D - for downsizing - Day in Evans and West Seneca
Voters in West Seneca and Evans on Wednesday will decide whether to trim their town boards
to three members, down from five.
If the measure passes, taxpayers will send a clear message to their elected officials, supporters say, and the people will begin to take back their government. Another plus: Taxes will go down.
Sure, taxes will go down, but barely, opponents say - saving the average homeowner about the cost of a movie ticket. And residents end up with so few representatives on the town board that the Open Meetings Law would be jeopardized, some government experts say.
Supporters of the downsizing say that even with five members on the town board, elected officials routinely ignore the law and make backroom deals.
Whatever Evans and West Seneca residents decide, this week's votes likely will be the first of many in Erie County. Efforts are underway to get a similar referendum on the ballot in November in Alden, Hamburg and Orchard Park.
If you live in Evans or West Seneca, which way do you plan to vote? If you live somewhere else, what are you hoping will happen in your town?
--- Mary B. Pasciak
City Taxpayer asked: "BTW - are you ever going to see a glass half-full? or is it always going to be empty... just wondering..."
As long as the federal government continues to operate outside the bounds of the Constitution and as long as bloated bureaucracies continue to tyrannize the people on the state and local level, the glass remains half empty.
Posted by: Buffalo Libertarian | June 18, 2009 at 02:02 PM
This would never happen in the Town of Lancaster - they enjoy the votes of too many Town Employees.
Double Dipping is a way of life for the Entitled ones - some are second and third generation "tax Fed"
The Village is trimming down in preperation for their guys to join the Town - different tactic - same pockets, taxpayers still pay the costs.
Posted by: my2cents | June 05, 2009 at 08:39 AM
Be careful what you wish for. Can't believe West Seneca residents fell for Gaughn's rehtoric. People in the burbs pay for better schools, recreation and a better quality of life. Gaughn wants the suburbs to bail out the City of Buffalo following years of neglect. He knows if he helps dismantle suburban governement the task is much easier. Well West Seneca, you saved a ton of money by downsizing (right!) and now you have less individuals representing your community at the state and federal level and less representatives to turn to during problem times. More will fall between the cracks at town hall and business will be controlled by 3 men in a room, just like in Albany. You get what you deserve when you vote with emotion rather then intelligence.
Posted by: Gil | June 04, 2009 at 02:54 PM
Buff Lib - the answer is BOTH
But it will take some time and vigilance on all our parts...
Wednesday's vote is a good start.
Today, Erie Co legislature is beginning to consider downsizing...
Andrew Cuomo has given us a way to start consolidating some of the thousands of local governments and authorities... but the volunteer firefighters have already started whining...
IT IS A START AND WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE!
BTW - are you ever going to see a glass half-full? or is it always going to be empty... just wondering...
BTW2 - methinks you need to buy yourself an island somewhere where you will be the only form of government...
Posted by: City Taxpayer | June 04, 2009 at 12:42 PM
One of the numerous problems in New York State is that there is simply too much government. So, do we want to reduce the size of government at the state level (which seems a nearly impossible task) or at the local level?
Posted by: Buffalo Libertarian | June 04, 2009 at 10:31 AM
There will be no savings by voting yes or if there is we will not see it in our property tax bills, we did not see it when the county leg went from 20 to 17 or 17 to 15, nor will we see it if the town board goes from 5 to 3.
Our area needs substantive reform in governance to address the major issues we face and to do that we need a state constitutional convention. We have pursued silver bullet ideas to solve our economic woes and none of them panned out, do we truly believe this silver bullet idea will solve our political woes? I don't.
Vote NO!
Posted by: Daniel T. Warren | June 03, 2009 at 08:23 AM
The patronage and paid health care is what should be reduced. I never hear Gaughan pushing for those kinds of cuts.
Posted by: Perspective | June 02, 2009 at 08:48 PM
Meh. I agree with the arguments against having 3-member boards. Those would be too easily crooked.
There's much better ways to save money. Cutting is fine for places with larger boards, but a 5-member board doesn't need to be reduced.
Posted by: Perspective | June 02, 2009 at 08:46 PM
I'll vote "YES" to downsize.
The argument that taxes will go down only slightly, is misleading. The cost of a councilman's salary is not the big ticket item. The elephant in the room are the legacy costs, i.e. medical insurance and pension costs, which pile up over the years. For example, the legacy costs of a councilman who served a 2 year term 20 or 30 or 40 years is STILL being paid for by local taxpayers. Legacy costs are what bankrupted General Motors and it will bankrupt every town if we can't control it.
Most Town Boards are split 3 to 2, by party. A 2 to 1 split would makes no difference.
In Evans, every decision is already a backroom decision. The open meetings law is laughed at.
The argument that bond rating will suffer is simply bogus. Bond rating companies look for a healthy fiscal situation, nothing more.
All the political parties are against downsizing for a reason and has nothing to do with good government. It has everything to do with patronage jobs -the mother's milk of local politics. Paid health care and pension is what drives the patronage. It's why those jobs are valuable; It's why our taxes are out of control. Control of patronage jobs is the power that every little town Napoleon want to wield.
If you want to send a message to the political bosses of all stripe, vote Yes! to downsize.
The alternative is to do nothing.
The chances of defeating all the combined party machinery is pretty slim, so every vote will count. It's time to stop talking. It's time to vote!
Posted by: BobbyCat | June 02, 2009 at 08:30 PM
I live in West Seneca and I'm voting NO to downsizing. We don't need a fiefdom, which is what our supervisor wants.
Send Gaughan to downsize Albany.
Posted by: Goldengirl | June 02, 2009 at 08:17 PM
AFTER THEY DOWN SIZE OVER INFLATED POLITICIANS...in western ny.....population leaving stores closing kids that graduate from colleg ,,poll shows 91 % leave.....cut back on the state county.city.towns and any form of government...this the reason for inflation loss of population etc....STOP THE UNIONS AND POLITICIANS....star a new stae government ..REMOVE NYC FROM NY STATE...
Posted by: frquarter | June 02, 2009 at 06:42 PM