Scrutinizing the provisional ballots--
photos by David Brodie
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
City officials at the Supervisor of Elections in Riviera Beach
Comment Up
Scrutinizing the provisional ballots--
Lake Worth had 33 provisional ballots. Of those, 7 were from people who had come back and voted at the polls and 26 were from precincts in LW, most from N K St. 21 of the 26 were rejected. 5 were accepted. So the vote total could change by 5 at most either way. It is likely the margin will stay the same.
Laurence McNamara and David Brodie were in attendance representing the interests of CAUT. David reported that the city attorney, Glen Torcivia, asserted objections to the board’s rejection of the ballots. The ballots were in sealed envelopes so we could not determine how the voter cast his or her vote on the bond referendum. Regardless, even if all 5 voted “For” the bond, it would still be insufficient to overcome the 26 vote deficit or narrow the margin below .5% to authorize a recount.
It is expected that the vote will soon be certified.
photos by David Brodie
Scrutinizing the provisional ballots--
photos by David Brodie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Pam looks different - not as confident or even scared!
The vote for the bond did not fail because it was a bad idea; it failed because of the terms.
THE BOND WILL PASS (BY A LANDSLIDE!) WHEN THE COMMISSION RETHINKS HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THE UPGRADES!
Everyone agrees fixing the streets and the infrastructure is a great idea. Simply find a different way to pay for it. Do not tax just a few. TAX EVERONE! As everyone will benefit from changes, this makes more sense. Create and pass the required law, create another category such as ‘Streets and Infrastructure’, and include this payment request with the electric bill. Lower the amount of the bond and the number of years to pay it off.
It is not a matter of ‘these people’ and us. What a foolish and divisive point of view. We are all one, as residents and neighbors who want to live in a beautiful safe, clean city.
y9u meant to say, when the commission thinks of a more plausible plan to grab the cash.
Taxing everyone the same amount of money will not fly...totally unfair as it is taxing the more wealthy property owners to pick up the tab.
It's a crappy tax especially when you want to divert $10 mil to the Park of commerce. Just do the dang streets, worst first.
If the AGAINST people had $50 to $70 thousand dollars as you did, you would not see a landslide for grabbing the cash.
Taxing everyone for roads is clearly more fair than taxing just a few, but I somewhat agree with Lynn that the tax should be in proportionate to the value of the property and I'm not sure how you do that under our current taxing scheme.
City has $20 million for roads, they should come up with a plan (coordinated with the pipe plan which is being paid by higher water rates) and focus on the areas in greatest need. Meanwhile City should focus on blight and crime issues which are much more likely to raise property values (so more people will pay City taxes) than roads.
Wy should it be proportionate? Just wondering as everyone will use the roads. Just because you have a higher appraised property shouldnt mean you have to pay more in my mind. Seems these people are always expected to pick up the tab. No difference in tax or fee makes more sense as being fair. I would need convincing on this.
Well, let's put it this way--
All taxes which are basically services provided by the local and county are based on ad-valorem. You pay according to your property value. It is the way in which property has been taxed for a generation. There is no way that a government would allow Granny who makes $6,000 a year on social security and someone affluent making $300,000 a year pay the same thing. There would be nothing left but the wealthy in this country--the rest of the people would eventually lose their homes and die...and that is not being too melodramatic but just to make a point. As we all get the same garbage collection service even though there are some families with 6 kids vs a single person who dines out, we have to pay the same fee across the board. The govt is allowed to tax this way. Unless the roads were toll roads and only those using them would have to pay to ride over them, then they have to do a general obligation bond. This would never work as those roads would only be used by the property owners on them who would have to pick up the tab for the entire roads project in front of their house. They are taxing using the only alternative available to them by law. I explained it as simply as I could this early in the am.
They should have increased their street maintenance budget instead of lowering it and start doing the worst roads first. We all know where the some of the bad ones are.
Okay...You make your point. I have to agree.
Post a Comment