Note for next council elections...
Contributed by: Anonymous
Regarding who to vote for when their terms are up.
Scheuermann
Mattox
Tower
Castle
These four cast their votes tonight to in-effect give the council the ability to raise your property taxes by 2.3 million beyond state limits if a referendum passes.
Please remember their vote when it comes time for you to cast your vote
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Note for next council elections...
Authored by: admin on Tuesday, September 19 2006 @ 08:33 PM MDT
Let's be very clear about what they did with their vote tonight. They voted to put something on the November ballot. That's it. The electorate will have the final decision on whether or not taxes get raised. If the anti-referendum crowd is so convinced it will get voted down, they will be no worse off no matter how many councilors voted in favor of the referendum.
But, as we heard tonight, if the referendum is approved by voters, taxes may not end up being increased to the maximum as set forth in the referendum. Though I will say that Paul Esslinger and Burk Tower made accurate assessments about the wording of the referendum being questionable, and it seems to me the words "up to" could and should be added to make things more clear and help ease everyone's comfort level. But even if the levy is exceeded by the limit, it will add $53 to the city tax bill on a $100,000 property; this, as opposed to a garbage/recycling fee of $120.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about paying more, but as I said in an earlier post, though there are cuts to be made we still need to have additional revenue and I'd much rather it be on my property tax bill than not. And I think we'd all rather pay less than more.
The majority of our council, including the four mentioned by "anonymous," have targets on their backs with a certain segment in this community, and "anonymous" knows it and will use it to his/her advantage. These "anonymous" folks are the very people who will say that these councilors should be voted out for approving this referendum; but they would also say to vote them out if the referendum fails and the garbage fee ordinance remains on the books. At the same time, if both fail and services are dramatically cut, they’ll say we should vote them out because we are suffering so with these horrible cuts. "Anonymous" and those like him/her are not being reasonable or fair.
I might also add that Paul Esslinger, for all his chest-thumping about this issue, is partly to blame for our current predicament. He has, after all, served multiple terms on various councils that have continued to approve budgets containing contracts for city employees that set wages and benefits that many of us, including him, are today complaining about (though he may not have voted to approve every one of those budgets). All past councilors, especially multiple-term councilors, must share in the blame for this mess.
Remember also, that Esslinger actually argued FOR the garbage fee for several months last year and as late as May of this year, when - in the 11th hour - he conveniently changed his mind (though much too late), saying "the people don't want it." Well the people NEVER wanted it, yet Mr. Esslinger kept saying while it was the worst of two evils, it was still better than what we'd had.
Well, at this stage of the game, exceeding the levy instead of having a garbage fee may be the LESSER of two evils.
Bottom line: Let's make the cuts we need to and stop frittering money away on luxuries. But at the same time, let's be realistic instead of pig-headed and realize that if push comes to shove, we either do away with services as we now know them or pay the price. I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice most of what we have and would rather pay a smaller amount than a larger one to ensure our keeping it.
- Cheryl
Regarding who to vote for when their terms are up.
Scheuermann
Mattox
Tower
Castle
These four cast their votes tonight to in-effect give the council the ability to raise your property taxes by 2.3 million beyond state limits if a referendum passes.
Please remember their vote when it comes time for you to cast your vote
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Note for next council elections...
Authored by: admin on Tuesday, September 19 2006 @ 08:33 PM MDT
Let's be very clear about what they did with their vote tonight. They voted to put something on the November ballot. That's it. The electorate will have the final decision on whether or not taxes get raised. If the anti-referendum crowd is so convinced it will get voted down, they will be no worse off no matter how many councilors voted in favor of the referendum.
But, as we heard tonight, if the referendum is approved by voters, taxes may not end up being increased to the maximum as set forth in the referendum. Though I will say that Paul Esslinger and Burk Tower made accurate assessments about the wording of the referendum being questionable, and it seems to me the words "up to" could and should be added to make things more clear and help ease everyone's comfort level. But even if the levy is exceeded by the limit, it will add $53 to the city tax bill on a $100,000 property; this, as opposed to a garbage/recycling fee of $120.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about paying more, but as I said in an earlier post, though there are cuts to be made we still need to have additional revenue and I'd much rather it be on my property tax bill than not. And I think we'd all rather pay less than more.
The majority of our council, including the four mentioned by "anonymous," have targets on their backs with a certain segment in this community, and "anonymous" knows it and will use it to his/her advantage. These "anonymous" folks are the very people who will say that these councilors should be voted out for approving this referendum; but they would also say to vote them out if the referendum fails and the garbage fee ordinance remains on the books. At the same time, if both fail and services are dramatically cut, they’ll say we should vote them out because we are suffering so with these horrible cuts. "Anonymous" and those like him/her are not being reasonable or fair.
I might also add that Paul Esslinger, for all his chest-thumping about this issue, is partly to blame for our current predicament. He has, after all, served multiple terms on various councils that have continued to approve budgets containing contracts for city employees that set wages and benefits that many of us, including him, are today complaining about (though he may not have voted to approve every one of those budgets). All past councilors, especially multiple-term councilors, must share in the blame for this mess.
Remember also, that Esslinger actually argued FOR the garbage fee for several months last year and as late as May of this year, when - in the 11th hour - he conveniently changed his mind (though much too late), saying "the people don't want it." Well the people NEVER wanted it, yet Mr. Esslinger kept saying while it was the worst of two evils, it was still better than what we'd had.
Well, at this stage of the game, exceeding the levy instead of having a garbage fee may be the LESSER of two evils.
Bottom line: Let's make the cuts we need to and stop frittering money away on luxuries. But at the same time, let's be realistic instead of pig-headed and realize that if push comes to shove, we either do away with services as we now know them or pay the price. I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice most of what we have and would rather pay a smaller amount than a larger one to ensure our keeping it.
- Cheryl
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 7:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home