Council candidates forum
I enjoyed tonight and really do appreciate everyone getting involved and running for office. We all had a chance to share our views. Interesting thing to me though was what I heard from people afterward... people were saying that the candidates all seemed to agree. I didn't think so. At least... not on everything.
Here's my version...
I think there were six questions asked. And from my perspective, two questions received very different responses from various candidates.
Q1. Should we close the pool? My answer... the problem is not the pool. The problem is the bubble. We have three options to address it:
1) summer facility,
2) maintain the status quo or
3) build a permanent structure.
For two years now, I've advocated a summer facility to save money and energy. And more recently, I've advocated erecting a permanent structure (financed using the wasteful energy budget of $400,000/yr).
But how did other Council members respond?
We're "paralyzed." We're afraid of "big, bold ideas."
Frankly, I found it astounding to hear "leaders" utter those words. I mean... this is a recreational facility. Heck... agree with them or not, Congressman Chris Murphy has advocated defunding the war in Iraq. Congressman Chris Shays has advocated the surge. And Congressman Charlie Rangel has gone so far as to advocate reinstating the draft.... yet this Council is "paralyzed" over a recreational facility? For me, those had to be the most disappointing comments of the night.
Q2. What's an appropriate size for the rainy day fund? My answer... As a CPA and a member of the budget committee... I don't know, because I have yet to see the cost/benefit analysis that I've been requesting for several months now.
The response from others seemed to be to simply dismiss the reality that if $2,000,000 is collected in taxes, then the taxpayers deserve to know the benefits related to those taxes.
And to suggest that 8% is a good number because it is "one month of bills" is simply absurd. Any CPA would recognize that you're answering a "balance sheet" question with a "cash flow" answer. And since the town doesn't collect one month of "revenue" each month... that argument is simply bogus... now don't get me wrong... cash flows are a concern... but to suggest that 8% is "a good number" because it covers "one month of bills" is ridiculous. Any CPA would dismiss that argument out of hand... or at least ask for a cash flow statement for the town to further understand the cash flows of the town... since everyone knows the town gets the majority of its cash in January and July of each year.
And of course, I also mentioned my belief that tax dollars belong to the tax payers... not to government. On this, I did sense strong philosophical differences... largely along party lines... though that may have been the only issue where people could determine party affiliation based on candidates' answers... hence, I'm not surprised to hear people say "it seemed liked everyone is in agreement on everything."
Anyway... if you're a bit lost on this topic, but still trying to follow it... here is an analysis I compiled a few months ago... it gives some highlights of the "rainy day fund," including the costs related to both the "existing" rainy day fund and the "maintenance" of the rainy day fund. I think it's self-explanatory:
Your thoughts on the candidates forum?
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
26 comments:
Today is Hillary Clinton's birthday - happy 60th!
Good questions and some great answers. The Forum was helpful for me as I was able to finally put a face with the names on the signs all over town. I will have plenty to think about until I vote Nov 6Th. Thanks to the LWV for their effort in running this.
I thought candidates wanted to work in a bipartisan manner, yet this blog seems focused on highlighting differences between the parties instead of attempting to find commonality. While there are fundamental differences, finding common ground leads to better decision making. Also, based on earlier blogs, you seemed concerned about being in compliance with laws and statues (i.e. fundraisers on town property). I would be remiss, therefore, if I did not bring it to your attention that the current campaign laws seem to mandate that lawn signs from previous campaigns can not be reused. While I may be wrong, it appears as though you may be re-using signs from last year. I just wanted to bring that to your attention as I appreciate your attempt to operate within current statutory trends and ordinances.
2:37 AM.
Candidates are different. That is why there is an election. Cut the melba toast crap. You're voting straight D anyway.
Never said candidates are all the same nor would I want that as there needs to be a choice when voting. But, there is something to be said for elected officials, such as our admirable host, building upon commonality between the parties to make the most effective and expedient decisions for the residents of Cheshire.
2:37 I'm not a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge, I'm in full compliance with election law.
How the voted on the NE Mall developer's requests.
Town Council
E. ESTY, YES
M. HALL, YES
M. ALTIERI, YES
M. ECKE, YES
D. ORSINI, NO
D. SCHRUMM, NO
T. RUOCCO, NO
D. VISCONTI, YES
T. WHITE, YES
The Planning and Zoning Commission
P. FLYNN-HARRIS, YES (Chairman)
M. COBURN, YES
W. DAWSON, YES
E. KURTZ, YES
R. LEVY, YES
S. STROLLO, YES
L. TODISCO, YES
P. RANANDO, NO
T. SLOCUM, NO
Wow I did not realize that so many republicans are anti business/development. To vote for some form of tax base growth I have to vote for the Dems.? Things maybe upside down in this town, but if I have to vote for the Dems. I will.
9:03 Anon
Republicans are pro business and pro taxpayer. Some of them are doing a cost benefit analysis and asking the hard questions. Their concerns are in the interests of the entire community. Bottom line...this project may not be. Revenue is one thing. A massive increase to infrastructure build outs whether it be state or town paid is on the taxpayer's backs for a long time.
Name a town that is thrilled by the impact of a big retail area in their town. See the article in the Hartford Courant just today regarding the massive expansion of the shoppes in East Windsor. These are not happy cheerleaders despite tax revenues being generated. Quality of life matters too.
The W/S Myth and Reality
Lyfestyle Center of just a fancy name for just another outdoor mall?
Follow the link
http://www.cheshiresmartgrowth.com/
Maybe I should have attended the candidate forum because I would have liked the moderator to have asked each candidate the following question: Do you support having a turf field at Cheshire High School? ( Keep in mind that funds from the State are taxpayer dollars.)
Since many candidates read this blog, perhaps they'd be willing to answer this question here on the blog.
10:03PM
I'm satisfied with the current real grass turf at CHS. We know what it takes to maintain it. We understand its strengths and weakness and it's a maintenence line item not a capital expense.
I can't believe that someone can be running for an elected office and publish such an ignorant statement. If you had been to the CHS field lately, you will not find a real grass field, but a real dirt field. Our children deserve better. We all know what the answer is; limit the field to 15 activities a year. I think you should be the one to decide who you plan to remove: football, junior football, lacrosse, the band, Relay for Life...good luck with that. The only reasonable alternative to excluding everyone would be an artificial surface that will actually give more groups access to the field that they don't have now. I hope the people in the Town of Cheshire remember your comments on November 6.
Thanks, Tim Slocum, for you honest answer re: turf. I think there are many more needs in this community that need addressing. Turf is a want, not a need at this time. The people in town need to realize that they can't have everything. They should take a walk through the inside of our schools. Then they'd realize where the needs are. I for one would hope our councilors and boe members would rally the State to fund maintenance project improvements for our schools, not turf fields. Besides, with the possibilities of toxins in the turf fields, we should be extremely cautious before even considering it. Wouldn't it be better to get all the asbestos out of our schools first?
2:16 OK Matt, we know where you stand on the turf!
We are headed into a recession and the cementheads want to spend beaucoup bucks on luxuries like astroturf
Go Tim Slocum!!!!
Hurray Tim Slocum!
Your right about we understand grass and how to maintain it and patch it. We don't know too much about Artificial Turf, son't have experienced people that could fix it and it could be as mush of a surprise as the pool has turned out to be.
Lets put the money in the pool solve one problem before we creating another disaster.
Regarding the candidates forum - For those that have watched, I'm curious to know if they've noticed the same thing that I have. With the question that was asked about the pool, if you listen to Ecke's answer and as he finishes, read his lips - he clearly is sending a rather negative message to Mr. Carroll. I can't even type what he says because Tim would remove the comment from the blog. It's quite clear to me. How about to all the rest of you?
I haven't seen the pool stuff yet... but about the point to which you speak... I was too stunned following the pool comment about how the "Council is paralyzed" which not only was disappointing to me, but also... to describe the Council as paralyzed was unfair... I'd offer that some members are paralyzed... but to characterize the Council as being paralyzed was not right... I've offered alternatives.
Anyway... about your point... no. haven't seen it. But if you DVD it, we could burn it to youtube pretty easily and let others decide.
10:11 It's "you're" not "your." Maybe those toxins from the turf are getting inside your head.
TW? huh?
Maybe we need another English teacher @ CHS, instead of artificial turf?
I think this town can aspire to more than emulating some Texas suburb ala "Friday Night Lights"
turf, pool, school... how about cheshire opens up the purse and spends some money on something that will not need outrageous maintenance, or that does not need ban-aids every year a la the fancy looking facade on chs, the hefty bag over the pool, and yes the durham fair grounds- sorry the chs athletic fields- that make people question, 'what's so great about cheshire?' seymour decided to turf their field after reviewing the cost, and they never open their pockets. as for the potential health hazards, the turf is plastic grass and recycled tires. if this is a health threat, avoid contact with anything with tires that get hot. (you'll never leave your home). unless a study proves these fields are as harmful as cigarettes, let's spend some money and do it right instead of getting cheap and going kmart.
TW,
The cost for the real grass field is $16,000 per year. That amount came from the Athletic Director during the budget season. The cost to maintain the "turf" field is slightly more, $20,000, same source. The decision cannot be made on maintenance costs differences. Duke University was caught watering their artificial turf fields a few weeks ago, during a drought. The reason was it provided for better grip and traction.
8:53 anon
It looks to me like Ecke is saying "F. U." to Carrol. Tim you should put the video on the blog. What's up with that?
No I read his lips to say "I was actually on the grassy knoll"
Post a Comment