PAYT is not the way to go

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

PAYT is not the way to go

Postby Dennis King » Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:32 am

Here is an interesting article in todays Union Leader. It seems at best, the local towns are getting 30% recycling. I recall Mr. Seymour said we were at 15-20% until the TC corrected him to the 15% figure (watch the tape!)

So with no coercion, we are close to what the other towns have with MANDATED PAYT. Why not encourage people to do more recycling, seems to me a much better way to go, no stupid bags, no bag police, and no hassle in throwing away your trash.

The whole town voted for the TS. They voted by a huge majority to not allow PAYT when they were asked in the town survey. Just what part of no does this TC not get!!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Here is the article, once again, law of unintended consequences rules, liberalism on parade:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx ... 73677c0bff
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby Norman Phillips » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:26 pm

There seems to be some confusion as to whether the new budget correctly allows for installation of PAYT. This is a matter which a Municipal Budget Committee, with its dozen or more members, would have kept clear.

The Charter Commission purposely eliminated the then existing Municipal Budget Committee.

Even at the DS, members of the BC would have been able to keep these matters straight.
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Re: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby Dennis King » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:00 pm

Norman Phillips wrote:There seems to be some confusion as to whether the new budget correctly allows for installation of PAYT. This is a matter which a Municipal Budget Committee, with its dozen or more members, would have kept clear.

The Charter Commission purposely eliminated the then existing Municipal Budget Committee.

Even at the DS, members of the BC would have been able to keep these matters straight.



Norm, you make an excellent point! (Did I just say that? :wink: )

This town council has no oversight, no members of the public watching over their budget.

I can see this leads to their abuses of power.

Tom Mahon has already stated publically that the TC will have to change the language in order to implement PAYT, in other words to make it "legal" so in essence that would make their current vote ,,,,, hmmmmm

I guess since they now have much more power than they had in the past,
well then of course the budget committee that checked that power is not needed. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby Tim Tenhave » Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:29 pm

Dennis,

None of the Towns mentioned in the article has a PAYT system.

The point of PAYT is reduce/avoid the cost of handling solid waste. The savings will be seen by the majority of the taxpayers. Recycling is a way for those who choose to use the TS to reduce their fees.

Norm there is no doubt, PAYT is in the budget that the voters will decide on. If there is confusion, then people need to ask the Town to help them answer their questions or they need to review the Voter's guide the Town has available. You can find the electronic version at: http://merrimacknh.gov/sites/merrimackn ... 1final.pdf

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

Re: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby TonyRichardson » Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:57 pm

Tim Tenhave wrote:Dennis,

None of the Towns mentioned in the article has a PAYT system.

The point of PAYT is reduce/avoid the cost of handling solid waste. The savings will be seen by the majority of the taxpayers. Recycling is a way for those who choose to use the TS to reduce their fees.

Norm there is no doubt, PAYT is in the budget that the voters will decide on. If there is confusion, then people need to ask the Town to help them answer their questions or they need to review the Voter's guide the Town has available. You can find the electronic version at: http://merrimacknh.gov/sites/merrimackn ... 1final.pdf

Tim


I have to disagree with your main point here Tim.

According to the best information out there, the majority of taxpayers are already using private contract curbside.
I am one of that group.

If you want to reduce my costs, eliminate the transfer station.
Its cost exceeds its value add, and always will.

There is NO upside for me with Payt, or for anyone else that doesn't go to the transfer station.
Liberalism - What happens when emotional reactions are confused with and substituted for facts and reason.
TonyRichardson
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby ggkrupp » Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:01 pm

TonyRichardson wrote:If you want to reduce my costs, eliminate the transfer station.
Its cost exceeds its value add, and always will.


I am a TS user and an avid recycler and yet the more I study this issue the more I am coming to this same conclusion :(
Gary G. Krupp

America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy (thankfully) :-)
User avatar
ggkrupp
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Ministerial Dr

Re: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby Tim Tenhave » Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:07 pm

TonyRichardson wrote:If you want to reduce my costs, eliminate the transfer station.
Its cost exceeds its value add, and always will.


Tony, no argument from me on this point.

But if we are going to have one (for at least the next year), PAYT will reduce taxes as it will shift some of the cost of the TS to those who choose to use it.

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

Re: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby Dennis King » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:08 pm

Tim Tenhave wrote:
TonyRichardson wrote:If you want to reduce my costs, eliminate the transfer station.
Its cost exceeds its value add, and always will.


Tony, no argument from me on this point.

But if we are going to have one (for at least the next year),,,.

Tim


Bingo, there it is in print. Think sticking the evil self haulers will just stick those bags only on them, just wait til next year when the TC goes to town wide curbside with MANDATORY PATY!

No vote of the people needed, the precedent was established the moment Tim told the TC to "lead"

Why mess with the will of the people when you just implement it into the budget. Besides, having control is so much more fun.

But wait, the numbers are clearly inflated so we won't have the revenue we planned on, oh well, just tax the taxpayers more and blame it on the self haulers. Oh how much fun it is to spend spend spend and not once have to ask the taxpayers what they want. Oh how they love the smell of their new chairs and the wonderful view it provides as they look down on the "little people" who have to sit on those hard benches. Splinters in their a*****, Serves them right because they had the nerve to show up and talk to their lords and masters. What a waste of time, they will do what they want anyway regardless of what you think.

After all, the are our "Leaders" and if they have to, in Dan Dwyer's words "Force us", well that is all part of the fun.
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby Ken Coleman » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:23 pm

Why mess with the will of the people when you just implement it into the budget. Besides, having control is so much more fun.

But wait, the numbers are clearly inflated so we won't have the revenue we planned on, oh well, just tax the taxpayers more and blame it on the self haulers. Oh how much fun it is to spend spend spend and not once have to ask the taxpayers what they want. Oh how they love the smell of their new chairs and the wonderful view it provides as they look down on the "little people" who have to sit on those hard benches. Splinters in their a*****, Serves them right because they had the nerve to show up and talk to their lords and masters. What a waste of time, they will do what they want anyway regardless of what you think.


Wow. I am not in favor of the PAYT proposal, however what is posted above is nonsense!

Why can't we have honest disagreements? My position is that the TC is a bunch of good well meaning people who I disagree with on this issue.

One of the reasons I stop posting on PAYT is because I don't want to be associated with these types of unfounded attacks!

Ken Coleman
Ken Coleman

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results” Ben Franklin
Ken Coleman
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 8:49 am

Re: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby ggkrupp » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:34 pm

Ken Coleman wrote:Why can't we have honest disagreements? My position is that the TC is a bunch of good well meaning people who I disagree with on this issue.


I could not agree more ... well said
Gary G. Krupp

America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy (thankfully) :-)
User avatar
ggkrupp
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Ministerial Dr

Re: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:46 pm

Dennis

I think you're really blowing this all out of proportion. Can you explain to me why I should pay for the TS when I am already spending $260 per year to have my trash picked up and whatever I take to the TS I pay for the disposal of electronics and such. I have no problem paying for it if it means our tax bills will be lower. I wish they'd shut it down and get townwide curbside and open the TS one Saturday a month for people to dispose of large items and electronics.
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: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby Dennis King » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:50 pm

Ken Coleman wrote:One of the reasons I stop posting on PAYT is because I don't want to be associated with these types of unfounded attacks!Ken Coleman


Ken, nothing in my post are "unfounded". It is all FACTS. The big difference between you and me is the interpretation of the facts.

I do not believe these people are evil but I do believe they are wrong. I believe democracy is all about the limits on government.

Tim brought the warrant article to the TC. Now problem with that fact, a warrant asking the people to choose is fine by me, I have trust in the people. (I did not like the wording as it assumed income that even Tim stated was based on inflated numbers, you see you use the numbers when you need them to support the expected "revenue" but then you attack the number when Tom K questions the 2/3 supporting the 1/3 using TIM's numbers and those from Mr. Seymour.)

Now this is where you and I disagree:
Tim used an instrument of democracy to circumvent our democracy.

After putting the warrant forward (so now it was on the TC agenda), he then asked them to "lead", in essence, forget what the people want, forget the warrant I just presented, heck, you already know 70% are against it but you must "lead" or in Dan's words, "force them".

Ken, all I did was quote these people and speak on their ACTIONS, all of which are hard facts. I do not think this is the way government should work. The ends never justify the means.

Brian McCarthy justified giving Tim Tenhave his exception since the voters voted for the exception but after Deb researched this, it was clear the town voted for no exceptions. No,it was the TC who changed the ordinance, no warrant article to ask the voters, nope, just did it because they can.

So now, we have to allow anyone to drink in our parks since we face a lawsuit based upon a precedent that the PEOPLE NEVER VOTED FOR.

When a government body makes their own laws and amends laws from the people so as to change the intent of the law, well, we no longer have democracy, we have tyranny. You may be fine with that Ken but I value the will of the people far more than I value the will of the TC. Since our founding, we have had the closest thing to direct democracy since the Athenians. Why would we give this up, why let 7 people decide for the whole town when we have a time tested system for taxpayer input. The TC is confused, their job is not to make the decisions for us, no, it is to come up with options and then present them to us to decide.

Jeannine, If the people decide they want PAYT, I will accept that, my argument is about the process. It may surprise you but I have publicly supported town wide curbside pick up but not with mandatory PAYT. I do not believe in forcing people, we already have toilets that don't flush, showers that take longer, bags that break, and lights that need an EPA HAZ MAT team if you break them. My argument is in the process, the people should decide, not the TC. We now see what happens when they make all the rules. After the town voted for a total ban with no exceptions on alcohol in the parks, the TC votes to make exceptions and then a TC member is the first to ask for an exception (surprise surprise) and now we will have just the opposite of the will of the people, alcohol in all parks whenever a request comes in.

True, I do not think they are bad people but they are corrupt. Not in the way where you get personal gain but in the sense that power makes you forget why you are there and who really makes the decisions (or should).

They say power corrupts and the more they change the rules the PEOPLE put in and replace it with their will, the more we move away from democracy. I have no problem with a ballot with 20 warrant questions, shows respect for the people and let's the people learn of the issues and then make their decision. See the difference?
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby andysinnh » Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:51 pm

I've been on the sidelines watching this tennis match go back and forth about "will of the people", and frankly I can't stand on the sidelines any longer. I contend that the vast majority of the voters in Merrimack rely upon the elected officials to make decisions for us, and not bring every single decision down to the individual voter for their thumbs up or thumbs down reaction. If this were true, then we'd have hundreds of warrant articles on the ballot every year - but more likely we'd never have switched to an SB2 town gov't at all, so people instead could go and vote in the town meeting! But that's not the case. The majority of the voters have agreed to have the current form of town government, with full knowledge that the majority of decisions would be made by the governing body. And if people don't like the decisions the TC member(s) make, they can choose with their vote the next time they're on the ballot. Heck - move to a place like Manchester or Nashua where you have a mayor and board of alderman. I contend you have LESS input to the decisions there than we have in Merrimack?

But remember - it's all part of democracy and all part of our government. The residents of Merrimack voted to have this form of town government, and it is what it is. As was stated earlier, there's nothing illegal or invalid going on. My observation is that many on this forum will claim foul about any TC decision made that doesn't support their position. And if the TC were to use a similar approach for a result that these same forum members DO agree with, would there be the same disdain for the "will of the people"? In this particular case, what if it were Joe Lunchbox instead of Tim Tenhave who asked for (and got) the approval to use alcohol at Wasserman? Would there still be the crying of "foul"?

When you're elected to a position in a town like Merrimack, you're expected to vote on a question based on your particular values and beliefs, since that's why the people voted you into the position in the first place. And in many cases, elected officials try to gauge the "will of the people" in making their position known about a particular subject. But at the end of the day, you have to vote one way or the other. And in the end, because each of these boards are made up of many members, your vote is only one of many to achieve a majority on a decision. If the majority of elected officials on a board votes in a particular direction, does that mean that they're circumventing the process? Does it mean they're tipping the scales? Or are they, really, voting the "will of the people"? think about it....

andy
Andy Schneider
andysinnh
 
Posts: 2361
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:04 am
Location: Woodward Rd

Re: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby Dennis King » Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:06 pm

Andy, I have already posted this is not about TIm, it is about the process. By your way of thinking, why should the SB ask for money for a new building for the superintendent, why not just appropriate the money the way the TC did in using cable subscriber funds for their new digs.

Should we limit warrants only to items that have a financial cost to the taxpayers? If so, why did the TC implement PAYT into the budget without any vote by the people!

Sorry Andy, you have have total trust in government but I think our founding fathers knew human nature better than anyone. They put checks and balances into the system. Ever wonder why the TC eliminated the town budget committee? What was the goal of this committee? Oversight right, well, the less public oversight, the more power is put into fewer hands.

If I could turn back the clock, I would love to have town meeting again. Sadly, most people do not even know what they are missing. It was the teachers and other town union members who ruined this for us all. People would come to the town meeting, listen to the debate for hours and then go home to care for their kids only to find their votes were reversed in the dark of the night but those very same people who stayed to vote their own raises.

Now if the TC wants to decide the color of the chairs in the office, fine by me but when they are deciding something that affects a significant amount of the citizens in town, then a public hearing is appropriate, research and even a citizens committee is then formed and a warrant is then drafted and put to the public.
That is the way democracy has been done since our founding, we should not permit the TC to erode our democratic process. I have no problem with letting the voters decide on these issues, after all, we have to pay for the consequences of these decisions, it is all about limits on power, not the blind exercise thereof.
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: PAYT is not the way to go

Postby ggkrupp » Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:20 pm

A republic is not the same thing as a democracy and we still live in a republic. We use democratic processes to elect a representative government to which we entrust a certain amount of decision-making authority. Representatives should and are often held accountable for their decisions by the voters at election time but they must be allowed to exercise their authority within the limits of existing statutes in order for government to function. Degenerating into a pure democracy where all decisions are put to a vote would be nothing more than legislated mob rule. The founders also put checks in place to guard against that (like the electoral college and the Senate who were originally appointed by the State legislatures, not the voters).
Gary G. Krupp

America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy (thankfully) :-)
User avatar
ggkrupp
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Ministerial Dr

Next

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron