Seekonk Talks

This forum is a place to discuss all things Seekonk. We are not affiliated with the Town of Seekonk.
 
HomeGalleryRegisterLog in
SPECIAL TOWN VOTE AUG 31ST!!! VOTE YAY OR NAY FOR THE NORTH FIRE STATION RENOVATION!!!
September 2018
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
CalendarCalendar
Newspapers

Share | 
 

 Why "NO"?

Go down 
AuthorMessage
seek2mend
Senior Member
Senior Member


Posts : 172
Join date : 2009-02-16

20100406
PostWhy "NO"?

Am I missing something? Can anyone who voted no on the question explain why?
scratch
Back to top Go down
View user profile

 Similar topics

-
» Special offer "VoipSwitch is just $160" VOIPAXIS
» Special offer "VoipSwitch is just $160" VOIPAXIS
» Selenium RC; Permission denied on session.([error] Element not found ")
» "Don't mistake my kindness for weakness."
» What would be "gadget nirvana" for you?
Share this post on: diggdeliciousredditstumbleuponslashdotyahoogooglelive

Why "NO"? :: Comments

Re: Why "NO"?
Post on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:07 am  tombenoit
I was stuck at work and did not get a chance to vote - but - would have voted YES. However; after having been involved since the late 1980s, I believe I can speculate on the reason someone might have voted NO.

1. There is a fundamental aversion to approving anything that even smells like an over-ride.

2. There is a true lack of understanding of the difference between an over-ride and a debt exclusion.

3. There was very little public discussion on this item and it may have caught people off guard at the polls.

4. Some who understand the items above resent the 'bait and switch' tactic of spending the money and then putting it before the voters to switch the funding.

5. Some who understand the items above resent the position of the selectmen that they have the right to spend money using the 'debt runoff'. They continue to say taxes will not go up - but - avoid the fact that taxes would go down if they did not 're-spend' it.

I have not seen the voting numbers, but I would not be surprised to see this on a ballot again. I believe we will see a significant rise in the trash fee with less of it going toward trash collection and more of it going to toward these other projects. As it continues to rise, more people may start to opt for a collection services and get a waiver. As more get a waiver, the costs will be spread over fewer households and cause the fee to increase at an increasing rate.

Just one person's view. I look forward to seeing others.
Re: Why "NO"?
Post on Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:36 am  seek2mend
I am not surprised the question failed. However, I thought the vote would have been closer. 680 (yes) to 419 (no) suggests a massive failure to communicate. IMO, the BOS should have directed Mr Carroll to hit each local newspaper with an explanation of the question. And maybe a board member or two should have penned a personal letter to the editor.

I recall during the 2006 override the late Thorn Mead did an admirable job giving unbiased information in the Star regarding that override. I think the same should have been done in this case.
avatar
Re: Why "NO"?
Post on Tue Apr 06, 2010 3:19 pm  mkreyssig
there were two reasons I voted no 1 - There was no discussion and 2 - there was no amount specified on the ballot question.

And yes...if the fees become outrages i will just go with a service.
Re: Why "NO"?
Post on Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:13 pm  tombenoit
I can understand reason #1. For clarification on item, 2 - you are not allowed to put a dollar amount on a debt exclusion ballot. The vote approves the project at whatever town meeting approves. Which raises a question. Since debt exclusion are typically related to items approved for funding by town meeting - how did this work where it was already spent? And - was the money appropriated by Town meeting specifically or was it approved by the selectmen?
Re: Why "NO"?
Post on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:31 pm  seek2mend
Tom,

Basically, a bylaw change now allows town meeting to approve funding for virtually anything if it can remotely be tied to trash removal. The dollar amount is irrelevant.

If Town Meeting votes to fund a legitimate capital expense through the Town Sanitation Enterprise (slush) Fund, the town is on the hook for said expense. And if people like Mike do decide to take their business elsewhere, the results could be devastating to the residents and the town. IMO, this could even affect operating budgets.

Town meeting voted to fund the landfill capping through the Sanitation fund. I guess this fund is our collaterell?

I think I read somewhere that there is going to be a review of the bylaws. This bylaw should be repealed.
Re: Why "NO"?
Post   Sponsored content
 

Why "NO"?

Back to top 

Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Seekonk Talks :: Local Seekonk Topics-
Jump to:  

Free forum | © phpBB | Free forum support | Contact | Report an abuse | Forumotion.com