26 more days, People!
This is my feeble attempt to get excited about this election. There's really no enthusiasm out there on the streets. There is, however, a whole lot of discontent and grumbling, especially about the fire special assessment because every property owner knows it is unnecessary and just a way to grab the cash. We have expressed our outrage to our elected officials who won't buy it other than Scott Maxwell who has now completely seen the light and realizes this tax has nothing to do with fire services.
6 more days, People!
Come next week, Commissioner McVoy will vote for 42B-2011, the fire assessment, thus taking Waterman off the hook. It is close to being criminal in raising taxes right now. It is especially stupid to do so right before an election. But even worse than all of that is just voting for it.
On September 22, 2011, the Commission adopted Resolution 34-2011 establishing the fire assessment. It came back on October 4 due to an error in the notice to 2,350 properties that never got the first mailed notice and was essentially defeated on a 2/2 vote as McVoy was absent. However, the city attorney, who is supposed to report to the City Commission and give it the best legal advice that she can muster, failed to give all the options to the Commission. A very nervous Susan Stanton was sitting on the dais, very worried that this cash grab of $1.45 million would fail because they were one vote short because of McVoy's absence. Her face was ashen. The City Attorney came through for Stanton like a trooper. And why not? She was recommended for the lead attorney position by who other, Susan Stanton, and she was just voted another contract by the Commission.
The City Attorney, Elaine Humphreys, said essentially, "not to worry," that if the vote fails tonight because of a tie, it can come back at the next meeting...commission rule #6. The Commission allowed that to happen. Why didn't Maxwell say that he didn't want it to come back? A motion should have been made to table indefinitely. You can even waive the rules. Who knows if that motion might have died too but it would have forced Waterman to put up or shut up. Therefore, in spite of the vote, 2/2, the dissenters on the Commission inadvertently ended up putting the city taxpayer in jeopardy because of the lack of understanding of Robert's Rules as well as the City Attorney's silence.
The entire process has been faulty from inception. The City never got a bill for pension services. It never got word from the Actuary notifying the City of a pending shortage. This is a bogus tax. I question whether the City can use an Ordinance passed in August 2009 for this fire assessment. This fire, grab the cash, special assessment should be by Ordinance, not Resolution.
Who knows if a new city commission won't over-throw this cash grab.
OK I will bite,,, I am excited about this election. Why? Because I really hope that this is the election that rings in change for a positive preservation of Lake Worth partnered with positive business growth in a responsible manner.
ReplyDeleteYes I really believe that can be achieved and it can bring various people from different ideas together to embrace a better Lake Worth and understand that many goals across the divide can be achieved.
Why do I think this? Because I have faith in people, places and the ability to converse in reasonable debate without the radical side of left or right holding out.
We in the middle need to stand up and think about why we are not a part of this and all movements and set things right.
THERE is a field of play that we can all land on but everyone needs to learn how compromise and agreements can be made. Once one or the other decides that they have the ONLY idea the works that is where communications break down and progress in ANY form can not move forward.
With all faith that We The People can come together....I believe we can move forward and rebuild the economy of Lake Worth.
Well, it sounds like a campaign speech to me. :) But then, Waterman is saying essentially the same thing. The problem with politicians is that they all believe these things going into office. It's after they are there for awhile is when the problems begin. What can we do about that? How do we keep all of this idealistic stuff on the table?
ReplyDelete