Regarding the Main Street olde tyme lights, at least AJ Smith did the right thing and voted “no” in light of the current economic malaise and the extra financial burden on the taxpayers and the property owners who cannot afford the extra assessment.  However, the installation of the decorative lighting did pass.  Kudos to the South Main Street group for at least raising $1,000 to lower the burden on the rest of the city for their decorations, even though the rest of the city will be eating the maintenance and utility charges from Duke power for 32 additional lights every month.

Regarding the Senior Citizens’ levy vote, both Mr. Laubach and Mr. Allen abstained due to possible conflicts of interest.  (Both stated that their employers are substantial donors to the Middletown Area Senior Citizens organization.)  I find it strange that abstentions did NOT “count with the majority” as they had in the past.  Too bad for the Seniors that Mr. Landen, Esq. was not in attendance or their levy would be on the ballot in November.

So…why is it that whenever the shot callers in Middletown, and their stooges at City Hall, want something to pass abstentions always count with the majority, but in cases like this where there is nothing in it for them and it may actually work against them, that is not the case???

Methinks something is not quite right with the good residents of South Main Street. 

I see that they expect the elder citizens of our fair city to contribute over $1,000 dollars to decorate their fine South Main Street neighborhood, and to contribute over $400 each and every month from now until the day that the dukes at Duke raise the rates for electricity and maintenance of their grand lamps and lampposts.  These genteel denizens of the arts and upper class bistros seem to think it their due--this tribute from the less fortunate--even tho’ the elderly of our community, mostly eking out a bare existence from month to month on a fixed stipend, have scant resources to spare.

So, pray tell, residents of this Main Street area, so eloquent in your begging for assistance in your own quest, why did we not see you all, or any, or why did we not see even one, not even one, speak out in favor of the elder residents in a similar search for assistance?

Perhaps you just could not see the light?   

Acclaro,

While I agree with you in principle, it is simply a fact that Mr. Landen, Esq. rules that “abstentions count with the majority” whenever it suits the shot callers. 

I first noticed this during the very last council meeting of Perry Thatcher’s council term.   The vote was for the purchase of the acreage owned by Mr. Thatcher, et al, by the city for the hospital.  It was being done as emergency legislation and needed six votes.  Only six council members were present (I believe because Sonny Hill was ill?) and after the roll call Landen announced:  “Abstentions count with the majority, the legislation passes.” I am absolutely certain of this because I was flabbergasted, and I don’t get flabbergasted easily.  I saw nothing wrong with this this deal (the city buying property which Mr. Thatcher and Adam Cristo had owned for many, many years) but I certainly disagreed with the way it was handled (this “abstentions count with the majority” scam).  They should’ve simply had a 1^st and 2^nd reading, and bought the property with non-emergency legislation.

Landen, Esq. has used this same ploy a few more times since then, the latest being during the last year, although I can’t recall the specific item of legislation.