|
CICERO |
November 22, 2010, 12:46pm |
|
Hero Member
Posts
18,232
Reputation
68.00%
Reputation Score
+17 / -8
Time Online
702 days 15 hours 7 minutes
|
Cicero - BG voted 'yes' because FDG 'promised the people a chance to vote' or something like that...I can't remember the exact wording. It had NOTHING to do with him supporting it. And I challenge you to show otherwise.
Uhh...He voted "Yes". Doesn't that count as proof? He could have voted "No" and then given one of his classic long winded explainantions why. I guess I'm still old school, when a yes vote meant you support it, and no meant you oppose it. But according the Hack - not in this case. |
| |
|
|
|
|
AVON |
November 22, 2010, 1:19pm |
|
Hero Member
Posts
785
Reputation
83.33%
Reputation Score
+10 / -2
Time Online
109 days 14 hours 28 minutes
|
Uhh...He voted "Yes". Doesn't that count as proof? He could have voted "No" and then given one of his classic long winded explainantions why.
I guess I'm still old school, when a yes vote meant you support it, and no meant you oppose it. But according the Hack - not in this case.
Cicero is correct again! T.B. mistake #1, ND changes language of referendum language to include REMS as designated provider if Ambulance District vote passes. This made a relatively simple referendum (although be it unnecessary) into a political football. Mistake #2 everyone approves this. All showed their cards on this as Cicero points out. Mistake #3 will be not postponing/cancelling vote based on the audit/investigation as to where the money went, which would have corrected mistake #1 & #2. Part of the audit should be a total tally of all the bailout money provided along with all the possible ALS funding that would have occurred in that time frame so the taxpayers get a better handle on what they have paid to date. It is only the Town's responsibility to assure their is ambulance service, not get embroiled with the politics of what provider it may or may not be. Rule number one, only support what is the best interests of the municipality with respect to cost and service. Any other path is a one-term mentality, IMO. |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
TippyCanoe |
November 22, 2010, 2:09pm |
|
displaced by development Hero Member
Posts
1,636
Reputation
55.56%
Reputation Score
+5 / -4
Time Online
38 days 16 hours 11 minutes
|
The audit gives BG and others a non-voting out
No $ in next years budget and no contract and you have a self sustaining company
Bring me an RFP for how much you will be paying the town of rotterdam |
| Talking to each other is better than talking about each other |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
DemocraticVoiceOfReason |
November 22, 2010, 2:31pm |
|
Hero Member
Posts
12,321
Reputation
20.83%
Reputation Score
+10 / -38
Time Online
151 days 7 hours 5 minutes
|
Other than the few people who post here, I have yet to meet anyone who opposes REMs and who will vote no on December 14. Every resident that I have met -- loves REMS .. does NOT want to privatize the ambulance service ... and is planning to vote YES on December 14.
No wonder the naysayers are so apoplectic.
[b]Vote YES on December 14[/b]
|
| George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color] "For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
AVON |
November 22, 2010, 2:53pm |
|
Hero Member
Posts
785
Reputation
83.33%
Reputation Score
+10 / -2
Time Online
109 days 14 hours 28 minutes
|
Other than the few people who post here, I have yet to meet anyone who opposes REMs and who will vote no on December 14. Every resident that I have met -- loves REMS .. does NOT want to privatize the ambulance service ... and is planning to vote YES on December 14.
No wonder the naysayers are so apoplectic.
[b]Vote YES on December 14[/b]
Should this be true, then the T.B. wasted their time putting together a budget and going through multiple iterations to trim it so as to not burden tax payers. It would be obvious that taxes are of little to no concern to the residents. This debacle is a better example of abuse of power rather than advocacy for the residents. It will be interesting to see how your friends feel after an audit and investigation shows how much money was diverted from taxpayers over the years to float your provider. And your friends should know that the "soft billing" process is history, no matter who the provider is since total fiscal disclosure and transparency will be the new norm. No matter how you look at it, The Party's Over! |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
gadfly |
November 22, 2010, 4:51pm |
|
Hero Member
Posts
1,421
Reputation
81.82%
Reputation Score
+9 / -2
Time Online
17 days 21 hours 55 minutes
|
Gadfly - I don't have those answers for you, but I suspect it has something to do with proving the residents don't want REMS as their provider. Trust me on this one, BG is NOT a fan of REMS. If he had his druthers, he would have crushed them the last time he was on the board(which he tried to do...hence the no contract for years upon years).
BTW - The 'deferring to the public' was a last ditch effort by the former super to win election, not political retribution. Or at least not from what I've heard. He actually had the votes on the board to push it through, but it would have been political suicide. But it didn't matter in the end...
Cicero - BG voted 'yes' because FDG 'promised the people a chance to vote' or something like that...I can't remember the exact wording. It had NOTHING to do with him supporting it. And I challenge you to show otherwise. Again, I have a feeling this whole charade has to do with building a case to yank REMS certificate of need.
In this case, the easiest way to couch the whole issue would have been to tell Mohawk the town won't even consider a switch of providers until the end if 2011, budget the usual amount of money for REMS then put the tax district up to vote. If it's shot down, then start the next discussion: Do we want to fund REMS through the general fund. By that point, the board would have a better idea of what REMS financial needs are...Have a public hearing and the do a straight-up vote among the board. Then you find out where their true allegiances lie.
It's true that there are Board Members who don't want this tax district...FDG has told me himself that he doesn't want it...by many accounts, BG doesn't favor it either...still others do not believe it will pass, for the same reason they intend to vote no...that voters will never approve the measure given the options, and especially the latest circumstances. What they do not seem to understand is that the vast majority of these voters have no clue...while the Town Attorney lies about information that was supposed to be mailed to voters...that surely will not include details of the private tax-free option...which would make it a useless waste of money...if it is ever mailed. BG couldn't have squashed this if he wanted to...the majority of Steve's Board would have opposed because they were too busy the kissing special interest a$$ who want this new patronage pit. Steve made a number of u-turns...all meant to bolster his re-election chances...but he would have rammed this through if not for the political screwing that occurred before he used the public as a scapegoat when the timing was convenient for him...he never considered negative consequences for his actions...not even after he backed out of the deal. If this is a "charade" on the parts of FDG and BG it is a highly risky game to play with the wallets of taxpayers...they should eliminate that risk by cancelling the vote...they already have a more than strong enough case to do so...and to void their Certificate of Need. I disagree with the course you recommend...we should not budget anymore money for this operation...and if the tax vote goes forward and fails, to finance one more cent out of the budget would be an affront to the will of the electorate who would have already opposed spending their tax dollars on REMS in the form of a defeated referendum. |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Alan S. Satchel |
November 22, 2010, 5:20pm |
|
Guest User |
ever wander how rems would reeact too a call at gadflys house
think they wood let mohauk get it |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
GrahamBonnet |
November 22, 2010, 9:35pm |
|
Hero Member
Posts
9,643
Reputation
66.67%
Reputation Score
+16 / -8
Time Online
131 days 7 hours 47 minutes
|
Maybe they would both go on coffee break and let you expire since you a waste of life and drag on society. |
| "While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat." |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
DemocraticVoiceOfReason |
November 22, 2010, 10:12pm |
|
Hero Member
Posts
12,321
Reputation
20.83%
Reputation Score
+10 / -38
Time Online
151 days 7 hours 5 minutes
|
Quoted from 795
ever wander how rems would reeact too a call at gadflys house
think they wood let mohauk get it
REMS would respond in a timely and professional manner as they have always done. |
| George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color] "For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Admin |
November 23, 2010, 5:26am |
|
Board Moderator
Posts
18,484
Reputation
64.00%
Reputation Score
+16 / -9
Time Online
769 days 23 minutes
|
Quoted Text
Mohonasen school project, Rotterdam ambulance votes set in same week Tuesday, November 23, 2010 By Michael Goot (Contact) Gazette Reporter
ROTTERDAM — Anyone who owns property in the Mohonasen Central School District can vote two days in a row next month. A proposed vote on Mohonasen’s $43.4 million building project is scheduled for Dec. 13. The next day, property owners in Rotterdam will head to the polls to decide whether to create an ambulance taxing district for Rotterdam Emergency Medical Services (REMS)................>>>>..................>>>>.................http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2010/nov/23/1123_mohonvote/
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
bumblethru |
November 24, 2010, 7:50pm |
|
Hero Member
Posts
30,841
Reputation
78.26%
Reputation Score
+36 / -10
Time Online
412 days 18 hours 59 minutes
|
Can someone verify this for me?
I heard that IF this vote passes and rems gets it's taxing district, the rotterdam town board will no longer be in control, so to say, over rems' taxing and finance. REMS would form it's own board. This self created board would be the ones to vote, approve or disapprove of any increases to the rotterdam taxpayers in the future.
Is this true???? |
| When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche “How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
MobileTerminal |
November 24, 2010, 8:06pm |
|
Guest User |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Shadow |
November 24, 2010, 8:30pm |
|
Hero Member
Posts
11,107
Reputation
70.83%
Reputation Score
+17 / -7
Time Online
448 days 17 minutes
|
It would take another referendum vote on the issue to dissolve the tax district and that's why the tax district should never be formed but keep it as a budget item that can be controlled. |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
gadfly |
November 24, 2010, 10:18pm |
|
Hero Member
Posts
1,421
Reputation
81.82%
Reputation Score
+9 / -2
Time Online
17 days 21 hours 55 minutes
|
Can someone verify this for me?
I heard that IF this vote passes and rems gets it's taxing district, the rotterdam town board will no longer be in control, so to say, over rems' taxing and finance. REMS would form it's own board. This self created board would be the ones to vote, approve or disapprove of any increases to the rotterdam taxpayers in the future.
Is this true????
The Town Board has never had any control over REMS...financial or otherwise...only the power to deliver taxpayer bailouts...as they have unwisely done. REMS has always had their own Board...and the only thing that would change with a tax district is that they would have free reign with public money as a taxing entity...rather than asking the Town for taxpayer cash, they will simply take it as they deem necessary. As Shadow points out, the benefit in financing REMS through the annual budget...if that were necessary, which it is not...it would give the Board oversight...to which REMS has never been exposed...and have always rejected any efforts to do so...despite their demonstrated inability to manage their finances or to run REMS as a self-sustaining business. |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Brad Littlefield |
November 25, 2010, 1:04pm |
|
Guest User |
I want to share a few quotes from two of our Founding Fathers.
Benjamin Franklin, the "Sage of Philadelphia", is quoted as saying in his address at the Constitutional Convention that,
"The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater the need the prince has of money for distribution among his partisans, and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure"
Though we are not ruled by a Monarchy as our Founders were prior to declaring independence from England, this assessment holds true in our Republic today.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy."
It is time that We The People resist the tendency to look to government to provide for all of our needs and, like our ancestors, learn to become self-sufficient and personally accountable for our successes and failures. Lest, we will continue to sacrifice our individual liberties. |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|