SO this is it. Tomorrow is the big day we'll finally get answers to so many questions (except perhaps why the schools are closed on election day when the kids don't even have to vote. Anyone?)
But one question that we'll never really know is what the heck happened the the debt exclusion campaign. For those who don't know, there is a question on tomorrow's ballot asking voters to permit the city to borrow up to $7.8 million. This money will be used to pay off some long-term debt and enable the city to actually prepare for unavoidable capital and budget expenses.
But where was the great debate? No doubt this was one of the weakest campaigns for a debt exclusion that I've ever witnessed, which is disappointing because I don't see how anyone who sees the question for the first time tomorrow will vote for a tax increase, even a temporary one.
To his credit, John Moak was out there. He held several meetings and hearings meeting with this group or that. By his estimation he spoke to 400-450 people, according to today's piece in the Daily News. But I'm not sure his time was well spent. He might have been well served to employ a bit of political might to assemble some allies who could speak to the question with a bit more passion. As he told the News today (can't find the link) he sought only to inform, not to sway.
That's too bad. The casual voter--who will likely be among those voting against this question tomorrow--doesn't attend hearings at the Firehouse. If we're lucky, they read the paper, and the coverage of this question has been weak. Today's paper contains only one of two longer articles on the debt exclusion question. I would have liked a little more coverage on what's a very important question.
(I also didn't post on this issue much at all, so I'll take a wee, wee bit of the blame.)
A few public officials have written letters to the editors arguing in favor of the question, but I would have hope the news would have done a little bit of polling of city council and school committee so we knew where our elected officials stand. (If that's been done let me know, perhaps I've just missed it.) But without the push of community groups--be it parents, business folk or even anti-tax types--the public dialog over these questions never gets off the ground.
What a shame. I thought the question was well thought out and presented the city with a nice opportunity to take a small short-term hit for a long-term gain.
I'm not ignorant to the financial mess around us, and I sympathize with those folks who feel they couldn't handle the $100-$150 a year in additional taxes. But I don't necessarily buy into the "now isn't a good time for a tax hike" argument put forth by the Daily News and others. In all my years of covering town politics, I've never heard anyone say "Now is a good time for a tax hike."
Bottom line, the proposal makes sense. Read the Daily News today. Go on the city's web site to review the material. Do a little research.
It's easy to assign the blame to public officials, the media, and community groups but the ultimate responsibility falls upon the voters. It's really up to us to hunt out the facts that tell us whether or not we think this is a good idea. We're the ones who will have to deal with the consequences in either case.
I'm voting for the debt exclusion, btw.
8 comments:
Perhaps those that be realize that it's best to be stealth when it comes to over rides as you can incite the opposition to organize if you loudly assert your pro group. The pro group failed in the last election and now it's a more difficult economic time but trying a different strategy seems appropriate.
The Liberator has a tally of how many on the Council feel about the Debt Exclusion.
I've seen copies around at various locations.
James Shanley
It makes no sense to be willing to increase your taxes when money is available elsewhere (e.g, $500,000 per year in savings if we simply stop paying more for the healthcare for our city workers than we pay for our state workers), or when money is being wasted by our Mayor (e.g., signing an an agreement to pay for uncompetitively priced solar energy).
Schools are closed primarily for safety reasons - the Bresnahan and Brown are used for 3 of the 7 polling locations for the City. The traffic is absolutely scary in these areas on election day and the Brown especially is located in a difficult driving area. The Bres, on the other hand, is a very large school with many buses for the kids and is located on the heaviest trafficked street in teh city. At one point, Police officers were hired for traffic control on High Street during election day. One could only imagine the job for the crossing guard on High Street with all the campaign signs, signholders, and poorly parked vehicles on High St. with signs displayed. In addition, the teachers are going to have X number of days for professional development during the year. It makes common sense to have the professional development day on election day so that the school area is safe for both students and voters. If school was in session on election day, you can probably imagine that the level of noise and disruption throughout the school would make the learning environment difficult at best. So, it's a good idea to combine the professional development days with election day. You may also recall past news stories about drivers losing control of their vehicles in other towns as school was being dismissed, resulting in children being injured. This plan in Nbpt. has been in place since the early 1990's when Francis Bresnahan was Superintendent. Hope this helps.
Interesting post, Tom.
We're up in NH this election day and I see on the Daily News that the debt exclusion barely failed. Seems like it may have passed had the mayor pushed for it a bit more. It looks like it was that close.
Okay, the school plan make sense. But in MY Day the schools remained open, and I remember watching people walk past my window on the way to vote.
Seemed like a nice civic lesson.
It makes perfect sense because I don't think most folks will ever think their tax dollars are being spent just as they should.
City government is like any other large organization, public or private.
There are--and always will be--perceived inefficiencies. I've never spoken to a taxpayer who said, "Gee, one thing about this city is it squeezes the snot out of every tax dollar."
That aside, it's not out of line to think that resentment over the solar panel deal cost 61 votes.
Too bad.
Post a Comment