Monday, July 18, 2016

Lake Worth Commission Trio wants Three Year Terms and wants them retroactive!

Comment Up
Actually, we want to be in office for life. 
Eat Dirt!

It's unbelievable--not only do we have a 30 year bond referendum for $40 million on the Consent Agenda with NO public input, these commissioners now want three year terms.  Didn't they just read the survey where the respondents gave them a 13% very favorable rating? It's bad enough with two year terms. Look at all the damage they do and now they want to be royalty for life. Is this even legal? We all voted them into office for a two year term to end on a specified date.

We have to continually vote for things over and over again.  They are never satisfied with the results. Now they will raise money and put out press releases telling all of us why this would be such a great idea...they will tell us that it will give them more time to focus on important things in Lake Worth instead of campaigning which is hot, dirty work...just dreaming up hit pieces is exhausting. Yeah, we see how the slum, blight and crime has improved. It's really too bad that they have to go out and raise tons of money every two years and hit their special interests for big donations when they never, ever talk to their constituents during their terms.

We just had a referendum eight years ago on this very subject and the voters rejected it. Instead, I would prefer term limits...get these bums out of office every 4 years.

 Vote for 1



PercentVotes
YES
32.19% 1,517
NO
67.81% 3,195

4,712

On the Agenda Tuesday:
EXECUTIVE BRIEF
TITLE:
Ordinance No. 2016-23 – First Reading – call for a charter referendum election and schedule the public hearing date for August 2, 2016
SUMMARY:
The Ordinance amends the City Charter to extend the elected officials’ terms from two to three years and place a question on the November 8, 2016, presidential election ballot.
BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION:
The Ordinance authorizes placing a question on the November ballot. If approved by the voters, the terms for Commissioners from Districts 2 and 4 will be three years commencing in March 2017. The terms for Mayor and Commissioners from Districts 1 and 3 will be three years commencing in March 2016.
MOTION:
I move to approve/not approve Ordinance No. 2016-23 on first reading and schedule the public hearing date for

24 comments:

Lynn Anderson said...

The city, once again, will take advantage of holding this vote during a general election (last time it was a primary) where more people vote and more people are clueless when it comes to local politics and what is good or bad for the city. They count on this ignorance.

Also, it is they who have the deep pockets to get their message out...taxpayer money used against those who oppose. Anyone in opposition would have to raise all sorts of money to do the same. It's an unfair playing field and they know it.

Say NO to three year terms.

Anonymous said...

the problem in lake worth fl is---the real educated smart one would never want to be connected with lake worth ever---thats why we get these type of candidates because connection to lake worth looks terrible because of the problems they can never solve

Anonymous said...

just look at andy and how uneducated he really is

Anonymous said...

Bornstein hired this marketing person who will be kept very busy from now until November dishing our the bull. Not only does this Trio want to be in office for life, you forgot mentioning the CM who will also have a job for life. What a f*ck*ng mess.

Anonymous said...

A FACT---THEY ARE ALL IN A GROUP THAT ARE HAVING A HARD TIME PAYING THIER OWN BILLS AND KEEPING THIER FAILING BUSINESES OPENED

Anonymous said...

Making excuses allready, nice. You all mJe it so easy putting up Hartman aka Cops are Bastards, and Diane what's her face, hello where's Diane J? Where's Jerrie from the trailer park?
Looks like your only hope is to start printing the "Paper", fill it with crime reports and death, that's what sells baby!!!!

Anonymous said...

The only one who needs to start printing a paper in Lake Worth is Mark Easton.
Longer term for these three corrupt bastards? No way !What in the hell have Pam Triolo,Scott Maxwell and Andy Amoroso done during their terms? They let our roads rot. Crime slum and blight are out of control. Lake Worth still owns thousands of properties. WHY? Kick the bums out !

Anonymous said...

I frankly think its better to put these issues on Nov. ballots rather than what they have done in the past (hiding them on Aug. ballot when so many people are away). What I don't understand is why we keep voting on the same issues over and over again, seems like a huge waste of money. We have voted on this issue and it was rejected.

The Mayor is already spouting lies in the media about the bond, claiming it will only cost $100 a year for each property owner. It is not proposed as an assessment and the cost will be much, much higher for those that have to pay. Why can't they be honest? I'm happy the City is putting forward something, but be honest and transparent about what this will cast and how it will be paid for so folks can assess it and vote accordingly.

Lynn Anderson said...

There are only a few reasons why I don't like our issues or elections on primary or General election ballots. The issues get lost at the bottom of the page. And two, these elections attract the low-information voters who only vote in these elections and are clueless about what affects Lake Worth. They vote by name recognition or what the city says is a good idea.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Lynn!

What do the other two commissioners say about all of this at the meetings? Why is there no public comment or discussion about all in meetings first before all of this can go to a vote in November? This makes no sense.

Sounds like we have three dictators here. How in hell did they ever get re-elected, I think they did something dishonest. Most citizens seem to not like or agree with them in this city other than a few on the boards like the corrupt and unethical rice guy. Those three seem to kiss his ass out of pity or something, maybe he gives them a lot of kickbacks too.

Lynn Anderson said...

@1:10. People admire Greg Rice for over-coming a big handicap something most people could never do. I also believe that he was adopted so this too can be a psychological obstacle for some people. He has become a success and has capitalized on his own ingenuity. He doesn't go around pitying himself and the commission does not pity him. In fact, I think they look at him with a lot of respect and awe as do many people. He has done a lot, much more than the average person and he has fine intelligence. He has always been polite even if he has been on the other side of politics than myself. He has not been nasty like some of his fiends have been who have spoken at the lectern. We disagree on some big ticket items in this city but he has kept it all respectful at least vocally. Behind the scenes, he is a clever adversary and he makes us all stay on our toes.

Anonymous said...

All these people are clever, liars, greedy, corrupt, dishonest, and unethical, if this is success, I am not sure I like your definition of it. Lake Worth needs to get rid of all these bums! We and our city as a whole deserve better.

Anonymous said...

Am seeing a lot of ignorance in these comments...throwing out serious accusations based on innuendo and rumors.
accusing Amoroso of lacking intelligence; assuming Greg Rice is a pitiable human being and a crook who takes kickbacks (THANK you Lynn for sticking up for truth about him) Name calling is pretty much 3rd grade intelligence in my book.
AND, isn't everyone excited to see the plan Katie M, Maier and McVoy are coming up with to replace the evil bond issue?

I know I am!
Any idea when that may be surfacing Lynn?

Lynn Anderson said...

First of all, McVoy and Maier haven't had a chance to discuss this new bond just like all the rest of us. The Trio is placing it on a ballot with NO DISCUSSION. This is shocking. Katie only wants the public to be able to understand the details and to make comments. What is so wrong with that? Seriously? Afterall, it is the taxpayer who will be paying for it. None of these three have to come up with a plan but they all have the right to get the details, the true cost, etc.

Anonymous said...

Lynn, your comments come off as wholesale rejection of ANY funding mechanism to fix the crumbling infrastructure in town.

Let's imagine the City Manager attempts to put on another dog and pony show like he did last time. How much credibility will it have? Even if it were 100% transparent, your group would pick it apart. "This street doesn't need it" or "the cost for poor people is too much".

Let's face the fact the enough people voted to have SOMETHING done and everybody was screaming about the deteriorating conditions of our streets that they almost got to 50% plus 1.

The last plan was too big. They have reduced the size.

The last plan included funds to build out the Park of Commerce. That portion has been removed.

So all you are left with is "it will cost us more in taxes". They can't fix that and they can't fix stupid.

I voted against the last bond. They have now removed the two most objectionable components and reasons I voted against it. The issues are virtually the same as the last vote. Fix the streets, replace the crumbling pipes and sidewalks and add some fire hydrants.

The Park of Commerce is already building and the increased tax revenue from that development will pay for the infrastructure upgrades in that area.

These are the reasons you should support this bond and let us get to work.

Lynn Anderson said...

Let's get a few things straight here, anonymous @9:00.

I have never said I was against this new bond. No one I know has said they are against getting the roads fixed. We just want to see the details on it. Why $40 million...can it be done for $20?

We want to know what it will REALLY cost the taxpayers and exactly what roads will be fixed, when and how long they will last before they need to be done again.

No one has talked about it from the dais and all the commission has said is "the time for talking is over."

Anonymous said...

I want to know factual details, cap, rate, term, length. And I doubt seriously if the POC will ever return anything to the city. I resent that my tax money was forced to pay for this boondogle. Consequently, I want to see how this bond is to be spent, when, what terms. We do want the roads fixed, and it was wise to delete the extra little gift to commissioners of close to a million dollars. That was like a blinking red light of corruption to me along with a 50 grand publicity propaganda. I want to know in real term what I will be paying, for how long, at what terms. Why is that considered unreasonable?

Anonymous said...

It was already brought out in the last bond that taxpayer money spent at the POC would take at least 50 years to recuperate if not more. So let's not hear the crap about infrastructure paying for itself because of all the development there. You are giving them reduced utility rates for how long?

Anonymous said...

An analogy:

Triolo/Maxwell/Amoroso: Lynn, here's some shit-flavored ice cream. We've held 57 public meetings to educate you about why shit is the best flavor.
Lynn: But I don't like shit-flavored ice cream. What are the other options?
Triolo/Maxwell/Amoroso: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? WHY DON'T YOU LIKE ICE CREAM? EITHER YOU LIKE SHIT-FLAVORED ICE CREAM OR YOU JUST DON'T WANT ANY ICE CREAM. WE'RE TIRED OF THIS ANTI-ICE CREAM MINORITY CONTROLLING EVERYTHING WE EAT.

Anonymous said...

The trio should have tiaras stitched into their foreheads, oh wait that's where the horns are growing.

Anonymous said...

I would pay more in taxes (or an assessment) to fix the roads and other infrastructure issues. I would GLADLY pay an extra $100 a year as the Mayor claims. But, therein lies the problem, this is not being proposed as an assessment and there have been no details on what is being proposed so that we can assess the proposal and comment. Let's have an open an honest discussion.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 10:27, you are right on! And now they want to proclaim by proclamation that we MUST eat shit flavored ice cream for a mandatory extra year, no election necessary? Are they using some of this bond money to buy gold encrusted crowns for the triumverate ad nauseum?
Did "Let them eat cake" just become "Let them eat shit?"
Isn't this how Musollini started?

Anonymous said...

I find Scott to be not only a bigot but a disgusting human being overall. The Mayor is ok but has no backbone. I am in favor of Andy because he is literally at every city function volunteering (no one else up on the dias can say the same) op Ed not door policy at his store (which most certainly no one up on the dias can say the same), and he does listen. Maxwell is a bully and a disgust ( which all of us can say the same) so I do like your blog Lynn because you care but in reality so does Andy. Just because he was elected with the both of the other two clowns doesn't make him inseperable from them. Sorry if this doesn't speel correctly. I'm using my new phone and at my age it's a hurdle! Hope you're having a great evening Lynn. And thank you for keeping up this blog. My husband and I do enjoy reading. Thanks again, Mary Ellen

Lynn Anderson said...

I am always impressed with all the things that Andy is involved in for the city. We just disagree on a few major issues.