Here is a FAQ that City Hall (Duchane) has sent out to the LP Taxpayers about the Road Millage on November's Ballot ....Have you received a copy of this?

Click here to view the pdf letter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Sometimes we must serve in order to lead"
by Unknown

  Submit to Quotes         

I am guessing because of no responses that no one received this yet?

  Submit to Quotes         

Why would we be privy to such information?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I'm sick and tired of hearing things from uptight, short sighted, narrow minded hypocrites. All I want is the truth, Just gimme some truth"

- John Lennon

  Submit to Quotes         

No I haven't received this. I printed a copy & will read it. Thanks for sharing it.

  Submit to Quotes         

I liked the answer to the last question. It says a lot, but also says nothing.

  Submit to Quotes         

Maybe its late, but I read the answer to the last question 3 times and still don't get it. Guess I'm too tired to comprehend.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ELECTION DAY IS TUESDAY-NOV 8TH.
Every vote counts - exercise your Rights.

  Submit to Quotes         

Well, Duchane wrote it. And he writes like he talks -- in a whole lot of doubletalk that is sometimes way too confusing. But that's for another post.

What he's saying here, or trying to say, I think, is that the most recent attorney's opinion said the control over the length of the bond must be left up to the mayor and council to decide. And he's saying that past legal opinions came to another conclusion.

In simpler terms, whereas before the bond had a five-year limit, he's saying that now lawyers are telling them that such a limit is not allowed and that mayor and council will decide each year whether to continue with the bond or not. That's assuming, of course, that the issue passes in November.

  Submit to Quotes         

I have not received it. Maybe he made it specifically for you Robin?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



City Council:
• Thomas A. Murphy
• Valerie Brady
• Michael Lemuel
• Thomas McPartlin
• John R. Nelligan
• James E. Rutherford

City Treasurer: Craig Sochocki

Proposal R: NO

  Submit to Quotes         

Read 8 over . the differrence is every year the council can look at the millage ,they cannot exceed 3 mils but they can let it be reduced by Proposal A standards,Hedley. It says when they vote on appropriations So if they think they still need all 3 mils in 2007 ,they would have to vote for no reduction.. Or if had dropped to 2.20 in 2010 they could increase it but not higher than 3.0 Mils and whatever they chose could not exceed 18.67 total the amount the people approved in 2005.

My questions is can they vote for no millage assesment if they feel all the work is done and there is no need for the millage anymore.


OK ROBIN how did you get a copy before the News-Herald Beat up the courier?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If pro is the opposite of con? would CONgress be the oppositeof PROgress?

  Submit to Quotes         

I tell ya..... I get stuff mailed and placed inside my screen door like 3 or 4 times a week - anonymously....

You should see the stack of stuff I have about the JJM Lawsuit!

The hard part isn't getting the information....it's confirming the documentation is authentic.

We try very hard to authenticate documentation before we display it ...... we all know hard "some" city leaders would love to set me up to fail .... so everything I get ....is confirmed.

I am not following you on the #8. I think what you are saying is that the council can vote to override Headlee vs going to back to the voters to approve?

  Submit to Quotes         

Well I will say this...... When we were running around last Tuesday (polling places) we stopped off to get updates from Donna and we popped into Duchane's office.

He had said that city officials could not advocate either way to the taxpayers re: road millage...but that 3rd parties could.

So I am thinking that you could be somewhat correct RubberArm..... someone got this to me so that we could be that 3rd Party???

I still will NOT support this road millage for a couple of reasons:

1) Like all the lies about the ERI, Brown lied to us about this millage (remember he said in two meetings: This is the same millage but for some reason we cannot call it a renewal).

Yeah right Mayor Brown....you couldn't call it a renewal because it ISN'T the same millage....this one does NOT have an expiration.

He knew this..... and attempted to hide it except that the cat was let outta the bag and the NH stated the no expiration in their article.....

2) Until city officials IDENTIFY by Street what they used the last 5 years road millage on and the additional $1million that the Feds gave us along with any CDBG and other Grant money.... I will be against giving them another penny to mismanage.

  Submit to Quotes         

RubberArm (09-19-05)

My understanding of Governmental double talk is limited but from what I understand I think this mileage is a crock of ****!!

I know the roads in Lincoln Park are bad, but a NEW mileage, that does not expire, and the cost of which is controlled by elected officials nope don't think so.


Maybe if the city got off its buttocks and fixed the street in front of my house ( Markese, between Dix and Riopelle, lok for the steel plate at the end of the driveway). Since April they have told my wife that it is on the list! What list!

When the end of my driveway collapse because the storm drain has washed all the dirt under it away I will not be happy.


Sorry .....back to subject. I do not plan to vote in favor of the road mileage.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trust is hard to earn , but easily lost

  Submit to Quotes         

If they want this to pass, they need to put an expiration on it. I will not vote for a tax that has more energy that the little pink bunny that keeps going and going.

  Submit to Quotes         

LPTaxpayer (09-19-05)

Another question that I have...... I don't know enough about the differences between cement and asphalt overlay roads...but if the city is going to use asphalt overlays because the cost is considerably less, then can homeowners use an asphalt overlay on their driveways?

  Submit to Quotes         

No Robin they can only vote to return to the original 3 mils / 18.67 after it has decreased let say it dropped to 1.67 /16.67 they could vote to raise it 2 mils only anything over 18,67 requires a vote if it passes.

I can't vote yes on this wording they need to put an expiration date .

  Submit to Quotes         

If Brown And His Followers Think I M Givivng Them More Money To Mismanage They Are Nuts.i Will Note Vote For This Mil.
No More Money For You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No More Mpney For You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Moral freedom is not the right to do what we want,but the power to do what we ought.

  Submit to Quotes         

RubberArm (09-19-05)

I wish Brown and those council people who do not participate here would do just that. In the meantime, I'd like to know what Brady, Murphy and Higgins think about the millage.What are your views
councilpeople?

  Submit to Quotes         

Robin (09-19-05)

Me too. I've asked several times here in other threads.

Mr. Murphy: You voted against putting the millage on the ballot. Now that it is going to be there, are you going as far as actually encouraging residents to vote AGAINST it?

  Submit to Quotes         

juj, man, let it go!!! Seems to me that you are infatuated with Murphy, Higgins and Brady. How are you planning to vote on the mileage? I am voting "NO."

If you were on the council, which way would you vote?

Or should I say since you are on the council, which way would you vote?

Please enlighten us.

I'm sure lupin, jujui, Jane, and the other will be in an uproar over this. I just wonder which one he will choose first to reply with?

LMAO

  Submit to Quotes         

The odd thing about this is that nothing was said about this letter to taxpayers during any meeting as far back as August, 2005.

I would think that M&C would want to bless letters like this before they are sent out.

My two cents....

  Submit to Quotes