Catherine - Lonnie absolutely did say, over and over, while campaigning at meetings, during debates and in print -- NO NEW TAXES. They were clear that they fought the referendum the first time and would fight it again. To say otherwise is disingenuos.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
2010 Budget
(53 posts)-
Posted Tuesday Aug 18, 2009 07:40 #
-
You are wrong. I remember quite specifically during the Town Hall the RCA had that he said quite openly he did not object to tax increases per se, that Riverside had voted tax increases in the past. He did not say he was going to ask for one.
I don't doubt that if the taxpayers were ever convinced one were absolutely necessary, they would approve it. I have said that here before. What they are not is convinced, nor will they be until the memory of all the money that was thrown out of the car is erased with lots and lots of fiscal restraint. That, and better economic times.
You are also wrong in saying that he said there would be no cuts in service. That is unknowable at this point.
As far as I am concerned, the fiscal restraint can begin with selling that lot on Burlington. The village is not going to make any money off of that. It could still be worth hundreds of thousand of dollars. You can't say you don't want more taxes but keep asking for money for things like this or all the other special pleading that is going on.
Posted Tuesday Aug 18, 2009 12:32 # -
Catherine, go back an look at the RCA print pieces. Every single print piece has the catch phrase the RCA will "hold the line on taxes."
The campaign slogan didn't say "we will try really hard not to raise taxes, but the line might be moving a couple of times." The RCA promised Riversiders they would not raise taxes, but the evil caucus will. On election day, RCA supporters handed out palm cards and told each and every voter, NO NEW TAXES, VOTE RCA! The voters took the card said, hmmm no new taxes sounds good to me, and went in and voted for no new taxes.
This is why one should never promise something they can not deliver. People tend to hold others to their word.
Posted Tuesday Aug 18, 2009 13:51 # -
Yes, and so it will remain if folks like you, the parking lot partisans, the Rec partisans, the 4th of July "self-pay" committee, etc., will stop your special pleading. If we cannot afford another cop with what crimes have been going on here, well, it just leaves me speechless. Your method is both to ask for things that cost taxpayer money, criticize RCA board members for failing to provide them, then insist on no new taxes. You do not argue in good faith but, as you said in another thread, only to partisan purposes.
You are not taking into account the downward adjustment of the projected tax revenues owing to the continued recession and revaluation of the residential properties. That has created a shortfall.
I am happy nonetheless to have the RCA realize all efficiencies to be had in the budget, and then do what they have to do prevent a tax increase for the next four years. I have no doubt this is what they intend to do, want to do and will do so long as that is what taxpayers want. What I am arguing with you is a principle. I, for example, did not trust the Caucus candidates with more tax money. If I were convinced we were down to the bare bones, I would govern myself accordingly. I am one of those voters and have said that here before, during, and after the campaign. Further, I am saying you misrepresent Trustee Sacchi's statements during the campaign.
If Rec is not held to their promises, and if that parking lot is built, then I will consider myself duly betrayed and will not ever be voting for anybody's tax increase ever again, as with District 96.
Posted Wednesday Aug 19, 2009 09:34 # -
It seems to me that a tax increase is going to be necessary, unless revenue is realized from another source. And Commonsense is absolutely correct--"holding the line" on taxes was a central theme o the RCA campaign. There was no equivocation, there was no suggestion that this might be impossible. The RCA hit this message over and over again, and directed it at the retired and fixed income residents in town. It was good campaign strategy, but I think it might be hard to deliver.
Posted Wednesday Aug 19, 2009 11:59 # -
I recieved a palm card saying just that..."no increased taxes". It was a good strategy but clearly a LIE! How sad that the promises to the elderly in this town, on a fixed income, will not be fulfilled. Mr. Gorman repeatedly said that he carefully watched and sat through many board meetings over the course of 3 years. He didn't/couldn't see that raising taxes was a possibility?? I am concerned for the village, I am concerned for the residents. I am concerned that the majority of this town voted for this board.....but.....I shouldn't be surprised. The majority voted for Bush...TWICE!!!! I pray we do not repeat the same mistake.
Posted Wednesday Aug 19, 2009 14:01 # -
newriversider said re 'no increase in taxes' is 'clearly a LIE! '
Have you heard or read that the current board (RCA members), or at least Gorman, has proposed, or is proposing now, to raise taxes? If so, please cite your source. If not, please correct your statement to more accurately reflect the truth.
Posted Wednesday Aug 19, 2009 15:00 # -
MRT, that is the point. The RCA has vowed against a tax increase. We intend to hold them to it. Do you think they can balance the budget, increase services and hold the line on taxes?
That is what they said they could do. If they ask for a tax increase, decrease services or spend our reserves, they were A) lying or B) grossly negligent in not paying attention to Village financial demands and economic trends.
Posted Wednesday Aug 19, 2009 15:16 # -
I never believed they would not raise taxes...call it a hunch on my part...get back to me in a year or less, and we will see if it is in fact a lie or the current board was able to fulfill their campaign promises.
Posted Wednesday Aug 19, 2009 15:17 # -
MY point is that the 'no increases in taxes' is NOT a lie until there are in fact increases in taxes.
Posted Wednesday Aug 19, 2009 16:10 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.