Reply With QuoteWarren, yio're an idiot. Nothing but double-speak. Hail to the hero. And yeah, I know ya. You're a follower. Always have been. Spineless and gutless but want to play macho-man. Sucked up to all above ya.
This contradicts your other remark. What are you Kreskin or Houdini ? You "believe" your message got through to present /incoming board members through here. I'm not saying board members don't read what's in here but you clearly stated previously that you brought your ideas to some on the board. You did not say present or past. Your new explanation and now backtracking of how you have brought this to the attention of some board members is pretty poor for such a sharp guy like you.Originally Posted by dtwarren
There may be no substance in this post about town issues, But in my opinion since you hold yourself in such high regard in here, raises questions about your intent and leaves much to desire about you.
Warren, yio're an idiot. Nothing but double-speak. Hail to the hero. And yeah, I know ya. You're a follower. Always have been. Spineless and gutless but want to play macho-man. Sucked up to all above ya.
It is apparent you either cannot see the forest through the trees or refuse to due to some sort of bias. Those statements are not mutually exclusive.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
I think I got it. And, unlike others, I will admit when I'm wrong. Concerning the Board members that you're in kahoots with, it can only be Tina. Can't believe I missed it. Don't worry though, I slapped myself upside the head. And forest, trees, biased? You're an idiot and you're being exposed for what you are:spineless and gutless. Stop speahing lawyerese and give an appropriate answer instead of dancing around everything. Oh, and did I mention, spineless and gutless?
You're veil of superiorty was falling away with some hard questions about you and you struggled to answer and combat them without cutting and pasting some law and you don't like it. You found a forum in here that you could elevate your ego above the rest. You think because of your legal jargon posts, which you know most unable to comprehend or unable to debate and so that further fed your psyche. You initially impressed me too in here. But it is becoming clear you are pompous and self cajoling.
Now after some assailing in here you are twisting your own words, which I clearly just showed. Now you say I am blind to things. Maybe so, but not to you. Don't worry, you'll have all your followers in here still stroking you. Revel in it for all it's worth to you, you obviously crave that. You may carry some swagger in here and feel as if your something special, but I wonder how far it will go outside of here given how you reacted to some personal debate when confronted in here.
Let me break this down for you so you can understand. The board is comprised of 5 members. For purposes of this conversation I will label the from A to E.
I previously answered that I mentioned my ideas to some on the town board. Let's say I mentioned it to members A and B. I then Stated my ideas were not secrets and that I believe their were at least two people who viewed this forum on a regular basis who are either incoming or incumbent board members or in close privity with them. I did not say they were the same as Members A and B, but lets say they are Members C and D or those in privity with them.
However, you two have amply demonstrated why this town has not to date moved forward. There is too much focus on the who rather than the what, why and how.
As I have stated before these ideas are not new, they have been used by other municipalities in New York for years, if not, decades. I do not own any exclusive rights to them, but they have not even been considered by the town board as of yet, hopefully they will. Hopefully the town board members will stop focusing on the messenger and start focusing on the message. It is only then that this town will move forward, which it must.
I believe that people think we do not have to address these issues because we are merely a town. However, our town has a population of nearly 46,000 people. We are larger in population than some cities in this state for example the cities of Rome and Long Beach have a population of around 35,000. The County of Seneca has a population of 33,000. Just because an issue has not surfaced or raised itself to a significant level does not mean that we do not need to have policies in place to deal with it. We should not fall into the tombstone mentality of only dealing with an issue after it arises. We need to be proactive and have these discussions in public and as citizens help form our public policy.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
So I can understand ? Like everyone else does except me ? Again, don't fool yourself, very few understand you.
Because we assailled you, we're the problem. That's the best you got. Boy your defenses stink when you can't cut and paste. The world is not all remedied just because it is in black and white.
For the sake of continuing the discussion on the substance of the ideas not the messenger I believe we will just have to agree to disagree on this point.
So what are your thoughts on the substance of the ideas I presented here?
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
I think your idea of abatement law is great. A fine should be reasonable, and perhaps incremental. It should be easy to implement, all the Town Board has to do is cut and paste it into word processor, adjust some words, press enter, and vote its approval.
With regard to FOIL or Open Meeting, a policy of openness would negate the need for such laws. Lookup and copy charges should be fair, but set approprate to the amount of time required to research topic, ie you play, you pay.
Procurement should be to the lowest priced vendor, and yes set minimum values for bidding.
It would help if the town council were not all the same party, and the control of the parties were not so insular. That takes people to get involved other than pound keyboards. On the other hand, it may be that those who are now in control are the most self interested, and therefore the most interested, and in turn the most qualified. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a town board member, just someone of average, or below average (Hicks) intelligence who is interested.
Should the Americorp program with the unsubstantiated many tens of thousands of dollars yearly they have at their disposal be held to this standard ? And to what extent ? All purchases ?
This has not been the case with the program in the past. There has been much discretional spending without competitive bidding and such, as you's have elaborated upon.
The problem is the Americorp is not a Town program, it is a federal program with a WS name on it. It Could be that the town has the legal right to oversight, but Maybe Not. Maybe you could look that one up. This is the fuzzy issue.
Niagara is correct, it is kind of unique in the regard that it is a federal volunteer/charitable program and the town is like any donor, once the money leaves the town's hands it has no power to control how those funds are used.
I think the bigger question is whether or not this arrangement between the town and Americorps passes a cost benefit analysis for the town?
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
I have said this elsewhere also.
I understand that the Americorp pays rent to the town for the Burchfield clubhouse, in effect subsidizing the Burchfield Park. In addition, there is work that is done indirect/direct which benefits the town by Americorp. A C/B analysis would be a complicated issue, and could be twisted one way or another.
As Mark Twain once said there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. I agree that in doing a C/B analysis there is some degree of subjectivity, however at least the citizens can see and examine the rationale and decide how to make an informed vote at the voting booths.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
I do not think there is any grass roots thought to get rid of Americorp, or bring it to some vote. I think the idea of WNY Americorp makes some sense since since it helps all of WNY, but then WS would not get first servings (preferential treatment). Tinkering with Americorp is a problem in that it may have unintended consequences.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions