??

they will be standing in the cold with the boot

or

they will have the traditional car wash


remember rotterdam???

or maybe they would do better at the stewarts on nott terrace just asking for cash

or for just the small sum of a dollar twenty each property owner could have the service they have gotten used to

Quoted from TippyCanoe

or for just the small sum of a dollar twenty each property owner could have the service they have gotten used to

no one actually 'gets used to' an ambulance service.....if one is that used to it then they are the users all the time and can pay
privately....JMHO

and as we all know the small sum ALWAYS grows....like a Gremlin.....

First - Great news that REMS is getting this grant to buy the new ambulances.

Second - As far as federal and state grants go .. until the entity actually receives the check and it "clears
the bank" .. promises don't mean anything.    Governor Pataki and Governor Patterson were both known
to promise grants one day and then defund the grant the next day.   Mont Pleasant was promised a bunch
of money back when Pataki and Jurzynski was in office and we only got about $200,000 of the total that
was promised.   And even that $200,000, we had to fight to keep because the city wanted to take it and
spend it in another neighborhood.

Quoted from William Pen

If they knew that these grants were available, why then did they seek the creation of a tax district?  Wasn't the
local funding supposed to be for ambulances and equipment?

Bingo! And you can believe if they were just notified of the grant award, they applied for it long before they rallied for an
unnecessary vote.

It is also my understanding that these grants are limited to fire departments and ambulance services are only eligible if they
operate out of those fire departments. We all know that won't happen...that's why the firefighters were front and center with
Tony J...they don't want REMS moving in with them.

Anyone know more about this???? Brad L....you were a volunteer at DVAC...input????

Quoted from gadfly

Bingo! And you can believe if they were just notified of the grant award, they applied for it long before they rallied for an
unnecessary vote.

It is also my understanding that these grants are limited to fire departments and ambulance services are only eligible if they
operate out of those fire departments. We all know that won't happen...that's why the firefighters were front and center with
Tony J...they don't want REMS moving in with them.

Anyone know more about this???? Brad L....you were a volunteer at DVAC...input????

The vote was necessary.  There was no guarantee in December that the grant money was coming through.  And if the vote had been positive of for the district ... the earliest that the new tax bill would have gone out
would have been in January 2012.   So if the vote had gone yes and the federal grant had come in .. as it
did .. the ambulance service would not have had to asked for the full 10 cents per thousand.

REMS had better buy those new ambulances quick before the grants get de-funded by Congress.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

The vote was necessary.  There was no guarantee in December that the grant money was coming through.  And if the vote had been positive of for the district ... the earliest that the new tax bill would have gone out
would have been in January 2012.   So if the vote had gone yes and the federal grant had come in .. as it
did .. the ambulance service would not have had to asked for the full 10 cents per thousand.

Shouldn't the residents been informed about the REMS applying for this grant and how much the grant was worth?  Shouldn't the vote have been scheduled AFTER is was determined whether or not they would receive the grant?  More egg on the face of those who support the REMS but are less than forthcoming with the facts.  

Quoted from CICERO

Shouldn't the residents been informed about the REMS applying for this grant and how much the grant was worth?  Shouldn't the vote have been scheduled AFTER is was determined whether or not they would receive the grant?  More egg on the face of those who support the REMS but are less than forthcoming with the facts.  

You can't count your chickens until the eggs have hatched.   They didn't  have the grant before the vote --
so saying that they had applied would not have made any difference.

Would it have changed your opinion of the tax district if you knew - for certain - that the grant was coming?

And as for being forthcoming --- was Mohawk forthcoming that it paid for anti-tax district signs ?  No .. that
information was not even on the signs.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

You can't count your chickens until the eggs have hatched.   They didn't  have the grant before the vote --
so saying that they had applied would not have made any difference.

Would it have changed your opinion of the tax district if you knew - for certain - that the grant was coming?

And as for being forthcoming --- was Mohawk forthcoming that it paid for anti-tax district signs ?  No .. that
information was not even on the signs.

Mohawk did a MUCH BETTER JOB than REMS OR OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS informing the public prior to the vote.  Now we find out that REMS and our elected officials didn't make the residents aware that they APPLIED for a grant to purchase equipment.  I'm sure the REMS crowd didn't want the info getting out, showing how they contiue to have their hands in the taxpayers pockets.  Who filed the grant for REMS?  GP and Salamone?

Quoted from CICERO

Mohawk did a MUCH BETTER JOB than REMS OR OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS informing the public prior to the vote.  Now we find out that REMS and our elected officials didn't make the residents aware that they APPLIED for a grant to purchase equipment.  I'm sure the REMS crowd didn't want the info getting out, showing how they contiue to have their hands in the taxpayers pockets.  Who filed the grant for REMS?  GP and Salamone?

The problem with the Nattering Nayboobs of Negativity is that they cn not possibly say anything positive about
certain people or, in this case, a certain organization that they have decided is "evil.

Admit it, you folks have never been objective on the issue.   For some reason  (and I suspect a few of you
are being "taken care of" to be attack dogs), you folks want to destroy REMS.    Well, it won't work.   Too many
of us want REMS to stay and we wish it continued success for many years to come.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

The problem with the Nattering Nayboobs of Negativity is that they cn not possibly say anything positive about
certain people or, in this case, a certain organization that they have decided is "evil.

Admit it, you folks have never been objective on the issue.   For some reason  (and I suspect a few of you
are being "taken care of" to be attack dogs), you folks want to destroy REMS.    Well, it won't work.   Too many
of us want REMS to stay and we wish it continued success for many years to come.

No, you're wrong. We have been objective - and by majority vote, declined creating another tax district, period. The voters rejected a company
doing the job that a for-profit company is willing to do, with financial GAIN to the town, rather than financial DRAIN.

Again, the majority have spoken, why can't you accept it?

Quoted from 147

No, you're wrong. We have been objective - and by majority vote, declined creating another tax district, period. The voters rejected a company
doing the job that a for-profit company is willing to do, with financial GAIN to the town, rather than financial DRAIN.

Again, the majority have spoken, why can't you accept it?

The current issue has nothing to do with the referendum.  This thread is about the federal grant to purchase
2 new ambulances.     I am glad they got the grant and I hope they win the contract to be the sole
ambulance provider for the town.