Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 86

Thread: Special Events Year Round

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675

    Special Events Year Round

    In reading in the Bee "Heard" a concerned taxpayer was unhappy with Mayor Schroeder's push to have year round events. This concerned citizen felt that more concentration of tax dollars should go to addressing the sewer problems, road work and rat infestation.

    First ask yourself what & who benefits from this? The Village is spending a lot of tax dollars for large ticket items like a new fire truck, I think they can spend taxpayer money more wisely IMO.

  2. #2
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,306
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    In reading in the Bee "Heard" a concerned taxpayer was unhappy with Mayor Schroeder's push to have year round events. This concerned citizen felt that more concentration of tax dollars should go to addressing the sewer problems, road work and rat infestation.

    First ask yourself what & who benefits from this? The Village is spending a lot of tax dollars for large ticket items like a new fire truck, I think they can spend taxpayer money more wisely IMO.
    This must be an element of the so-called new "PROGRESSIVE" era promised by the new Mayor. Makes one think did people understand the meaning of "PROGRESSIVE?"

    In this case, it may be argued that expanded Special Events may lead to a form of expanding government, in order to expand private wallets. That does not sound like a policy that a conservative would sign on to, unless the conservative has a "special interest" in pursuing such a policy. IMHO.

    As the saying goes, you get what you pay for. In this case, you got what you voted for.

    In fairness, Mayor Schroeder did not mislead anyone. He said he wanted "Progressive" government, and the people got what they voted for.

  3. #3
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Wouldn't expanding special events expand the money in the wallet of the mayor's dalliance partner the current Town of Lancaster councilwoman?

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #4
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,306
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Wouldn't expanding special events expand the money in the wallet of the mayor's dalliance partner the current Town of Lancaster councilwoman?
    There were concerns expressed in 2016, which suggested that Russ Sugg's proposed "Citizens Advisory Committee" was a needless additional burden on the Village of Lancaster government. I am specifically referring to remarks in the June 30, 2016 edition of the Lancaster Bee which held that the Village of Lancaster had an attorney, and the attorney was in the perfect position to supervise the ethical behavior of village personnel, and therefore, such a Committee was not necessary.

    "Who better than the Village Attorney to run ethics?," I believe was the operative quote in the June 30, 2016 edition of "The Bee."

    That exact same edition of "The Bee" also related remarks that such a Committee was a political ploy; something for Russ "to hang his hat on."

    Moreover, there were also expressions by some Lancaster officials of citizen disinterest, with implied concerns that the training of the citizen-participants would be difficult and costly.

    Seriously?

    I look at it this way:

    (1) I think that it is fair to assume that an expanded "Special Events" calendar may, in a sense, needlessly add to the burdens of village government.

    (2) I think it appropriate to question whether there exists significant citizen interest in expanding the "Special Events" calendar.

    (3) I pretty sure that such an expansion would increase government costs.


    Hmmmm?

    The concerns of additional burdens on government, citizen interest, higher government operating costs, can and should be disregarded for the fun and games of "Special Events," but were prohibitive obstacles toward the adoption of citizen-based ethics reform.

    Perhaps, the two "issues" are not mutually exclusive?

    He told ya so. We miss you Government Watch Dog Sugg.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; June 22nd, 2017 at 07:22 PM.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    53
    Why wouldn't the Mayor Schroeder push for more events year round. This way his Partner in crime will be able to take more of a cut from more of these events. Their master plan.
    More events that he gets to sign off on means more Money $$ for Dawn Gaczewski.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    With so many concerned taxpayers complaining about the excessive taxes in the village, I would think it be fiscally prudent for the board to start looking at ways to reduce the tax burden, not increase it. The board no longer has a board member that sits on that board that looks out, challenges and debates the issues. The village residents need to take it upon themselves to become more involved by attending those village meetings. Voice your opinion and challenge the board.

    Let's remember this is an election year.....

  7. #7
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,306
    With so many concerned taxpayers complaining about the excessive taxes in the village, I would think it be fiscally prudent for the board to start looking at ways to reduce the tax burden, not increase it.
    It seems to me that the VOL-expand government bunch may have been embolden by the Village of Depew dismemberment vote. Perhaps the VOL Board feels that village residents, like their brethren in Depew, are strongly committed to retaining the VOL as an independent political sub-divison.

    Perhaps growth bunch is correct. However, for them to approach their decision making with the inference that such a resident commitment carries with it, an unchecked mandate to do and spend, what they want, when the want, and how they want, would in my view, be a serious mistake.

    In that connection, I believe that the members of the VOL Board would be well served if they would remind themselves that in 1990, the VOL overwhelmingly voted to keep the village police force. Yet, within thirteen years, the 1990 retention mandate gave way to the 2003 VOL-Town Police merger. The moral of that story is, voter, and legislative, attitudes shift to meet the real or perceived need for change.

    If the VOL Board wants the village to remain "independent and viable entity," they need to stop the unnecessary and whimsical growth of government, and the attendant spending. IMHO

    The board no longer has a board member that sits on that board that looks out, challenges and debates the issues. The village residents need to take it upon themselves to become more involved by attending those village meetings. Voice your opinion and challenge the board.


    Shortstuff, I agree with the need for increased citizen scrutiny and public engagement.

    But, the fact of the matter is, that, in the recent past, the VOL Board seemingly signaled indifference, or perhaps even open hostility, to the publicly expressed concerns of their constituents. At times, certain members of the VOL Board, and other village agents, reacted with some rather tyrannical tactics, some of which, clearly and blatantly contradicted standards and methods prescribed by NYS law.

    Therefore, I can see why many VOL residents accept many VOL Board practices and decisions with a resigned, melancholy indifference.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; June 28th, 2017 at 10:53 AM.

  8. #8
    Member sharky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    2,183
    "First ask yourself what & who benefits from this?"

    Without know the exact types of events in question my gut reaction is: The vendors that supply goods and services to the gov't for the event. Most likely vendors that coincidentally also made campaign contributions.
    Sure an event that brings foot traffic to a business district will likely help those businesses to some degree too but the first place to look is kickbacks
    Vote for freedom, not political parties.
    Politicians need to cut spending

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by sharky View Post
    "First ask yourself what & who benefits from this?"

    Without know the exact types of events in question my gut reaction is: The vendors that supply goods and services to the gov't for the event. Most likely vendors that coincidentally also made campaign contributions.
    Sure an event that brings foot traffic to a business district will likely help those businesses to some degree too but the first place to look is kickbacks
    Now you are on to something........

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    It seems to me that the VOL-expand government bunch may have been embolden by the Village of Depew dismemberment vote. Perhaps the VOL Board feels that village residents, like their brethren in Depew, are strongly committed to retaining the VOL as an independent political sub-divison.

    Perhaps growth bunch is correct. However, for them to approach their decision making with the inference that such a resident commitment carries with it, an unchecked mandate to do and spend, what they want, when the want, and how they want, would in my view, be a serious mistake.

    In that connection, I believe that the members of the VOL Board would be well served if they would remind themselves that in 1990, the VOL overwhelmingly voted to keep the village police force. Yet, within thirteen years, the 1990 retention mandate gave way to the 2003 VOL-Town Police merger. The moral of that story is, voter, and legislative, attitudes shift to meet the real or perceived need for change.

    If the VOL Board wants the village to remain "independent and viable entity," they need to stop the unnecessary and whimsical growth of government, and the attendant spending. IMHO





    Shortstuff, I agree with the need for increased citizen scrutiny and public engagement.

    But, the fact of the matter is, that, in the recent past, the VOL Board seemingly signaled indifference, or perhaps even open hostility, to the publicly expressed concerns of their constituents. At times, certain members of the VOL Board, and other village agents, reacted with some rather tyrannical tactics, some of which, clearly and blatantly contradicted standards and methods prescribed by NYS law.

    Therefore, I can see why many VOL residents accept many VOL Board practices and decisions with a resigned, melancholy indifference.

    I'll take a phrase out of the pages of Lee's book, You are "spot on" Mark. But the village board should not assume too much, wasn't not too long ago the citizens of the Village of Lancaster talking about downsizing the board? Hamlets as quaint as they may be historically, cannot sustain themselves therefore downsizing might be the only option in most cases.

    I have a question for you, what happened to the grant money the village was trying to garner for the restoration off Central Avenue where the NY store is (I forget the name of that street)?

  11. #11
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,306
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    I'll take a phrase out of the pages of Lee's book, You are "spot on" Mark. But the village board should not assume too much, wasn't not too long ago the citizens of the Village of Lancaster talking about downsizing the board? Hamlets as quaint as they may be historically, cannot sustain themselves therefore downsizing might be the only option in most cases.

    I have a question for you, what happened to the grant money the village was trying to garner for the restoration off Central Avenue where the NY store is (I forget the name of that street)?
    West Main Shortstuff. As for the grant money, ???

  12. #12
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,306
    Quote Originally Posted by sharky View Post
    "First ask yourself what & who benefits from this?"

    Without know the exact types of events in question my gut reaction is: The vendors that supply goods and services to the gov't for the event. Most likely vendors that coincidentally also made campaign contributions.
    Sure an event that brings foot traffic to a business district will likely help those businesses to some degree too but the first place to look is kickbacks
    I agree with the "foot traffic" conclusion, IN THEORY. But, based on my observations, and my understanding of the hearsay observations of others, the practical application of that theory is seemingly reduced when the "foot traffic" pattern leads only to the "Special Events" tents and tables, and to store fronts with "CLOSED" signs in their windows. If the "Special Events" are to serve the ancillary purpose of business generation, it would helpful if the businesses stayed open.

    As such, it would seem as though the benefits to village businesses, other than the "Special Events" contractor, are highly limited, and therefore, do not appear to be an equitable exchange for the inconvenience to the residents, the transiting public, and the additional government costs, which necessarily arise out of the "Special Events."
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; June 28th, 2017 at 04:59 PM.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    53
    There should be some type of separation of the Town Councilperson / events coordinator and the Village Mayor on these ideas.
    To what benefit, would the Village have adding more events?
    Only to have the Events coordinator and Mayor Benefit, as they share the same address.
    Isn't this the same idea as Dawn G submitting vouchers to Mr. Schroeder as a trustee sign off on (some in question).
    There must be some transparency as to what each event costs with Overtime of Village employees and police. As other Towns and Villages are cutting back, it seems that the Village wants to spend more or some take a bigger cut padding their pockets!

  14. #14
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,306
    There should be some type of separation of the Town Councilperson / events coordinator and the Village Mayor on these ideas.

    In the opinion of the VOL Board, and its attorney, the "Special Events Coordinator's" alleged private, personal relationship with the Mayor, does not constitute any sort of conflict of interest.

    (After all, citizen-based ethics oversight is unnecessary, and who is better than the village attorney to oversee ethics?:)

    The fact that the Coordinator also serves as a Town Council Member appears to be irrelevant.

    UP TO THIS POINT IN TIME, based on what is PUBLICLY KNOWN, I guess most of the people of the VOL, are comfortable with the entire arrangement.

  15. #15
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,306
    "Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly."

    Matthew 6


    http://www.lancasterbee.com/news/201..._veterans.html

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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