"I think they played a dangerous game of Russian Roulette with every business and property owner."~ Katie McGiveron, Chair Citizens Against Unfair Taxation PAC
"Those people would have voted 'no' . They're just against everything. I'm emotional on the issue because it would have been a step forward for the people who need it the most. Some people voted selfishly."
~ Herman Robinson, Chair Lake Worth YES PAC
"This city has been more about politics than about progress. My job just got harder because I don't have the money for the roads and infrastructure."
~ Mayor Pam Triolo
Commissioner Amoroso said that the city has some big problems and I agree. Amoroso was just asking for the basics to be done. If just getting the "basics done" is going to cost $131 million, a figure that the city failed to reveal, then we DO have a problem. When you can have 30 public meetings to push forth an agenda to re-do roads and infrastructure in our poverty ridden city that is crawling out of a major recession with high unemployment, then it was not meant to be. Taking $50,000 of taxpayer money to push your message forward, collude with a PAC formed to help you along to ensure a vote FOR, the tax was not meant to be. When you can produce document after document supporting your greedy agenda, have meeting after meeting, and spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars as well as thousands of dollars on staff time to push this forward on the property owners for 34 years, it was not meant to be.
Those who believe that some group was behind the AGAINST vote just to be against something is sadly mistaken. The group was a handful of people (the majority of whom were senior citizens) with little money and resources that brought the message to the people by walking door to door and giving them the facts of the matter, something the city failed to do.
Personally I do not believe there was any lesson to be learned here by the city. They will continue to trample on the residents in order to get their way.
Foes blame Lake Worth for over-reaching with $63.5 million bond issue.
20 comments:
Lynn,congratulations on a job well done. It is nothing short of a miracle.
Do you think that the city will now come up with another plan or start telling us the truth?
I would like the $50,000. of tax payer(ME)money, used to promote the bond returned to the tax payers because we obviously did not agree.
Katie stated the POC was out of the question, I bet if it was taken out she would still have been against the bond.
I don't hate Lake Worth, I just want NO Progress .
Katie Vote No on Everything
It is not a matter of ‘those people’ and us. What a foolish and divisive point of view. We are all one, as residents and neighbors and we all want to live in a beautiful safe, clean city. 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.
@10:17...you mis-quote Katie. Shame on you.
Golly folks, can we get off Katie's case! She has the right to say and do what she chooses the last time I checked The Constitution. Her passion and verve are admirable! There is no need to bully or belittle anyone – especially for a differing point of view. There is a way to disagree. Be still or at the very least be polite.
I will say it again Katie Is against EVERYTHING that will move this City Forward.
I agree with 10.47, almost no one is against new roads or infrastructure investment. This was a case of a group of people feeling very different about how to pay for the roads, who gets taxed, who doesn't get taxed, whether anyone could figure out how much it might cost, if the project was too big, etc.
I'm all for the improvements (although I was against spending co much in the Park of Commerce) but everyone should pay not just a few.
11:38. I doubt that Katie will want to take all of the credit for defeating this money grab by the majority of those who voted.
Lynn,
You said something really germane here, "They will continue to trample on the residents in order to get their way." This is alarming and seems so true. What many of us have noticed is that the mayor, city manager, even PBSO Capt. and many of the city board chairs, think that they are the only ones that know anything. They dismiss the public and treat us like we are uneducated and idiots. They never want the public to question anything. It is very bothersome, the leaders in our city will be so quick to ridicule the public and make them feel bad when we bring issues to them, they act as if we do not care or know anything, if we bring issues to them, they treat it like we are complaining, instead of working with us and realizing we care and want a better city and we would not bring issues of crime, blight, codes, etc. to the leaders if we didn't care. It is not that we want to be negative or complain, we care and want the best for our city and our voices and feelings matter. Unfortunately, the city leaders do not respect citizens bottom line. Unfortunate for the leaders, respect is not automatic, just because you are the mayor, police captain, CM, or board chair, or commissioner. Respect must be earned. The leaders need to earn our respect, listen to us, know we care and that what we want matters, if we didn't care we would not be involved writing to them, attending meetings, or being on PAC's to stop them from doing bad things for our city. We care bottom line, and the city leaders need to do everything they can to earn our respect for them. They need to stop treating the public like we are not educated or have knowledge of city issues. We care and we matter and city leaders need to respect that.
Lynn and Katie and Lawrence......please know that the majority of our neighborhood appreciate all your time, efforts, energy and even $ you have spent to stand up for us. There is no doubt you are demeaned and attacked for your opinions but you are all admired for your tenacity. I would sign my name but I don't want to become a target for name calling. Thank you all so much!!!!
Thanks for your words and appreciation. It's a shame that people are scared of the opposition, making complaints to the election commission or even a threat of a law suit or just their overall scrutiny in general. Pretty ridiculous when you consider the First Amendment that has been thrown in the toilet by a good percentage of them.
Scare tactics! Glad it doesn't work on you!
"I will say it again Katie Is against EVERYTHING that will move this City Forward."
HI, Katie here. The above statement is known as a "wantrum"- a written tantrum.
A message to this Commission from a very wise person- "When you willfully and deliberately turn your back on the people,be prepared to get kicked in the ass." Katie Mgiveron
Don't ever think your vote doesn't count!
The bond issue was a surprise to me. I really thought it would pass, based on my experience with doorkocking and based on the massive amounts of marketing done by the city and the pro-bond PAC "Lake Worth Yes".
I've been told the City of Lake Worth spent $50,000 and the pro-bond PAC raised $20,000. That's $70,000 for a LW campaign! To my knowledge, there has never been a campaign in the City of Lake Worth that raised this much.
The "No Bonds" PAC "Citizens for Fair Taxation" raised $6,000. Since 2005, I do not know of a campaign that won with so little funding.
Yesterday was rather dramatic. The results were not final until afternoon when around 30 provisional ballots had been examined by PBC Supervisor of Elections, Susan Bucher, and her staff. If the provisional ballots had reduced the No Bonds winning percentage to less that 0.5%, there would have been a recount. The ballot was electronic so technically a recount should not have changed anything, but there's always a chance. All's well that ends well but yesterday was a stressful day for the No Bonds campaign.
I would like to thank those people who participated with their positive thoughts and prayers. The No Bonds campaign worked their butts off and my feeling is that a little divine intervention was what was needed to push them over the top.
So now, maybe the city will go back to the drawing board and produce an infrastructure improvement plan that the residents can support.
Katie, 25 votes wasn't a "kick in the ass". It showed that there was a a lot of support for the improvements we desperately need. I also voted no on the question. Not because of the money needed for the roads in the core of the city but because of the Park of Commerce being stealthfully slipped in there.
I also had a problem with so few being on the hook for the whole amount.
The reason a General Obligation bond becomes less desirable is that so few pay for it. A Revenue Bond is more desirable because it is paid for by the money it produces.
And that is why we need to take another look at assessments. NOT for the roads project but for the pension liability we have for our former Police and Fire Departments. Every property benefited from the services provided by both departments.
Maybe it was divine intervention but in my book it was hard work every day by a handful of people. Had my blood pressure checked this morning...160 which is normally around 110, so you can see what this campaign did for me...lost 3 pounds too. Nothing is "normal" in this city and nothing is what it seems or what we are told. Transparency is the key. The city should have, and I have said it before, been totally honest with us and told us that they can't operate and they need the cash and looked at a reduced plan. Oh well. I am sure that the worst roads will be fixed and that the city will do everything within its power and means to still grab a lot of cash.
@9:39. the reason that the fire assessment did not fly was because it was not for services but rather HUGE pension benefits. Most of these taxpayers do not receive a pension. I find that these benefits are out of sight and out of control as they are bankrupting cities all across America. This administration will not Approach the unions or make a decision to go on a 401(k) type of pension benefit. We are unsustainable as a city because of these costs that hover around $88 million right now. Screw assessments for huge pensions. Rethink these horrendous costs and we just might have money to operate.
So are you suggesting that we stop paying benefits that were agreed on? I agree that they are out of control just as they are in many cities and other governmental agencies across the country. Short of bankruptcy, which for us is not an option (we own an electric utility) we must pay it. I guess you think you can go back and renegotiate the benefits back down to an affordable sum? Good luck.
Did NOT say that, anonymous at 3:21
Post a Comment