LabattBlue Posted May 26, 2009 Report Posted May 26, 2009 Up for vote in West Seneca next week is a proposal to downsize government(reduce the number of members on the town board from 5 to 3). As I live in a neighboring town, I am driving through West Seneca a lot and cannot believe the number of signs on peoples lawns stating "Vote NO to downsizing". :blink: :blink: http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/sout...ory/663698.html
shrader Posted May 26, 2009 Report Posted May 26, 2009 Up for vote in West Seneca next week is a proposal to downsize government(reduce the number of members on the town board from 5 to 3). As I live in a neighboring town, I am driving through West Seneca a lot and cannot believe the number of signs on peoples lawns stating "Vote NO to downsizing". :blink: :blink: http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/sout...ory/663698.html I love hearing random comments from people saying they'll move away if the vote passes. How exactly would that be some earth shattering move that would force people to leave their home? And they're trying to delay the vote now? How convenient.
red Posted May 26, 2009 Report Posted May 26, 2009 what a bunch of retards! I would love to talk with one of these idiots voting 'No' on downsizing, just to see how larger government unrepresentative of population is a positive and NOT choking the local economy with its limited resources. I mean seriously, these status quo lemmings need to wake up if any sign of life is to return to WNY.
nobody Posted May 26, 2009 Report Posted May 26, 2009 Aren't local govt jobs the only ones left in WNY?
Stoner Posted May 26, 2009 Report Posted May 26, 2009 Isn't this a largely symbolic move? How much would West Seneca save by cutting two supervisors? Consolidating services, I can understand.
Eleven Posted May 27, 2009 Report Posted May 27, 2009 Isn't this a largely symbolic move? How much would West Seneca save by cutting two supervisors? Consolidating services, I can understand. Right. In fact, if there are any jobs they shouldn't eliminate, it's these--it will dilute representation. Now, eliminating all of the towns and operating as a county? That's an idea worth exploring.
red Posted May 27, 2009 Report Posted May 27, 2009 Right. In fact, if there are any jobs they shouldn't eliminate, it's these--it will dilute representation. Now, eliminating all of the towns and operating as a county? That's an idea worth exploring. Dilute representation!???!?!?!?!!! Are you kidding me!!??!?!?!?!!! What, you want 1 bloated bureaucrat for each citizen? On a city level, it is a savings. The study that was done was that if WNY, AS A WHOLE, each cut 2 of its "supervisors", then it would save the WNY AREA millions of dollars PER YEAR in salaries, benefits, etc.
Eleven Posted May 27, 2009 Report Posted May 27, 2009 Dilute representation!???!?!?!?!!! Are you kidding me!!??!?!?!?!!! What, you want 1 bloated bureaucrat for each citizen? On a city level, it is a savings. The study that was done was that if WNY, AS A WHOLE, each cut 2 of its "supervisors", then it would save the WNY AREA millions of dollars PER YEAR in salaries, benefits, etc. But councilmembers aren't bureaucrats. They're the citizen's link to government. Bureaucrats are those folks that are in charge of each town's highway department, parks department, police department, prosecutor's office, etc. Yes, cutting 2 councilmembers, supervisors, whatever each town calls them, would save some money. Consolidating services would save a LOT more. Look at what Clarence does--it's got the whole state paying for its police force, and there's no shortage of money out there.
Sabre Dance Posted May 27, 2009 Report Posted May 27, 2009 There is no doubt that the downsizing in West Seneca (if it passes) would be largely symbolic. The actual money saved would be a small percentage of the town's annual budget. However, the message it sends is large - that people want to be in control of their government, not the other way around. Losing two town board members does not eliminate representation for anyone - it simply means that the remaining board members will represent a larger number of people. In a town the size of West Seneca, it may mean that one town board member will need to represent a few thousand more people at most. Contrast this with the US Congress where 535 individuals (435 in the House and 100 in the Senate) represent over 300 million people. Despite a huge growth in population in the last couple of decades, we haven't added any new seats in the House. I don't see anyone marching on Washington to complain about lack of representation. Most people in the area agree that smaller government is a good idea - in someone else's town, not theirs. Everyone knows that millions of dollars could be saved if areas outside the City of Buffalo proper were all consolidated under one government. No one would ever go for a plan like that unless the alternative was paying 80% of their annual salary as local taxes. No government is going to downsize itself. So, here we are with diminishing resources, fewer jobs, less money and yet we are most worried about keeping government officials employed. It's very nice to see all of those signs every couple of miles saying that you are now entering the Town of Whatzis or the Village of Whoville. (I'm especially fond of the "Hamlet of Ebenezer" signs that appeared in West Seneca a few years back - if you stand next to one of the signs and look up the road, you can actually see the back of the other hamlet sign facing the other way). Just remember how much those signs cost in redundant layers of government all doing pretty much the same thing for pretty much the same cross section of people who just happen to live in a different zip code. Is the culture of Hamburg so different from that of West Seneca that they couldn't live under a single government? Do we need multiple school districts in Cheektowaga, each with their own school board, superintendent and all the associated administrative offices? Not to pick on Cheektowaga again, but their fire protection is provided by so many different volunteer fire companies that it would actually be cheaper to have a full-time professional fire department. If you actually take the time to dig into some of these issues, you begin to see the rabbit holes that your tax money dissappears into. Eliminating a couple of town council members is just scratching the surface. We all need to dig deeper and realize that change is going to hurt a small number of people in the short run, but will benefit almost everyone in the long run. The choice is ours. Many people have demonstrated their displeasure with the current circumstances with their feet. It's no accident that this area has lost so much population over the last couple of decades. There are other issues that have driven them out, no doubt, but having an expensive, bloated and inefficient government is likely on their list somewhere.
Chief Enabler Posted May 27, 2009 Report Posted May 27, 2009 There is no doubt that the downsizing in West Seneca (if it passes) would be largely symbolic. The actual money saved would be a small percentage of the town's annual budget. However, the message it sends is large - that people want to be in control of their government, not the other way around. Losing two town board members does not eliminate representation for anyone - it simply means that the remaining board members will represent a larger number of people. In a town the size of West Seneca, it may mean that one town board member will need to represent a few thousand more people at most. Contrast this with the US Congress where 535 individuals (435 in the House and 100 in the Senate) represent over 300 million people. Despite a huge growth in population in the last couple of decades, we haven't added any new seats in the House. I don't see anyone marching on Washington to complain about lack of representation. :thumbsup: I love your post. My two cents to add is the mentality of the region to change (the hardest thing for humans to do). WNY is not a heavy transient society; so the ones who consistently have say are probably old timers reluctant to change. In terms of Washington, I have had conversations over the winter in terms of the country needing a revolution on the model of the constitution as operational today, obviously not molded from the late 1700's. Until you get thousands of people together marching and rioting to Washington for bailouts or whatever reason, things will not change quickly enough in the big picture. Regardless, if the region or town is digressing instead of progressing, government must adjust appropriately. God knows most of us are dealing downsizing on a daily basis.
MattPie Posted May 28, 2009 Report Posted May 28, 2009 There is no doubt that the downsizing in West Seneca (if it passes) would be largely symbolic. The actual money saved would be a small percentage of the town's annual budget. However, the message it sends is large - that people want to be in control of their government, not the other way around. Losing two town board members does not eliminate representation for anyone - it simply means that the remaining board members will represent a larger number of people. In a town the size of West Seneca, it may mean that one town board member will need to represent a few thousand more people at most. Contrast this with the US Congress where 535 individuals (435 in the House and 100 in the Senate) represent over 300 million people. Despite a huge growth in population in the last couple of decades, we haven't added any new seats in the House. I don't see anyone marching on Washington to complain about lack of representation. I know, why don't they just have one and make him dictator! :) In all seriousness, I think having more points of view on the board is better than having fewer. I think that's worth more than the $33k it saves. Salaries: http://www.westseneca.net/bdmin09/mi090105reorg.html Note that they didn't take a pay raise from the previous year: http://www.westseneca.net/bdmin08/mi080103reorg.html
LabattBlue Posted June 4, 2009 Author Report Posted June 4, 2009 Downsizing vote passes in West Seneca and Evans. http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/692137.html I am far from being the most informed voter, but I always get out and vote when the opportunity arises. It always amazes me how many people just don't give a #%^$#!. 30% turnout? :blink:
Sabre Dance Posted June 4, 2009 Report Posted June 4, 2009 Downsizing vote passes in West Seneca and Evans. http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/692137.html I am far from being the most informed voter, but I always get out and vote when the opportunity arises. It always amazes me how many people just don't give a #%^$#!. 30% turnout? :blink: It's a good thing that Ralph Nader hasn't been to Buffalo for a while, otherwise they would try to blame him for stealing votes from the "No to downsizing" side......... :D
FogBat Posted June 5, 2009 Report Posted June 5, 2009 Could this be next? Just remember to hit the red-highlighted Back button.
Eleven Posted June 5, 2009 Report Posted June 5, 2009 Downsizing vote passes in West Seneca and Evans. http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/692137.html I am far from being the most informed voter, but I always get out and vote when the opportunity arises. It always amazes me how many people just don't give a #%^$#!. 30% turnout? :blink: Doesn't matter. They saved their towns tens of thousands per year. But just tens. Want a meaningful change? Consolidate services. That's the high hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Merge towns. That's definitely millions. But hey, baby steps.... EDIT: Why the low turnout? It's June. There are no other elections, and there are no other reasons to go to the polls. "Why did they hold the vote in June," you ask? Because the people who control the date of the vote do not want to lose their part-time jobs that carry nice pensions. For the same reason, school board elections are in May. (You might want to tell me that the school year ends then. And I'll respond that the vote still could be in November, but terms could end in June.) If they held it in November, or even September (primary season in NYS), it would have been a more resounding loss for the board members. The machinery in this state. Wow.
LabattBlue Posted June 5, 2009 Author Report Posted June 5, 2009 Doesn't matter. They saved their towns tens of thousands per year. But just tens. Want a meaningful change? Consolidate services. That's the high hundreds of thousands, if not millions. But hey, baby steps.... They have to start somewhere. ;)
Eleven Posted June 5, 2009 Report Posted June 5, 2009 They have to start somewhere. ;) Yep. And to be fair, you saw my unedited post.
Taro T Posted June 5, 2009 Report Posted June 5, 2009 Doesn't matter. They saved their towns tens of thousands per year. But just tens. Want a meaningful change? Consolidate services. That's the high hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Merge towns. That's definitely millions. But hey, baby steps.... EDIT: Why the low turnout? It's June. There are no other elections, and there are no other reasons to go to the polls. "Why did they hold the vote in June," you ask? Because the people who control the date of the vote do not want to lose their part-time jobs that carry nice pensions. For the same reason, school board elections are in May. (You might want to tell me that the school year ends then. And I'll respond that the vote still could be in November, but terms could end in June.) If they held it in November, or even September (primary season in NYS), it would have been a more resounding loss for the board members. The machinery in this state. Wow. Agree that consolidation would save much more, but it'll never happen because of school districts and the potential for busing. If you've only got a city and a surrounding govt. or you've only got 1 county-wide government people are going to worry that their kid will spend 2 hours a day on a bus each way going to an inferior school. While you can have school districts that cross town lines if the residents choose that and there are several that do, a judge can't force multiple municipalities to share a school district nor can he force students from one municipality to attend a school in a different municipality. Merge towns and your kid might end up someplace other than you expect him. Throw in the potential for graft and the fact that no one, not even a politician oddy enough, wants to give up their job willingly and it makes for a very difficult nut to crack. The best chance we have to significantly change the system is via a constitution convention which won't happen for at least another ~10 years. And considering the convention would be stacked w/ incumbent pols, it's doubtful that it would actually happen AND work.
Eleven Posted June 5, 2009 Report Posted June 5, 2009 Agree that consolidation would save much more, but it'll never happen because of school districts and the potential for busing. If you've only got a city and a surrounding govt. or you've only got 1 county-wide government people are going to worry that their kid will spend 2 hours a day on a bus each way going to an inferior school. While you can have school districts that cross town lines if the residents choose that and there are several that do, a judge can't force multiple municipalities to share a school district nor can he force students from one municipality to attend a school in a different municipality. Merge towns and your kid might end up someplace other than you expect him. Throw in the potential for graft and the fact that no one, not even a politician oddy enough, wants to give up their job willingly and it makes for a very difficult nut to crack. The best chance we have to significantly change the system is via a constitution convention which won't happen for at least another ~10 years. And considering the convention would be stacked w/ incumbent pols, it's doubtful that it would actually happen AND work. But as you note, in New York State, school districts are not coextensive with municipal boundaries. The Town of Amherst, for example, has three school districts--and two of them are shared with other towns (Sweet Home has students from Tonawanda, and Williamsville has students from Clarence). So towns can merge while keeping the school districts the same, and that's really what voters should be doing. One real problem is the second one that you identify: incumbent politicians.
Taro T Posted June 5, 2009 Report Posted June 5, 2009 But as you note, in New York State, school districts are not coextensive with municipal boundaries. The Town of Amherst, for example, has three school districts--and two of them are shared with other towns (Sweet Home has students from Tonawanda, and Williamsville has students from Clarence). So towns can merge while keeping the school districts the same, and that's really what voters should be doing. One real problem is the second one that you identify: incumbent politicians. The point I was making about the school districts is that if there are multiple districts within the same municipality a judge could decide that the districts are layed out in a discriminatory manner and force the districts to reshuffle +/or merge. A judge cannot force separate municipalities to arbitrarily merge +/or swap students. A judge VERY easily could force a single municipality to adjust its school boundaries if there are "inequities" in inputs ($'s) or outcomes (performance). By merging the municipalities together, there is an assumption that services such as utilities and fire and police will be consolidated (at least to a degree) and if they aren't then there is no point in consolidating. How would the school districts not also fall under the "consolidation" umbrella? And, as an aside, having grown up in a multi-town school district and having my kids currently in one, I can state unequivocably that geographic borders/ proximity do not ultimately determine which kids go to which school. With that being the case for those systems, I don't see how an Erie kid living in what used to be Clarence will get spared from having to be bused to what was Hamburg or Hutch Tech if an administrator or judge decides that's how it's going to be.
Eleven Posted June 6, 2009 Report Posted June 6, 2009 The point I was making about the school districts is that if there are multiple districts within the same municipality a judge could decide that the districts are layed out in a discriminatory manner and force the districts to reshuffle +/or merge. A judge cannot force separate municipalities to arbitrarily merge +/or swap students. A judge VERY easily could force a single municipality to adjust its school boundaries if there are "inequities" in inputs ($'s) or outcomes (performance). By merging the municipalities together, there is an assumption that services such as utilities and fire and police will be consolidated (at least to a degree) and if they aren't then there is no point in consolidating. How would the school districts not also fall under the "consolidation" umbrella? And, as an aside, having grown up in a multi-town school district and having my kids currently in one, I can state unequivocably that geographic borders/ proximity do not ultimately determine which kids go to which school. With that being the case for those systems, I don't see how an Erie kid living in what used to be Clarence will get spared from having to be bused to what was Hamburg or Hutch Tech if an administrator or judge decides that's how it's going to be. Maybe we have to look to other communities for solutions. There are other cities that have pulled this off--Tulsa, Okla. comes to mind--and perhaps we should look at what they've done and copy it. And, while I may be wrong, I do not believe a judge can force school districts to "adjust" simply based upon income and performance. There needs to be a protected class element, and income is not a protected class. I don't know where you are, but in New York State, school districts still are drawn on geographic lines, which do not always coincide with municipal boundaries (as we've agreed already), and I have never seen a case where a judge has forced school district boundaries to be redrawn because of income or performance.
Taro T Posted June 6, 2009 Report Posted June 6, 2009 Maybe we have to look to other communities for solutions. There are other cities that have pulled this off--Tulsa, Okla. comes to mind--and perhaps we should look at what they've done and copy it. And, while I may be wrong, I do not believe a judge can force school districts to "adjust" simply based upon income and performance. There needs to be a protected class element, and income is not a protected class. I don't know where you are, but in New York State, school districts still are drawn on geographic lines, which do not always coincide with municipal boundaries (as we've agreed already), and I have never seen a case where a judge has forced school district boundaries to be redrawn because of income or performance. I am in NYS, and if you change municipal boundaries the school district lines will adjust as well. There is no blanking way that a single municipal district encompassing all of Erie county would allow Williamsville South to remain strictly for the kids located there when School #x in the City is performing at 1/2 that level. You can't force districts to change their boundaries w/in different municipalities. BUT if you change the municipalities, the districts WILL change as well. If you disagree, please explain to me HOW you expect that they won't change. I don't see how you merge 30 or so police forces and 60 or so fire departments and keep every single school district intact as is. Again, if you see how that is done, please explain it, as I don't see how one does it. And you are mistaken if you think that w/in school districts that the students end up in schools drawn strictly on geographic lines. I only have direct experience w/ 2 school districts and have had both make decisions on where to send kids on grounds other than geography. I had a cousin w/ the same experience in another district. And none of these districts were in large municipalities under antisegregation orders. So, in NYS, my anecdotal evidence is 3 for 3. There is no reason for me to believe for one second that moving boundaries even further out would change that. I never said income was a protected class element (although that is one that actually SHOULD be), but if you have 2 schools in the same district and one spends X $'s per pupil and the other spends Y $'s per pupil, you can be certain that if the results are not equitable (and they won't be) that there will be adjustments made. I agree w/ you. IF we could get municipal consolidation we would save tons of money. Unfortunately, due to the politics involved we can't even get villages and towns that overlap services to merge. Those are the entities that DON'T bring the school district / busing / headache / etc. into the mix. If we can't get that level of consolidation, I don't see any way to get any other level of consolidation especially when you throw school districts into the mix, short of holding a constitutional convention which was overwhelminly voted down in the late '90's. And I am not familiar w/ the Tulsa school district; would you please explain what it is they did and what it is you suggest we copy?
Eleven Posted June 7, 2009 Report Posted June 7, 2009 I am in NYS, and if you change municipal boundaries the school district lines will adjust as well. There is no blanking way that a single municipal district encompassing all of Erie county would allow Williamsville South to remain strictly for the kids located there when School #x in the City is performing at 1/2 that level. You can't force districts to change their boundaries w/in different municipalities. BUT if you change the municipalities, the districts WILL change as well. If you disagree, please explain to me HOW you expect that they won't change. I don't see how you merge 30 or so police forces and 60 or so fire departments and keep every single school district intact as is. Again, if you see how that is done, please explain it, as I don't see how one does it. And you are mistaken if you think that w/in school districts that the students end up in schools drawn strictly on geographic lines. I only have direct experience w/ 2 school districts and have had both make decisions on where to send kids on grounds other than geography. I had a cousin w/ the same experience in another district. And none of these districts were in large municipalities under antisegregation orders. So, in NYS, my anecdotal evidence is 3 for 3. There is no reason for me to believe for one second that moving boundaries even further out would change that. I never said income was a protected class element (although that is one that actually SHOULD be), but if you have 2 schools in the same district and one spends X $'s per pupil and the other spends Y $'s per pupil, you can be certain that if the results are not equitable (and they won't be) that there will be adjustments made. I agree w/ you. IF we could get municipal consolidation we would save tons of money. Unfortunately, due to the politics involved we can't even get villages and towns that overlap services to merge. Those are the entities that DON'T bring the school district / busing / headache / etc. into the mix. If we can't get that level of consolidation, I don't see any way to get any other level of consolidation especially when you throw school districts into the mix, short of holding a constitutional convention which was overwhelminly voted down in the late '90's. And I am not familiar w/ the Tulsa school district; would you please explain what it is they did and what it is you suggest we copy? I have to discount the anecdotal evidence. Not to be a dick, but it conflicts 100% with my experience; since anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean much anyway, I'll discount mine, too. On top of that, it appears that your anecdotal evidence concerns an intra-district, rather than inter-district, situation. I still don't see how a judge can force students to attend schools in different districts. What would be the basis for it? If that's correct, why can't the hypothetical judge just do that now, anyway, and force some kid from Eggertsville to go to Williamsville North? They are both in Amherst, but they are not the same school district. I know of no legal basis to force students from one school district to attend a school in another district generally, and the forced busing decisions that I'm familiar with all rely upon the concept of an underserved protected class, which is missing here. I also don't understand how you reach this conclusion: " BUT if you change the municipalities, the districts WILL change as well." Why? We've already agreed that school district boundaries are completely different from municipal boundaries. Why would changing one necessarily result in a change to the other? I agree that consolidation probably never will happen, for political reasons, but while you've shown me that you're concerned about an effect on school districts, I can't see that the effect actually would happen. (To answer your last question, I used Tulsa, Okla. as an example of a single city with three separate and distinct school districts, one of which are shared with part of a suburb. It's not very dissimilar from what Amherst does. Students attend schools in the districts in which they live.)
red Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 But councilmembers aren't bureaucrats. They're the citizen's link to government. Bureaucrats are those folks that are in charge of each town's highway department, parks department, police department, prosecutor's office, etc. Yes, cutting 2 councilmembers, supervisors, whatever each town calls them, would save some money. Consolidating services would save a LOT more. Look at what Clarence does--it's got the whole state paying for its police force, and there's no shortage of money out there. Getting rid of these knuckleheads AND consolidating are the only hope for WNY. Who knows, at this point, with GM and such, it may be too little too late, anyways. The same boobs who keep re-electing the same morons for the past 2-3 decades have gotten what they deserve. With the exception of Brian Higgins, not a single WNY politician is worth their weight. They are a collective '0'. Why would you keep any of them? Should Erie County be consolidated? Absolutely. 1 police force, 1 fire department, etc. Population continues to flee, why keep the status quo government? Eventually there won't be anyone left to tax. Wipe them all out, consolidate, and VOTE BASED ON RECORD. Idiots...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.