Now that we are going through budget discussion it brings to mind September 2011 when Scott Maxwell was against just about everything when it came to the budget. He was just plain ornery in general. If the "other" side wanted it, he was against it. It was his belief that he was sitting on the dais with a bunch of tree huggers, anarchists, socialists and people who just wanted the worst for our city. Of course, it was under their leadership that we finally got out of the red.
In that year we were actually spending less than revenues for the second time since 2006. Scott was irate and put on a good show that was all political pandering to his political base. He couldn't stand Stanton and disapproved of anything and everything that she was trying to accomplish to get our city out of the black hole in order to get our city healthy. He told everyone that and politically undermined the majority.
In a scornful way, Maxwell said that "Government likes to spend money. We have discovered a new source of revenue to spend more money."
An assessment for fire pensions was the narrative of the day and Maxwell was ticked...so was I but not for the same reason as he. This was to cover PENSIONS, not fire services. Maxwell never suggested that the millage be reduced back then to accommodate this fire assessment. Although he was against the tax, he said that he thought it fair that every property owner pay the same fee as they were getting the same service. What service? It was for freaking pensions. And he has said that this "fairness" is what he believes in for the 2014 infrastructure money grab as well.
Back then the City hired Government Services Group to conduct a Study (using taxpayers money) to be used against us to see how much more the city manager, Susan Stanton, could assess and what she could legally get away with. The City's goal was to have a street light assessment implemented on October 1, 2011 according to the city's directive. The city commission had agreed with this assessment too, another thing that I was against.
Back then, Maxwell also dissented on the Capital Improvement Program for 2012/2016 (5 year plan) approval of $58,264,983 passed 4/1. Now what does he support with gusto? He has suggested that he is all for reducing the millage rate and is all in favor of a new source of revenue where every parcel of property will be tied up in debt for over thirty years for? You got it--capital improvements to the tune of $63.5 million. The big difference is grabbing the money all at once. He is all for the biggest capital improvement plan in 100 years.
As a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative, he's not screaming now against more taxes. Now who's disingenuous?
It makes me wonder what's really going on.
ReplyDeleteOn Tuesday night, Maxwell said that back in 2002 the city wanted to spend money on "educating" the people on the $19 million general obligation bond that they wanted to pass for beach redevelopment and that he was AGAINST it. I have no knowledge if they appropriated money towards this. But we do know that he is NOW FOR IT, spending $50 thousand to ensure that this infrastructure GO passes.
ReplyDeleteMoney has a bad habit of disappearing in Lake Worth.Maxwell says we have no debt. Is he in denial or just incredibly ignorant? He has no "plan B." for fixing our infrastructure. Why not ? These people are idiots. They have a COUNTY ROAD on their plan as receiving new roads. They don't even know which streets belong to Lake Worth !!!! Because this is not about fixing potholes. It's about grabbing as much money as possible for pipe dreams like the park of commerce. .Follow the money and find out (if you can) who will benefit from this cash cow. Now all together-- MOOOOOO !
ReplyDeleteIf Maxwell keeps telling the lie about no debt my head will explode! I have lived here for 17 years and I know the truth. Perhaps in his world we have no debt but for honest hard working families who live within their budgets we know this is a lie!!! It is because of politicians like him our spending is out of control. BORROW! SPEND AND BORROW SOME MORE until we go bankrupt.
ReplyDeleteHe's just as incompetent as McVoy
ReplyDeleteMcVoy was RIGHT ON this past Tuesday night...brought up all the pertinent points on the bond as well as the city using taxpayer money, 50 thous, to campaign for it.
ReplyDeleteMcVoy mimicked everyone else but voted no. He needs to make up his mind on whether or not he's for it. He tells us one thing then up on the dias, but contradicts himself outside of the Commission meetings
ReplyDeleteHe did not "mimick" anyone who is on the dais. He is anything but a parrot. He voted NO on the bond issue and he voted NO on the city grabbing $50,000 to campaign for it. He is all for fixing potholes, however. I have NO knowledge of what he says outside the commission meeting. Why would he say anything different?
ReplyDeleteI watched both meetings and McVoy absolutely said in both meetings he was for the bond and for the $50k to mail the notices out, however he could not vote for them because they didn't do anything to address sea level rise. He was very clear. In fact if you watch the video he actually says he is for it fundamentally like the rest of the commission because it is needed, but will vote no because more time is needed to study it, in his opinion. To say he is against it in principle is 100% incorrect. His position is he is only against it due to no consideration of climate change.
ReplyDeleteDid someone say that McVoy was against it in "principle?"
ReplyDeleteEveryone, unless you are brain dead, of course, knows that we need road repairs. It is the $63.5 mil for 35 years that is bothersome along with other "details."