Listen to Amoroso and McVoy speak to the bond
If you have been listening to WJNO this week, they have mentioned this bond many times.
According to them, commissioner Andy Amoroso was the one to spearhead and push for a new bond referendum and placing it on the November ballot (actually it was city manager Bornstein who suggested November) for road repairs. Commissioner Christopher McVoy was the lone dissenter because of the lack of transparency.
It was this present commission of Maxwell, Triolo and Amoroso that cut the road maintenance repair budget from over $1 million to a budget of $500,000. Of that $500,000 ONLY $200,000 went to road repairs. Right now, Andy and the city has no idea where the $40 million will be spent and even mentions money being spent on sidewalks. Amoroso said the district he represents is fairly affluent. I thought our commissioners represented all of the residents in Lake Worth.
Commissioner McVoy recognizes that we have a serious road problem and that we need to do something. When we're committed to an approach to completely rebuilding the road, it's an enormous opportunity to get public input. The bond is vague with no discussion on it. What are you getting for your money? The cost to a property owner is unknown and the finances and all details need to be transparent.
Andy said that the city will have charettes and discusSion going forward to see what the residents want. maybe they don't want to spend forty million for three decades. LOLLOLLOL
ReplyDeleteWhat a dork! Affluent in Dist 3? Mostly renters and poor who live on food EBT all who rent and the gov. pays for it, now he is showing his true ignorance, does he even have a HS diploma?:
ReplyDelete"Amoroso said the district he represents is fairly affluent. I thought our commissioners represented all of the residents in Lake Worth."
Hey Dork for brains at 9:25, Amoroso is correct, the Dist he represents is fairly affluent by Lake Worth standards. And of course he is a commissioner for all of the citizens of LW, just as all the other commissioners are.
DeleteLastly, whether you believe it or not, renters do pay property taxes as it is part of their rental payment to their landlord... As renters they get NO tax deduction for their 'contribution', the tax deuctiton goes to the landlord who pays the at bill... And who merely passes along the cost of the taxes (and other carrying costs involved in owning rental property) in the total amount that a tenant pays.
Essentially renters do 'pay' their part of property taxes.
There, is that so hard to understand?
9:25...I was paraphrasing when quoting Amoroso on his district...don't think he used the word "fairly" but he did say affluent.
ReplyDeleteI think the entire taxpayer property base would support smaller bonds over half the number of years they are proposing. However, this city will push this through and property owners will vote to in debt themselves for 30 years! You see, it still boils down to trust. With no transparency on this new bond (because the city has NO answers), there will still be people who will look at this as negative and a money grab and worry that millions will go somewhere not intended.
McVoy is right--transparency is the key.
I would support a bond if it the debt obligation repayment for tax payers was capped in some fashion. Right now, the City has not explained how this bond will work in detail, but based on the research I've done it appears it will work like the last bond in that it will not be capped, even if your property is homesteaded. What that means is that the debt obligation for property owners could be very high, meaning busting budget and risking homes high which I think is a nonstarter for most homeowners in this town.
ReplyDeleteI'd really rather see an assessment where everyone pays.
Discussions would have been nice, BEFORE, it was put on the ballot.
Just dig up all your complaints about the $63 million bond and cut it 1/3 and don't cut and paste the parts about the Park of Commerce or the "slush fund" each district was to receive. The thing that will still get done are the roads with underground piping where needed, sidewalks, lights and fire hydrants where they are needed as well.
ReplyDeleteThe did what we asked them to do. Separate the POC and eliminate the slush funds and reduce the amount. They did what we asked. Vote YES for the bond and let's fix the damn streets.
Yea Potty Doctor, well said!
DeleteVote YES for the bond and let's get working on our roads!
looks like a lot of name calling for what.is this where we end up or do we try to get together and move the right way.one person says they took this and that out but are we to believe that.why is it so hard to give all the details.i am not the only one who does not believe anything till it is in black and white [meaning print]as for voting them out the people had that chance 4 months ago.lets get together and get answers
ReplyDelete@12:06--thanks for your views but I have to mention that the city continually IGNORES all of us "ass clowns." Insulting those with a different opinion will not endear yourself.
ReplyDelete@12:25--they are going for a $40 million bond. This bond did NOT include sidewalks...the $50 million one did. Next, they didn't tell us anything about this bond so how are you so certain that no money will go towards special interests?
@1:01--Only property owners pay advalorem. An owner can charge the tenant or bear the cost himself. Not too hard to understand.
Landlord all share the burden of taxes thru rent or rent hikes. Fact!
Deleteandy loves to call all of us names, yet he rents and all this is not true that he is saying here. Renters pay rent to slum lords, look at where andy lives, the owner didn't even bother to pain the entire house, it looks like a dump. Like so many places in this city that rent, slumlords galore in this city and they do not improve their properties, all look so blighted, just so they do not increase their taxes, slumlords know how to work in this city, andy lets them work that way, keeping everything dumpy and blighted, low taxes for slumlords. Our city looks like hell, it is all rented out and the owners do nto take care of their dumps, just look at the dump where comm adny lives, the owner pays little in taxes still even if not homesteaded, plus so many have homestead in this city, yet, rent them out and get discounts and are dishonest. andy is not too smart, he pays next to nothing for rent, because the place he rents is a dump, that place is nasty inside, it was for sale a few years ago, it was nasty. nasty like andy!sorry but he is full of it!
ReplyDelete" Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hey Dork for brains at 9:25, Amoroso is correct, the Dist he represents is fairly affluent by Lake Worth standards. And of course he is a commissioner for all of the citizens of LW, just as all the other commissioners are.
Lastly, whether you believe it or not, renters do pay property taxes as it is part of their rental payment to their landlord... As renters they get NO tax deduction for their 'contribution', the tax deuctiton goes to the landlord who pays the at bill... And who merely passes along the cost of the taxes (and other carrying costs involved in owning rental property) in the total amount that a tenant pays.
Essentially renters do 'pay' their part of property taxes.
There, is that so hard to understand?
July 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM"
Dr Potty,where are you getting your info on what this new bond is about when NO info has been put out about it? Can you please send Lynn the documents you are basing your statements on? The rest of us want to see what's going on with this thing.
ReplyDeleteThe City (mis)Manager will give us all the details he thinks we deserve to hear through his new $50,000. communications specialist. This is the new tactic since the $50K he took from us taxpayers in 2014 failed him and his devious plans.
ReplyDeleteLast time it was on the August ballot because those who would have paid for it were out of town; this time it's on the November ballot because half of the 8,000 voters who show up for the presidential election will know only the pap fed them by the City rather than the whole truth.
VOTE AGAINST the $40,000,000.00 onerous 30 year obligation.