TC PAYT power grab

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

TC PAYT power grab

Postby Dennis King » Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:35 am

The TC puts all sorts or warrant articles to a vote of the people at DS and then town meeting. We will get to decide if we want to raise taxes to restore the cuts in the PD and FD and I am perfectly OK with that. Heck, we even get to decide if the town manager has to live in town or could live nearby.

But one thing we will not be able to vote on is PAYT. You see TIm Tenhave used the warrant article process to bring the choice of PAYT to the people (again this is our democratic process) but he then preverted this process since PAYT was now back on the agenda, he recommended the TC ignore the warrant and simply IMPOSE PAYT on the rest of us taxpayers, despite and because he knew it was against the will of the people and did not have a chance to pass. So now the article is "nulified", vote for it or against it, makes no difference, the TC has decided they can not trust the will of the people, no, in Dan's own words, they must "FORCE US"

Read the story if you can, a very sad day for Merrimack

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/908 ... happy.html
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby lynn » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:45 pm

The article is not "nullified"
it is on the warrant, as is the budget
the voters iattending the deliberative session will get to decide what they want to vote on
in April, not the Town Council

see you there
lynn
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:00 pm

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Dennis King » Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:10 pm

lynn wrote:The article is not "nullified"
it is on the warrant, as is the budget
the voters iattending the deliberative session will get to decide what they want to vote on
in April, not the Town Council

see you there


Lynn, I understand the town council voted to impose PAYT. They will also have to have a public hearing before they implement this but the deed is done, it is now part of the budget. Now I fully expect a big turn out of union people so the PD and FD jobs will be restored and added back into the budget. What will be harder still, is to propose adding $600,000.00+ into the budget so we can avoid PAYT. That is the beauty of the way they put this out there. The other thing, since they are all "done deal about this", it appears even if we could vote against this, they are not bound to accept our judgement. They say us at the last public hearing, they took a survey and PAYT was wildly unpopular. They know how we feel and that is why this power play went down the way it did. I hope I am wrong but is appears PAYT is coming regardless of what we have to say.
If the vote on this article will bind the TC to not implement PAYT (assuming it is turned down), that would be great news. This is your area of expertise, Lynn, do we still have a chance, do we still matter in this town?
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby lynn » Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:11 pm

The TC could implement this at any point regardless of whether there is a warrant article or not
and they could do it at any time.

What I saw at the meeting was a proposal with numbers to back it up that showed they could
save a significant amount of money by doing it that it made sense to them.

I also suspect as Mark has purported that if you ask the people who currently contract for CS pickup
if they would vote for PAYT in exchange for a reduction in their taxes, they might just say yes.
And if as has also been suggested, that this is 70% of the people in town, then a majority of the voters
may agree with what they did.

We will have to see what happens at the deliberative session to know what people are going to get to vote on.
But it is no more nullified now than if the TC had done this 2 yrs ago or waited 6 mos from now.

The article has no force behind it, any more than the article adding the FD or PD positions back in.

regardless of how people vote - it is still up to the TC to decide what the "right" thing is to do.
And that dear friends and fellow voters is in the eye of the beholder.
lynn
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:00 pm

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:09 pm

Lots of crabby Merrimack Residents posting about PayT on the UL website

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?hea ... 32db3dfea6
REPUBLICAN - BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ON WELFARE
Jeannine Stergios
 
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Jessica Drive Merrimack

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Wayne » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:55 pm

Why doesn't that surprise me? :?
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Tim Tenhave » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:07 am

Dennis King wrote: You see TIm Tenhave used the warrant article process to bring the choice of PAYT to the people (again this is our democratic process) but he then preverted this process since PAYT was now back on the agenda, he recommended the TC ignore the warrant and simply IMPOSE PAYT on the rest of us taxpayers, despite and because he knew it was against the will of the people and did not have a chance to pass.


Dennis,

Watch the meeting again. Everyone, watch the meeting if you can. It is available on Channel 20 and soon will be available in streaming video at: http://merrimacktv.com/online-video/town-council/

Dennis, you owe me an apology.

Since Friday, you have numerous times misrepresented what I said. You have attributed thought, intent, and words that I had not had, do not have, and never said. The meeting is available. Watch the meeting.

I clearly stated that I felt the article would pass. I also said that I felt the Town would rally around the Council and and asked them to lead this. Before I wanted to go forward with my article, I felt it was the honorable thing to allow and ask the Town Council to lead this effort.

Watch the meeting. My words come in about 1 hour 5 minutes into the meeting.

Dennis, why would I...

1.) Carefully and seek legal advice to properly word a warrant article so it could not be ignored or turned down.
2.) Speak with Town official to get the numbers right.
3.) Work and ask others to help me get the signatures I needed.
4.) Go to a public hearing with 3 pages of notes and multiple fliers to argue my case and have data to answer questions.

Dennis, I was fully prepared to argue my case on this subject. I was ready. Why was I ready? Because I believe that the majority of the voters agree with me.

Dennis, stop misrepresenting what happened. I asked the Council to lead this because I felt let down by them when they did not. Before you continue this train of thought, watch the meetng, get the facts straight. Stop twisting reality to meet your agenda. The video is there.

Tim
Tim Tenhave
 
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:18 pm

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Dennis King » Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:43 am

Tim Tenhave wrote:
Dennis King wrote: You see TIm Tenhave used the warrant article process to bring the choice of PAYT to the people (again this is our democratic process) but he then preverted this process since PAYT was now back on the agenda, he recommended the TC ignore the warrant and simply IMPOSE PAYT on the rest of us taxpayers, despite and because he knew it was against the will of the people and did not have a chance to pass.


Dennis,

Watch the meeting again. Everyone, watch the meeting if you can. It is available on Channel 20 and soon will be available in streaming video at: http://merrimacktv.com/online-video/town-council/

Dennis, you owe me an apology.

Since Friday, you have numerous times misrepresented what I said. You have attributed thought, intent, and words that I had not had, do not have, and never said. The meeting is available. Watch the meeting.

I clearly stated that I felt the article would pass. I also said that I felt the Town would rally around the Council and and asked them to lead this. Before I wanted to go forward with my article, I felt it was the honorable thing to allow and ask the Town Council to lead this effort.

Watch the meeting. My words come in about 1 hour 5 minutes into the meeting.

Dennis, why would I...

1.) Carefully and seek legal advice to properly word a warrant article so it could not be ignored or turned down.
2.) Speak with Town official to get the numbers right.
3.) Work and ask others to help me get the signatures I needed.
4.) Go to a public hearing with 3 pages of notes and multiple fliers to argue my case and have data to answer questions.

Dennis, I was fully prepared to argue my case on this subject. I was ready. Why was I ready? Because I believe that the majority of the voters agree with me.

Dennis, stop misrepresenting what happened. I asked the Council to lead this because I felt let down by them when they did not. Before you continue this train of thought, watch the meetng, get the facts straight. Stop twisting reality to meet your agenda. The video is there.

Tim


Tim, I have not doubt you did the work needed to put a warrant article, as I said, no problem there but you crossed the line when you asked the council to "lead" on this. It is a long 5 hour meeting but I have watched it twice and the whole confusion about the article was in having the TC impose their will thus nullifying the will of the people. To bring a warrant article for the people to decide and then to encourage the TC to "lead" aka nullify your article, well those actions speak for themselves. You have learned the political game well TIm, it sort of reminds me of the movie Casablanca when Claude Raines closes Ricks bar and is SHOCKED,,, SHOCKED that gambling is going on (as Carl hands him his "winnings")

Tim, you brought the article forward which allowed the TC to reopen this and then you asked them to "lead" on this. If you truly believed it would pass, why ask the TC to in Dan's words, "FORCE" us to do it.

Sorry TIm, that logic makes no sense at all, but I do agree, people should watch the tape and draw their own conclusions. After all, the will of the people is what democracy is all about, umm,. unless you bring forward a democratic instrument and then "encourage" the TC to "lead,,, aka nullify your own warrant" :roll: :roll:
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Fitzie » Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:54 am

Dennis,

Did you or did you not misrepresent what Tim said? Easy question.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Dennis King » Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:09 am

lynn wrote:I also suspect as Mark has purported that if you ask the people who currently contract for CS pickup
if they would vote for PAYT in exchange for a reduction in their taxes, they might just say yes.
And if as has also been suggested, that this is 70% of the people in town, then a majority of the voters
may agree with what they did.


If this is true, why nullify the warrant, let the voters decide. Lynn, you are quoting from the CS propaganda campaign that attacks the self haulers. The FACTS are these, 6500 single family homes of which 4500 have stickers so at least 2000 choice CS and it is more likely 3000 as Tim pointed out that some homes have more than one sticker. Private companies don't count, they do not send kids to school and all their taxes are actually paid by the people who use their services (cost of goods) so we now have about 3,500 people using the TS and a total of 2,213 condo owners, 245 mixed family homes and 72 two family homes. I am not sure about the latter two categories but the 2,213 condo owners have CS as part of the lifestyle and yet they still can use the TS any time they want and even under the new plan, sure, throw away that heavy sofa for free!

The TS was all about choice and of the 6500 single family homeowners, say 3,500 choose to self haul. Now what you are proposing here is once again to attack these people who BTW also pay taxes and if you want to go the "fairness route", they pay significantly more in taxes so much that the 1/3 to 2/3 is stood up on its end.
The other thing I found interesting in the rush to judgement was they used Mr Seymour for his numbers and the revenue was based on 4,500 users of the TS but Tim then debunked those very numbers the TC was relying on. No wonder Tom K was confused, it was the old bait and switch, use the numbers when they support you view of all the revenue you will supposedly get and at the same time debunk the numbers when you are looking to attack the TS users and make it all about fairness.

lynn wrote:We will have to see what happens at the deliberative session to know what people are going to get to vote on.
But it is no more nullified now than if the TC had done this 2 yrs ago or waited 6 mos from now.

The article has no force behind it, any more than the article adding the FD or PD positions back in.

regardless of how people vote - it is still up to the TC to decide what the "right" thing is to do.
And that dear friends and fellow voters is in the eye of the beholder.


Lynn, it all the years Chris was on the board, I never saw a power grab. Letting the people decide has been the way this town votes for over 250 years. I still remember town meetings when we had even more say but always, the BOS saw their job to research options and then bring it to the people to DECIDE. This is the first time I have seen this happen in town. What they are doing is coming up with a new "fee" aka tax so they can claim they lowered taxes while at the same time, added nearly a million dollars to the tax burden of the self haulers, good thing they started the demonetization early, most now believe these self haulers are taking advantage of the other people in town. It is all about getting the TS (which we voted for and paid for) off Lawrence road. Dan admitted it, next year, curbside!
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Dennis King » Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:12 am

Fitzie wrote:Dennis,

Did you or did you not misrepresent what Tim said? Easy question.


Easy answer, NO. I described his actions, plain and simple, he admitted he brought the article forward and then admitted he asked the TC to "take the lead" and nullify the very article he put forward. Pretty cut and dry and I trust the people will watch his actions on the video, they speak volumes!

As to motives, well When Claude Raines was shocked,,, shocked that gambling was going on, you can hear his words or you can watch him take the money and put it in his pocket.

This is something new in town, for over 250 years, we have always trusted in the will of the people, now we have a new form of government (which I was against and for good reasons) that now has far more power and they are itching to use it. The real great leaders throughout history were marked for greatness when they did not use power, Cinncinatus and Washington come to mind. The years of attacks have achieved the result they wanted, the TC now felt emboldened to ignore the people because they are destroying the planet and should pay more even though if you look at what they pay compared to the poor condo owners, it is nearly twice as much in taxes but why ruin a good myth when it can bring out the tyranny in the TC.
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Dennis King » Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:29 am

Tim Tenhave wrote:
I clearly stated that I felt the article would pass.

I also said that I felt the Town would rally around the Council and and asked them to lead this.

Before I wanted to go forward with my article, I felt it was the honorable thing to allow and ask the Town Council to lead this effort. Tim


Leadership????

Nullify a warrant article that asks the taxpayers to decide, Impose it on them instead, that is honorable? Sorry Tim, we see this in a very different way. I believe the people are smart enough to make these decisions and if they do not want what you think is "best for them", well that is their choice. Once again, we are back to choice and freedom, we fought many wars for that, why would we give it away now?
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Fitzie » Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:47 am

Dennis King wrote:
lynn wrote:I also suspect as Mark has purported that if you ask the people who currently contract for CS pickup
if they would vote for PAYT in exchange for a reduction in their taxes, they might just say yes.
And if as has also been suggested, that this is 70% of the people in town, then a majority of the voters
may agree with what they did.


If this is true, why nullify the warrant, let the voters decide. Lynn, you are quoting from the CS propaganda campaign that attacks the self haulers. The FACTS are these, 6500 single family homes of which 4500 have stickers so at least 2000 choice CS and it is more likely 3000 as Tim pointed out that some homes have more than one sticker. Private companies don't count, they do not send kids to school and all their taxes are actually paid by the people who use their services (cost of goods) so we now have about 3,500 people using the TS and a total of 2,213 condo owners, 245 mixed family homes and 72 two family homes. I am not sure about the latter two categories but the 2,213 condo owners have CS as part of the lifestyle and yet they still can use the TS any time they want and even under the new plan, sure, throw away that heavy sofa for free!

The TS was all about choice and of the 6500 single family homeowners, say 3,500 choose to self haul. Now what you are proposing here is once again to attack these people who BTW also pay taxes and if you want to go the "fairness route", they pay significantly more in taxes so much that the 1/3 to 2/3 is stood up on its end.
The other thing I found interesting in the rush to judgement was they used Mr Seymour for his numbers and the revenue was based on 4,500 users of the TS but Tim then debunked those very numbers the TC was relying on. No wonder Tom K was confused, it was the old bait and switch, use the numbers when they support you view of all the revenue you will supposedly get and at the same time debunk the numbers when you are looking to attack the TS users and make it all about fairness.

lynn wrote:We will have to see what happens at the deliberative session to know what people are going to get to vote on.
But it is no more nullified now than if the TC had done this 2 yrs ago or waited 6 mos from now.

The article has no force behind it, any more than the article adding the FD or PD positions back in.

regardless of how people vote - it is still up to the TC to decide what the "right" thing is to do.
And that dear friends and fellow voters is in the eye of the beholder.


Lynn, it all the years Chris was on the board, I never saw a power grab. Letting the people decide has been the way this town votes for over 250 years. I still remember town meetings when we had even more say but always, the BOS saw their job to research options and then bring it to the people to DECIDE. This is the first time I have seen this happen in town. What they are doing is coming up with a new "fee" aka tax so they can claim they lowered taxes while at the same time, added nearly a million dollars to the tax burden of the self haulers, good thing they started the demonetization early, most now believe these self haulers are taking advantage of the other people in town. It is all about getting the TS (which we voted for and paid for) off Lawrence road. Dan admitted it, next year, curbside!


To quote one of my favorite cartoon characters.....Heavens to Murgatroid!! I don't even know where to begin.

Clarifications are required however.

1. PAYT is not a tax. Never has been, never will be. You only pay for what you use. At the moment you owe your neighbor with CS about $200 from last year. The $1M is simply you taking responsibility for your costs currently paid for by others. You can opt not to, it's a free country.
2. Irony.....The CS group of the early 2000's were primarily made up of self-haulers whereas the TS group was funded by curbside providers (because they knew this was coming....a free lunch in the form of no real program followed by everyone flocking to them once PAYT was inevitably instituted to stem the blood flow from the TS the providers weren't going to use anyway).
3. What's the value of your home? I ask because it's likely there are many homes appraised at much more than yours and in keeping with your condo argument, they should be receiving more benefits than you.
4. You seem to be doing all the attacking.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby lynn » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:09 pm

Dennis - I am not "quoting from the CS propaganda campaign" I am giving
you my impression of what happened at the meeting. I am not, nor will I,
advocate for any it in any way - just passing along what I thought I heard at
the meeting and what I have heard from a number of people since.
lynn
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:00 pm

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Dennis King » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:25 pm

Lynn, I am not blaming you for repeating what you hear. Tom K. called it out once the numbers came out, he questioned the 1/3 to 2/3 assertion once the numbers were presented. Lot's of people believe this is the case because of years and years of disinformation. I presented the facts, the very ones that made it so difficult for Tom to makes sense of. I sure wish more questions were asked, then maybe the nullification would not have happened. Oh and the eight weeks to get it running, that is the time it will take to make this legal.
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Next

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron