Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Town Board gambles our representation?

  1. #1
    Member Add It Up's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    769

    Town Board gambles our representation?

    Why would the Town Board gamble our representation at referendum if they all think it's a bad idea?

    http://www.buffalonews.com/258/story/928259.html

    Maybe they don't really care if the public has a voice or not.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    761
    the MISS the entire point (not surprising) - the TB does not have the authority to decide the size of town government, the people do it. Because of a stupid oversight in state law, the public (despite wanting to) cannot place this issue via referendum.

    As I have stated many times before, it is not whether the TB members agree or disagrees with the size of the board, it is who decides this issue. Adding or reducing the number of board members rests with the public, not the TB. That is why they are allowing this to go forward.

    That is also why the PEOPLE, not 7 people, are charged with deciding this issue. That is leadership in deciding to GIVE up control over an issue and allowing the public to decide. You want 7 people to decide the issue - talk about destroying democracy. You preach about a "control grab" yet by allowing this issue to go to the people, it is the complete opposite.

    As an aside, are you going to continue to add separate threads about this issue each day when someone destroys your arguments.

  3. #3
    Member Add It Up's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    769
    The Town Board is supposed to represent the best interests of the town. At least 6 of them have expressed that downsizing, in their opinions is not the best option for the town-which I have to assume is based upon their professional experiences and their own education on the issue.

    So, the best option was to send this to referendum at a special election, where only, at most, 25% of the population will vote on whether or not to move to a situation which the Town Board doesn't think is the best option for the town? This just shows poor judgement on the part of our elected officials.

    Or perhaps they know it is at no risk to them and that once our representation is gone, we will never get it back. Power will be consolidated. IMO it was up to them to determine if benefits outweighed the negative effects before putting it up for referendum. Instead they absolved themselves from blame and will point the finger at "the public" who they "empowered" to make an uninformed decision when issues come up.

    A referendum is not a tactic to further an agenda, it is a protection put in place as part of a system of checks and balances, which now appears to be crumbling before our eyes in Amherst. This referendum is only possible because the board is voting to downsize our representation.

  4. #4
    Member Trajan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    303

    Sad but true..

    Quote Originally Posted by Add It Up View Post
    Why would the Town Board gamble our representation at referendum if they all think it's a bad idea?
    It is sad but true... The town and village politicians got outwitted by another
    slippery politician. Kevin Gaughan's promise of saving taxpayer money by voting out the people's representatives worked...That promise always resonants with voters.

    In Amherst, the actual cost per household is between $.65 and $1.25. How many people understand that?
    Nonetheless, now, that we have the electorate sucked into Gaughan's specious argument...The next step is, of course, "let the people decide."
    Gaughan and other pro-downsizing politicians are confident that the same uninformed/indoctrinated public will vote their way.

    All of this neatly negates the fact that residents were not interested in reducing their board until Mr.Gaughan entered the scene with his cost-saving, empty-promise rhetoric. When it was pointed out that the savings is minimal, the rhetoric shifted. What is a trapped or like-minded politician going to say but "let the people decide"?
    Last edited by Trajan; January 20th, 2010 at 03:59 PM.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    11,438
    If you two feel so strongly it's a bad idea, get off your ASSES and campaign against it! Otherwise STFU!
    "I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "

    Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by Add It Up View Post
    The Town Board is supposed to represent the best interests of the town. At least 6 of them have expressed that downsizing, in their opinions is not the best option for the town-which I have to assume is based upon their professional experiences and their own education on the issue.

    So, the best option was to send this to referendum at a special election, where only, at most, 25% of the population will vote on whether or not to move to a situation which the Town Board doesn't think is the best option for the town? This just shows poor judgement on the part of our elected officials.

    Or perhaps they know it is at no risk to them and that once our representation is gone, we will never get it back. Power will be consolidated. IMO it was up to them to determine if benefits outweighed the negative effects before putting it up for referendum. Instead they absolved themselves from blame and will point the finger at "the public" who they "empowered" to make an uninformed decision when issues come up.

    A referendum is not a tactic to further an agenda, it is a protection put in place as part of a system of checks and balances, which now appears to be crumbling before our eyes in Amherst. This referendum is only possible because the board is voting to downsize our representation.
    Again, you miss the point and by extension their point. The size of our town government can ONLY be modified by the public and but for an oversight in new york law, the public would have gotten enough signatures to put up for referendum. This is a NOT a public policy decision but a representative one. I am sorry if that notion escapes you (along with the irony in you claiming that BW and the TB, by allowing the public to vote on this issue, is somehow creating greater control - awesome)

    In other words, there is enough people in this town that want the option to decide the issue on their own. The TB members will vote just like everyone else as it should be with a representative issue.

    I applaud their decision.

    Also, I agree with Douglas, the great thing about this issue is that you can vote and campaign on it. So do it.

    The main problem here is Add it Up and Trajan fears the public participation (i.e. democracy) because they may not agree with you.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by Add It Up View Post
    This referendum is only possible because the board is voting to downsize our representation.
    Classic misrepresentation/lie by Add It Up - the board did not vote to downsize, it merely allow the public to decide on whether they want 5 or 7 board members.

    You need to go back and take a couple (perhaps several) reading comprehension book.

  8. #8
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    I'm against downsizing - it is trendy but like most trendy stuff it doesn't have much substance to it. I think we should have more TB members, not fewer.

    But I'm all for allowing me and my fellow citizens to vote on the issue as provided by law.

    Hopefully, it will be defeated. And hopefully we will then get to vote on an upsizing referendum.

    If it passes Iíll congratulate the supporters and learn to live with less representation.

  9. #9
    Member Add It Up's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by hate politics View Post
    Again, you miss the point and by extension their point. The size of our town government can ONLY be modified by the public and but for an oversight in new york law, the public would have gotten enough signatures to put up for referendum. This is a NOT a public policy decision but a representative one. I am sorry if that notion escapes you (along with the irony in you claiming that BW and the TB, by allowing the public to vote on this issue, is somehow creating greater control - awesome)

    In other words, there is enough people in this town that want the option to decide the issue on their own. The TB members will vote just like everyone else as it should be with a representative issue.

    I applaud their decision.

    Also, I agree with Douglas, the great thing about this issue is that you can vote and campaign on it. So do it.

    The main problem here is Add it Up and Trajan fears the public participation (i.e. democracy) because they may not agree with you.
    Both HP and Dougles exemplify the reasoning that will keep the people of WNY from ever deciding their own destiny.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    11,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Add It Up View Post
    Both HP and Dougles exemplify the reasoning that will keep the people of WNY from ever deciding their own destiny.
    What? How so? I tell you to get off your ass and explain to people why downsizing is bad and you call me a hinderance?? Please, grow up and grow a pair!
    "I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "

    Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!

  11. #11
    Member Add It Up's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by hate politics View Post
    Classic misrepresentation/lie by Add It Up - the board did not vote to downsize, it merely allow the public to decide on whether they want 5 or 7 board members.

    You need to go back and take a couple (perhaps several) reading comprehension book.
    State law only authorizes certain mandatory referendums. That's why the budget is not put up for referendum (for example). This referendum is mandatory because it would decrease the representation of the people. It's part of the system of checks and balances.

    The Town Board did vote to downsize our representation when they voted to put it on the ballot, because it will become law if passed. They had to assume it had a decent chance of passing, or why would they have authorized the additional expense to taxpayers to fund a special election?

  12. #12
    Member leftWNYbecauseofBS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    10,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Add It Up View Post
    Both HP and Dougles exemplify the reasoning that will keep the people of WNY from ever deciding their own destiny.

    Either I am not reading what happened correctly or you are dumb.

    All the TB did was say...the voters want the opportunity to determine if the TB shrinks and we are going to provide them with that opportunity. Regardless of how the voter referendum turn out or how it impacts the town, this is how government SHOULD work. Good or bad, the voters should have a say in how things are run.

    Just to fill you in, if the VOTERS say no, the TB will NOT shrink.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by Add It Up View Post
    State law only authorizes certain mandatory referendums. That's why the budget is not put up for referendum (for example). This referendum is mandatory because it would decrease the representation of the people.
    Absolutely, 100 percent wrong. Do just a little research. Under New York law, the people can put a referendum on the ballot to decrease the size of government from 5 to 3, and from 9 to 7 and to add from 3 to 5, 5 to 7 and 7 to 9. So your logic is completely wrong in that New York does allow for the public to decide to decrease the size of its representation.

    it was an OVERSIGHT in not allowing the public to put a permissive referendum from 7 to 5. Moreover, it is probably illegal but the time it takes to remove that oversight is lengthy and costly.

    this last comment proves that you have no idea what the f*ck you are talking about.

    awesome - add it up. continue to show your ignorance of the actual facts and law.

    thanks for playing. try to throw some other piece of sh*t argument against the wall to see if it sticks. hahahaha

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS View Post
    Either I am not reading what happened correctly or you are dumb.
    you are reading it correctly so yes add it up's arguments are completely dumb.

  15. #15
    Member Add It Up's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS View Post
    Either I am not reading what happened correctly or you are dumb.

    All the TB did was say...the voters want the opportunity to determine if the TB shrinks and we are going to provide them with that opportunity. Regardless of how the voter referendum turn out or how it impacts the town, this is how government SHOULD work. Good or bad, the voters should have a say in how things are run.

    Just to fill you in, if the VOTERS say no, the TB will NOT shrink.
    My point is that the Town Board created the local law which is now going to referendum. There are negative effects to downsizing which outweigh any cost savings. No one has been able on this thread (or otherwise) to demonstrate a benefit to the people of Amherst from downsizing. 5 of the board members have stated they are opposed to downsizing.

    It is irresponsible to put anything to referendum if, as a town board member sworn to represent the people of Amherst to the best of your ability, you feel there will be negative consequences and no positive consequences from a local law you have allowed to go to referendum, because it could result in negative consequences for the people of Amherst.

    The referendum is being used as a political card and not "letting the people decide." Sending this to referendum instead of having the courage to say, downsizing will have negative consequences and I can't in good conscience send this to referendum, they will be able to say, "We didn't decide this, the people did," when the negative effects occur.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Supervisor Eagan Fiscally Irresponsible
    By Iknow in forum Town of Boston and Boston Hills Politics
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: February 21st, 2009, 10:09 AM
  2. Town of Lancaster Schedule of Salaries approved by Town Board differ from what was bu
    By speakup in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 19th, 2009, 03:20 PM
  3. Sherwood Speaks
    By Foot Fungus in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 7th, 2008, 09:40 AM
  4. Mike Wrona crying again....
    By crabapples in forum Amherst, Clarence and Williamsville
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 27th, 2008, 10:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •