votes of at lest 4 of our Town Board members. It is repulsive to have people like Mike McGuire, Jane Woodward, and Bill O’Loughlin on the Board. They take money from developers for their campaigns. The amount of money they take outweighs what they use or need by thousands and you can check this out at the Board of Elections in downtown Buffalo.

[WNYresident]

How would a vote to stop development building help the people with homes which are having structural issues?

[absolivious]

Originally posted by WNYresident
How would a vote to stop development building help the people with homes which are having structural issues?

BINGO!

[WNYresident]

I would start a building stopage on the grounds it's causeing the cost of running amherst to increase. It's not worth the traffic headache and polution if it's not lowering the property tax "rent" to live in amherst. I dont' care if you have a 200,000 homes it shouldn't cost you 7000 a year to get your garbage picked up, your street plowed and the bad guys locked in jail. We pay a direct bill for all the other services we need.

Think the home owners are trying to build some type of case to get thier homes fixed? My property taxes just went up big time. I dont need anymore more of my money spent to repair thier homes. I feel really sorry for them, but i need my money as much as they need thiers.

[AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH]

Building new buildings can or might cause more damaged to the houses near them. Our Supervisor who knows more about this problem then any citizen has stated the above statement many times. She put her vote in the yes column to the mortorium. THEN SHE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THESE PEOPLE NEED A SENSE OF SECURITY UNTIL THE CORP RESULTS ARE IN AND SHE WILL WORK, HARD VERY HARD TO FIND AWAY. SHE IS 100% BEHIND THE PEOPLE.

[Publius]

Originally posted by AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH
Building new buildings can or might cause more damaged to the houses near them.

Now tell me again why the *possibility* of further damage, which still hasn't been documented to the best of my knowledge, would outweigh the kind of negative branding Amherst would sustain by the town board declaring that Amherst is unsafe to build on (not that Donn Esmonde hasn't tried to do so anyways).

Thanks to the new building codes and focus on better draining of surface water run-off, any new build would suffer from little from the kind of engineering failures of the older homes. In terms of the effect on older homes, a summers worth of building would likely have marginable effect, if any on the current rate of deterioration and sinking.

All in all, this whole argument over sinking homes reminds me more than anything of the Ralph Nader and his crusade against the Corvair. Despite all his publicity acting as a "citizens advocate" and working in the interest of the people, Nader accomplished little more than self-aggrandizement attacking what turned out to be a perfectly safe car. Let's hope in this case the sinking homes are resolved fairly and logically and not simply used to score political points for the next election.

[AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH]

I do believe that the Supervisor siding with the people was a political move because next November she will be facing some tough competition but she still sided with the people against the developers. She knew it was a safe bet, she’s smart enough to realizes there were at least 4 votes in favor of the builders.
When the builders and developers tell you no more money for elections if you don’t vote the way we want What Republican on that Board is going to say No.?
So Publius you are correct , future elections and money really brought that vote for the builders and developers.

[Publius]

Simply because I've been re-reading JFK's classic "Profiles in Courage" the last couple days, I thought I'd try taking a different spin on the issue. Discounting the arguments for and against the merits of a moratorium (and I will admit the pro-moratorium argument did hold some small value) what I've found interesting looking at the rationale of each members vote is the likely political ramifications.

First, I think everyone recognizes that this proposal would fail. The fact that it was approved in the first place rests in the reality that the vote for a hearing took place when two anti-moratorium councilmembers (Kindel and Woodward) were absent.

However, when faced with this vote, and the large and mobilized group of angry homeowners present, I thought that the most courageous member at the front was Shelly Schratz.

To put things in perspective, the four councilmembers who will be running for re-election next year presumably are Ward, Grelick, Woodward and Schratz. Of them it would be astounding that Jane Wooward would support a moratorium under any condition, being soundly in favor of development. She has always had the political support of builders and the emnity of anti-development groups and done fine so this has little effect on her.

In contrast, both Ward and Grelick, seeing how the winds were blowing, have developed a very forceful constituency by casting their irrelevant votes and spouting platitudes about protecting the people.

Schratz, the last incumbent facing re-election though, did have a choice. Recognizing that the moratorium would fail, and that one Republican could jump the fence with no consequence to the end result, Schratz still voted against the moratorium and was willing to face the consequence of her choice in the next election. She certainly had the opportunity available to cast her vote in a manner that would mollify residents for the next election without unduly endangering her support from understanding builders. However, in the face of an angry crowd, she cast her vote in the way she presumably thought would best serve Amherst. You can dispute the wisdom of her choice, but you can't claim she's simply "bought and sold by the developers" or less dedicated to the people of Amherst than any other member of the board.

As usual, just my thoughts.

[Publius]

And for that matter as I read your post again Ain't It I have to ask where you get your information.

When the builders and developers tell you no more money for elections if you don’t vote the way we want What Republican on that Board is going to say No.?

Do you have documentation, recorded statements, eyewitness accounts of developers offering money in exchange for specific votes, or is this nothing more than a populistic response to the fact that developers try to improve their business environment by helping like-minded individuals get elected to the board. To say that pro-development boardmembers vote the way they do because developers support their campaign is a case of putting the cart before the horse. I find it hard to believe that the only reason Jane Woodward votes for development is because it helps her election coffers.

[AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH]

YES.

[AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH]

YES, I DO BELIEVE IN WHAT I WROTE, 100%. Pulius, you believe that I'm wrong and you wrote that down . I believe I'm right so I wrote it down. You ask me to prove it, in turn I'm asking you to prove what you said. Fair is fair it should be easy for you to find one clear politican.

[Publius]

First...

"Do you have documentation, recorded statements, eyewitness accounts of developers offering money in exchange for specific votes, or is this nothing more than a populistic response to the fact that developers try to improve their business environment by helping like-minded individuals get elected to the board."

When you say YES, which choice are you saying yes to?

Moving on from logic studies. If you have this direct evidence, why have I never seen it referenced to, offered, or most obviously taken to the ethics board. To be clear, I'm talking about recorded information proving a clear link between specific votes and campaign contributions. This isn't just an opportunity to bring up old campaign filing records showing that developers gave money to pro-development candidates. Bribing government officials is illegal, giving contributions during a campaign isn't.

[Publius]

What evidence is needed to prove a person (Town Councilmember) hasn't done wrong? Last time I checked, a person was innocent until proven guilty. If you want to accuse someone of accepting bribes, I'd expect it to be backed up. If you want evidence I'd wager to say that since none of the members of the board have ever been indicted for taking bribes, it's a fair judgement to say that any claims to the controversy must bear the burden of proof.

[AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH]

Publis, your post had many questions that are unclear. Did you understand what I said. I asked you if you knew one clean politican. Since you didn't answer that means No. You then should take a walk to the Board of Ethics and informed on all those dishonest ones you know. Since you seems to be in the inner circle, your information will be helpful in cleaning the scum out of Amherst. But then you need guts to do this and most normal citizens become worry when they have to stick their necks out.
My answers to your questions are who, when, where and why. Which any person who thinks logically should know that everyone can be honest,or can they. Good try ,my friend,

[AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH]

Publius, you are right know one on our Board been accussed of any crime. I will end for tonight because I have to finish reading my book raise the roof beams high carpenter. Good night