Town Board gambles our representation?

[hate politics]

There are negative effects to downsizing which outweigh any cost savings.

That is the root of your problem (not to mention you sidestepped your obvious blunder in saying that the public is not permitted to ask for a decrease in the size of their government - that is wrong, so please admit that mistake). You portray your opinion as fact (again) and you do not want a healthy, public debate on this subject. There are others that disagree with you and say that 5 is completely acceptable and ideal. So let the public decide. The problem is that your claim of a loss of 2 members is significant, others do not. Unfortunately, we cannot place a dollar figure on that issue so it will remain a subjective opinion. On the other hand, we can place a dollar figure on the loss of 2 members plus the credability argument which, like the loss of representation, is an opinion as to its importance.

The TB did not enact a local law, they can't with respect to the number of people on the TB. The public is deciding the issue because there are enough people (myself included) that want 110,000 people decide this issue and not 6 or 7.

The TB is not charged with deciding (or preventing) the possible change in the size of our local representation, they are charged with implementing public policy decisions. This is NOT a public policy decision.

I can't believe you are seriously trying to argue that allowing the public to decide this issue is wrong.

And don't you see the irony in you actually claiming the BW is the one who is upsetting the democratic process by allowing the public to decide the issue.

Add It Up and Trajan - you have shown no bounds in your smear campaign against those of us that like the fact that we are deciding the size and form of our government.

[Add It Up]

That is the root of your problem (not to mention you sidestepped your obvious blunder in saying that the public is not permitted to ask for a decrease in the size of their government - that is wrong, so please admit that mistake).

I never said this.

You portray your opinion as fact (again) ...

It is fact that removing 2 members of the town board will result in a decrease in public representation. That is why this is a mandatory referendum.

...and you do not want a healthy, public debate on this subject.

Absolutely incorrect.

There are others that disagree with you and say that 5 is completely acceptable and ideal. So let the public decide. The problem is that your claim of a loss of 2 members is significant, others do not. Unfortunately, we cannot place a dollar figure on that issue so it will remain a subjective opinion. On the other hand, we can place a dollar figure on the loss of 2 members plus the credability argument which, like the loss of representation, is an opinion as to its importance.

Others are free to disagree. That is why I started this thread, to hear other points of view.

The TB did not enact a local law, they can't with respect to the number of people on the TB. The public is deciding the issue because there are enough people (myself included) that want 110,000 people decide this issue and not 6 or 7.

The Town Board created a local law which will be enacted if approved by a small number of town voters. Since this referendum is being rushed to referendum at a special election, it is doubtful that more than 30,000 Amherst residents will affirm or deny the Town Board's local law.

The TB is not charged with deciding (or preventing) the possible change in the size of our local representation, they are charged with implementing public policy decisions. This is NOT a public policy decision.

The Town Board is the only entity deciding what local laws appear at referendum. It was their decision to put this local law to referendum for enactment.

I can't believe you are seriously trying to argue that allowing the public to decide this issue is wrong.

The public is deciding whether or not to affirm the Town Board's local law to downsize their representation. I feel it was an irresponsible decision on the part of the Town Board to put this to referendum if the majority feel that it's not in the best interest of the town.

And don't you see the irony in you actually claiming the BW is the one who is upsetting the democratic process by allowing the public to decide the issue.

No, these are your words. I never addressed BW's efforts to upset the democratic process.

Add It Up and Trajan - you have shown no bounds in your smear campaign against those of us that like the fact that we are deciding the size and form of our government.

How you can claim a smear campaign is beyond me. You (and anyone else) are free to believe that you will be "deciding the size and form of our government," but, luckily, I'm still free to know when we're being manipulated.

[hate politics]

your arguments are extremely funny and while I can go back to refute nearly all of what you said, you will never agree.

In the end, you want 6 or 7 people deciding this issue where as I want 110,000 people deciding this issue.

you call that manipulation - I call it democracy.

[Add It Up]

your arguments are extremely funny and while I can go back to refute nearly all of what you said, you will never agree.

In the end, you want 6 or 7 people deciding this issue where as I want 110,000 people deciding this issue.

you call that manipulation - I call it democracy.

I feel that it was an irresponsible decision for the Town Board to send something to referendum which most of them felt would not be in the best interest of the people they represent and to rush to put the referendum on at a special election, at additional cost to the taxpayers, where probably fewer than one-quarter of the population will affirm or deny their decision to decrease the entire town's population's representation, especially when there were other options which would have been beneficial to the people of Amherst.

[hate politics]

You are missing the point entirely. Their position is that while they might disagree with downsizing, the believe the public should have the right to determine the size and form our their government because the only the public, not the TB, can determine the its size and form.

There is a large section of people in Amherst who want to vote it ...

but in the end ... you don't want the public to go through because you think that they will not vote your way. Again, you want 6 or 7 people deciding this issue instead of 110,000.

as for the turnout, that is always the case. And you like it, do something about it.

Look at the school board budget, only a fraction of people get out because the school board intentionally promotes parents and others to vote on it. Which is why it passes every year.

I don't hear you complaining about the cost and manipulation of the school board. why - you support it.

Your personal agenda is obvious and your argument is completely bs so please drop it.

[Add It Up]

You are missing the point entirely. Their position is that while they might disagree with downsizing, the believe the public should have the right to determine the size and form our their government because the only the public, not the TB, can determine the its size and form.

There is a large section of people in Amherst who want to vote it ...

but in the end ... you don't want the public to go through because you think that they will not vote your way. Again, you want 6 or 7 people deciding this issue instead of 110,000.

as for the turnout, that is always the case. And you like it, do something about it.

I feel that it was an irresponsible decision for the Town Board to send something to referendum which most of them felt would not be in the best interest of the people they represent and to rush to put the referendum on at a special election, at additional cost to the taxpayers, where probably fewer than one-quarter of the population will affirm or deny their decision to decrease the entire town's population's representation, especially when there were other options which would have been beneficial to the people of Amherst.

Look at the school board budget, only a fraction of people get out because the school board intentionally promotes parents and others to vote on it. Which is why it passes every year.

I don't hear you complaining about the cost and manipulation of the school board. why - you support it.

Your personal agenda is obvious and your argument is completely bs so please drop it.

The school board put together a budget which they felt was in the best interest of the voters in the district with benefits which can be demonstrated. They did not put together a budget which most of the board members felt would result in negative impacts to the people of the district. The public was then able to affirm or deny their support for the board's budget. Do they promote their budgets? yes because they felt they were in the best interest of the district.

In comparison, the town board put up downsizing without demonstrating any benefits. Many negative effects were demonstrated. I don't think you will see the Town board members promoting downsizing as being in the best interest of the town, because most of them have already said they don't agree with it.

The town board has reversed logic by putting something up for referendum that they don't want to see pass and which can cause actual harm to the public. But, since there is no harm to their political future, and it might help them get reelected in the future, they voted to allow the public to affirm their decision to downsize our representation. They can even blame us later if questioned about it.

[hate politics]

Again you must the obvious facts:

1. the public, not the TB, can add or decrease the size and form of its government via referendum.

2. Absent an oversight in New York State, a decrease from 7 to 5 cannot be voted on by the public through a permissive referendum (as mentioned before, all other configurations can).

3. But for the oversight in New York State law, there is enough public support to place it up for referendum.

4. There are actual benefits to downsizing (along with the credability argument). In your opinion it doesn't outweigh the representation argument. But you mix your opinion as fact and that is your problem.

5. The TB did not vote to downsize the size of its government, it is allowing the public to decide this issue.

When you get back to the facts, as opposed to your political agenda, there is no argument and your argument is complete bs. Face it, the only reason you oppose it is based on a political party argument.

In the end, like the school budget, the public is responsible for the decision its makes. If the majority of the public wants to vote in people like Pomovich to the School Board and continue to add layers of taxes on us, then it is their fault. Same as true for this referendum.

And I can assure you this - there will be a larger vote for this referendum than any school board budget.

I do fault the school board budget from manipulating the vote, promoting a stupid budget, not disclosing the entire budget for the public to vote and putting up the budget to vote on an off day to ensure a lower turn out.

In the end, though, the public is to blame for adopting it.

The problem between you and me is that I still want the public to vote on these issues.

When there is an issue you disagree with a majority of amherst residents, you don't want them to vote.


AGAIN - IN THE END YOU WANT 6 OR 7 PEOPLE TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AS OPPOSED TO 110,000 PEOPLE.

[Add It Up]

Again you must the obvious facts:

1. the public, not the TB, can add or decrease the size and form of its government via referendum.

2. Absent an oversight in New York State, a decrease from 7 to 5 cannot be voted on by the public through a permissive referendum (as mentioned before, all other configurations can).

3. But for the oversight in New York State law, there is enough public support to place it up for referendum.

4. There are actual benefits to downsizing (along with the credability argument). In your opinion it doesn't outweigh the representation argument. But you mix your opinion as fact and that is your problem.

5. The TB did not vote to downsize the size of its government, it is allowing the public to decide this issue.

When you get back to the facts, as opposed to your political agenda, there is no argument and your argument is complete bs. Face it, the only reason you oppose it is based on a political party argument.

In the end, like the school budget, the public is responsible for the decision its makes. If the majority of the public wants to vote in people like Pomovich to the School Board and continue to add layers of taxes on us, then it is their fault. Same as true for this referendum.

And I can assure you this - there will be a larger vote for this referendum than any school board budget.

I do fault the school board budget from manipulating the vote, promoting a stupid budget, not disclosing the entire budget for the public to vote and putting up the budget to vote on an off day to ensure a lower turn out.

In the end, though, the public is to blame for adopting it.

The problem between you and me is that I still want the public to vote on these issues.

When there is an issue you disagree with a majority of amherst residents, you don't want them to vote.


AGAIN - IN THE END YOU WANT 6 OR 7 PEOPLE TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AS OPPOSED TO 110,000 PEOPLE.

HP, The master of spin.

I feel that it was an irresponsible decision for the Town Board to send something to referendum which most of them felt would not be in the best interest of the people they represent and to rush to put the referendum on at a special election, at additional cost to the taxpayers, where probably fewer than one-quarter of the population will affirm or deny their decision to decrease the entire town's population's representation, especially when there were other options which would have been beneficial to the people of Amherst.

[hate politics]

You want to ignore the facts that's fine. You continue with your BS argument. That's fine.

A couple of points:

Less than 1/4 of the amherst population vote on issues with larger financial implications, i.e. the school budget and the last 10 elections.

1/4 of the population is larger than most voter turn out.

in the end, you want 6 or 7 people decide this issue by refusing to send this issue to a referendum, I don't. you chose to ignore the difference between public policy issues and one dealing with the size and form of our government. You ignore the fact that New York law allows for permissive referendums on this issue and but for an oversight, this particular situation cannot be send to referendum by the public.

You want to exploit the oversight for your political agenda (i.e. you feel the dems would lose power)

But again, in the end, I like democracy, you don't.

[Add It Up]

...
You want to exploit the oversight for your political agenda (i.e. you feel the dems would lose power)

But again, in the end, I like democracy, you don't.

Please explain my political agenda. I'd love to hear your creation. And, how do dems lose power they don't have?

[TheRightView]

Again you must the obvious facts:

1. the public, not the TB, can add or decrease the size and form of its government via referendum.

2. Absent an oversight in New York State, a decrease from 7 to 5 cannot be voted on by the public through a permissive referendum (as mentioned before, all other configurations can).

3. But for the oversight in New York State law, there is enough public support to place it up for referendum.

4. There are actual benefits to downsizing (along with the credability argument). In your opinion it doesn't outweigh the representation argument. But you mix your opinion as fact and that is your problem.

5. The TB did not vote to downsize the size of its government, it is allowing the public to decide this issue.

When you get back to the facts, as opposed to your political agenda, there is no argument and your argument is complete bs. Face it, the only reason you oppose it is based on a political party argument.

In the end, like the school budget, the public is responsible for the decision its makes. If the majority of the public wants to vote in people like Pomovich to the School Board and continue to add layers of taxes on us, then it is their fault. Same as true for this referendum.

And I can assure you this - there will be a larger vote for this referendum than any school board budget.

I do fault the school board budget from manipulating the vote, promoting a stupid budget, not disclosing the entire budget for the public to vote and putting up the budget to vote on an off day to ensure a lower turn out.

In the end, though, the public is to blame for adopting it.

The problem between you and me is that I still want the public to vote on these issues.

When there is an issue you disagree with a majority of amherst residents, you don't want them to vote.


AGAIN - IN THE END YOU WANT 6 OR 7 PEOPLE TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AS OPPOSED TO 110,000 PEOPLE.

Due to the past election, the public made their voice heard that they want this referendem. I said to leave it up to those newly and duly elected and I stand by it. But I disagee that their wil be a larger turnout for this referendem. If we calculate the numbers of all the school districts that reside in Amherst(this includes Amherst, Williamsville, Sweet Home and Clarence),maybe voter turnout wil be equal. My money is that people who are paaionate on here wil vote but the rest of the twon will not...no matter how vocal they are, they just are not motivated to go out and vote in spring type weather.