Wants, needs, and the budget
Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Government
Forum Name: City Council
Forum Description: Discuss individual members and council as a legislative body.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3397
Printed Date: Apr 27 2024 at 12:14pm
Topic: Wants, needs, and the budget
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Subject: Wants, needs, and the budget
Date Posted: Oct 20 2010 at 6:35pm
|
During the budget discussions last evening, there were questions about bike paths. Everyone seems to have forgotten that this money could have been used for items such as energy efficient windows or energy efficient HV&AC units for any of our municipal buildings, or a new energy efficient roof for a fire station, for example. (These are items that actually were needed during the time period that the expenditure for the bike path was being discussed.) These types of items would have produced continued savings for Middletown taxpayers. As usual, though, instead of addressing the citizen’s “needs”, city staff slanted every recommendation and report to support the case of special interest “wants”. As long as city staff continues to put special interest “wants” ahead of the citizen’s “needs” Middletown will continue to face worse and worse “budget crunches” and will continue its downward spiral.
That is why city staff MUST be purged.
We MUST begin to live within our means and put NEEDS ahead of WANTS!!!
The same goes for "features" at our "gateways". Not only are most of these items "wants" and not "needs" but also many require continued costs for maintenance. We simply cannot afford them!!! We keep hearing that we cannot afford to tend all of the "amenities" that we have now. How can we be so short-sighted as to keep wasting money on unnecessary "features" that will require MORE maintenance???
-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
Replies:
Posted By: Voice of Reason
Date Posted: Oct 20 2010 at 9:28pm
Mike Presta, I would like to question you on this logic--you posted in a different posting that the historic commission wasn't doing their job by not taking over the old Armco/AK offices (which would have cost the city money in terms of upkeep/insurance of the buildings, and was certainly not a "need" of the city) but you take council to task for installing bike paths (which I don't necessarily agree with either, actually). How do you explain your apparent contradictions?
-------------
"Ask not what your country can do for you..." JFK
|
Posted By: Neil Barille
Date Posted: Oct 20 2010 at 9:58pm
|
I think Mr, Presta was joking about the AK buildings...
|
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Oct 20 2010 at 10:02pm
|
I think he was being Sarcastic about the AK buildings, but I am sure he will speak up.
|
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Oct 20 2010 at 10:10pm
I have to agree,the bike path has brought thousands of bikers & hundreds of dollars of investment to our small town. The gateway project will only add to our attractions and bring in even more economic dollars. It's tough to find a parking place in downtown now with the new art center & the bike path. I'm amazed at how many tourist & art buyers are stopping by to ask directions. I'm thinking about printing some maps to all of our attractions and sites.
Oh my mistake ! The people asking directions were looking for the office to sign up for section 8. Silly me ! I thought they came here to buy art or ride the bike path. Oh well...............
-------------
No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !!
|
Posted By: Voice of Reason
Date Posted: Oct 20 2010 at 10:21pm
|
I gathered that Mr. Presta was being over-the-top in his rants about the stiff penalties that should be levied against the offenders, however I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that if he went through the trouble to cite the ordinance relating to the historic commission's mission that he was, in fact, serious about the need to keep the buildings. I don't know Mr. Presta's sense of humor, so I might have leaped to an incorrect assumption.
If so, I retract my accusation of being contradictory, and I would generally agree with Mr. Presta's assertions about the bike paths...with the caveat that some beautification is a good thing for the overall image of the city (like tearing down the parking building and Swallens building--long overdue deconstruction in my opinion).
-------------
"Ask not what your country can do for you..." JFK
|
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Oct 20 2010 at 10:59pm
|
Yes, I was being sarcastic, but only up to a point!!!
I certainly was not advocating that the City of Middletown take over the buildings.
I was trying to point out both the idiocy of the new Historic ordinance 1210 and the hypocrisy of the local “historic crowd”.
The new ordinance actually DOES require the permission of the Historic Commission, via a “certificate of appropriateness”, before a “historic structure” can be demolished, and that simple economics is NOT a justification under the ordinance. (Of course, this is unconstitutional.)
The Ordinance also mandates the following:
“The Historic Commission shall conduct a continuous survey of all areas, places, structures, works of art, or similar objects in the City which the Commission has reason to believe are or will be eligible for designation as historic sites, landmarks or districts.”
Therefore, it follows that, during the course of the commission’s “continuous survey” they should’ve noted these “historic structures”, recognized that they met the “criteria” outlined in sections 12110.05(a)(1) through (8), taken the actions necessary to have the structures declared “Historic” with or without the owner’s consent, or even over the owner’s objection (as clearly mandated in the Ordinance), and then made the owwner go through the very lengthy and convoluted legal process necessary to obtain the “Certificate of Appropriateness” necessary for demolition.
The Ordinance does, indeed, impose fines and prison sentences for such an offense exceeding all but those resulting from conviction of the most serious felonies in this state!!!
Of course, since all of this “history” hubbub actually has very little to do with history, and everything to do with the wants and desires of a small group of elitists, and they had nothing to gain by prevent the demolition of these buildings, not a peep was heard!!!
-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|