Finally, something has gone right! Judge Tormey has ruled that the details of the lease between New York Regional Interconnect and the New York Susquehanna and Western Railway Corp. must be made public by the OCIDA. The Observer-Dispatch and its attorney Michael Grygiel should be congratulated.
The Public has the right to know Who NYRI is.
Hopefully the details of the lease will tell us.
Meanwhile in New Hartford, it was business as usual with the Town Board. What was supposed to be a meeting where the public could have its questions about the Town's proposed bonding answered turned into a lengthy "should-have-missed-it" occasion. Nothing new was learned. They could not even tell us the maturities of the bonds they want the people to approve. What was perhaps the most upsetting was to receive a handout that was virtually identical to the one from January's meeting: the one criticized back then for lacking the dollar amounts of each bond, their maturities, and anticipated overall costs including all financing charges. These items are nothing unusual. They are the things that the average homeowner is told when taking out a loan. It's called "Truth In Lending." Apparently the Town Board is uninterested in revealing the Truth. It also is painfully clear that the Board does not listen to its citizens because the information was requested at the January meeting. Never a loss for words, Cathy at New Hartford Online has a lot to say about last night's meeting. This Town Board just doesn't "get it."
1 comment:
Town officials, once again, did the wrong thing. They miserably failed to inform the public.
Interestingly, a core group of town residents referring to themselves as "CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR HONEST & OPEN GOVERNMENT" speak with integrity. I recently learned that this group spent their own private funds to place an ad in the New Hartford area Pennysaver to inform the New Hartford Town Resident inclusive of those who reside in the New York Mills area (i.e. Winchester Drive, Washington Drive, Fairway Drive, Comenale Drive, Young Ave, Burrstone Road, Elm Street, Porter Street and New Hartford Street areas.
These town residents pay taxes to the Town of New Hartford, however, will NOT benefit one penny from the $5,000,000 Town Officials want to Bond for.
This one-page ad can be obtained from the Pennysaver [www.psaver.com], phone: Press & Facility at 736-1495, or e-mail them [ewest@utica.gannett.com].
Perhaps the owner of this blog may put a link to this ad placed in the Pennysaver.
Town Officials failed to provide substantive information to explain why they had to Bond. IS IT BECAUSE THE TOWN IS ON THE VERGE OF INSOLVENCY?
Common sense tells me that no one would bond 14 - 20 years for "improved" lighting service in an amount of $92,000. Then Town Officials tell the public that "payback" will be attained within five (5) years. Who is kidding whom? Any astute business entity would incorporate this type of expenditure into their normal [annual] operating budget NOT BOND!
So can it be said for the SIDEWALK BONDING proposal of $150,000. When Town Officials asked, "who wants this?" Guess what? No Town Official had the answer. All they wanted to do is "BOND" for these monies and then use them elsewhere.
What Town Officials are doing is similar to a "shell" game. Town Officials have no intention of using the $5,000,000 in the manner that is being proposed. Legalese language incorporated into the proposals was intentional and with a purpose. Simply stated, "Bond revenue is intended for something outside the scope of expenditures permitted by law."
March 29, 2007 is the date to VOTE! I would ask each Town resident to hold their elected Town councilman to the "fire" and demand that they come clean in this Bond Proposal, especially, the 1 Oxford Road Crossing whose special interests suggest a conflict of interest.
Terence Martin, Broker secured the Town signatures, however, his ties to the Republican party and Town Officials coupled with the fact that this is being co-broked raises allegations of improprieties with Town Officials whose positions allude to a conflict-of-interest.
Post a Comment