Forest Park is delivering return on investment; our administration is not in my opinion.
Since you do read the papers, which are often full of lies as you point out, you would nevertheless know I am not talking about plumbers and tree stump grinders, who actually perform services and are not "consultants", but rather consultants like Camiros, Kane McKenna, the 3 lawyers who are working on our ordinance and referenda, and others who worked on the revised building and zoning codes that allowed the Village Center, money spent on consultants for the luckless TOD plan to build monster condos, the TIF the voters voted down, the consultant who was paid 10K to "write" the Long Term Finance Committee Report although his only expertise was in propagandizing for home rule, the 10K spent of a village survey full of loaded questions - the results of which have not been published - the 14K being spent finding a new public works director with no explanation of why we cannot promote #2 and what projects we have that he is not qualified for, the man-hours and consultants required for our apparently dysfunctional plan approval process, ad infinitum, with the result we are now facing a lawsuit necessitating more lawyers, etc. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on buying parking spaces on Burlington after undercharging the VC for waiving their parking spaces.
We hear the tax increase wants to raise $450K per year for four years. I want to know what portion of 450K per year for the last four years have been spent on such things there is no evidence people wanted, thereby necessitating the tax increase. I feel certain much more than that was spent on the whole TIF process, and then the other above items.
Why should we have to FOIA this information? Why cannot it not simply be published publicly and in full? It's our money.
I have read Recreation served 5000 people this year. Is that 5000 Riversiders? Why must we subsidize out of towners when we can't afford it? Is this a law of some kind? I am sure that in the email brochure I received from Rec this year they said they were self-sustaining. Apparently I misunderstood or this is not true. Why must these activities be subsidized? I am sorry, I do not understand this at all. Again you are clawing a straw man; I do not even know what their salaries are nor have I said anything about them. I am sure there is at least one big one. Also, I did not advocate getting rid of Rec. I advocate that it be self-sustaining in a period when we cannot fund infrastructure, fire, police and the landscape that preserves our property values.
I think residents will be a darn sight more unhappy when the sewage lines break down or the houses burn down because there is not enough daytime staffing in the fire department. This was the version of Armageddon promoted last year anyway.
I am advocating prioritizing necessities over extras, a trimming of the budget, and an abandonment of overuse of consultants and lawyers. I feel the administration would be in a better position to ask for a tax increase once these are accomplished.
I am taxing myself a dollar a day to plant trees. That is something we really do need at this time, as you can see in the papers.
Posted Thursday Sep 4, 2008 10:06
#