New Milford First had a very successful Fair Days. Many thanks to the hundreds of people who stopped and spent a minute speaking to us. We gave out 1,000 "Wipe Away The Monopoly" handi-wipes which were a big hit.
Our caucus is Sunday, August 5th at the Railroad Station at 7:30. This is when we will announce our slate of candidates. Remember that New Milford First will run its own candidates as well as nominating candidates from the existing Democratic and Republican slates. We endevor to pick candidates who put New Milford First.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Monopoloy of Power
This was also printed in the Spectrum on 6/15
----------------------------------------------
Why did we all grow up hating the cable company? Because it was a monopoly sanctioned by the government. The cable company had no competition. Prices continually rose, customer service was always lacking and they certainly did not care what the customer thought.
The same situation exists in New Milford government today. Rather than being a competitive democracy where issues and viewpoints are debated, we have a monopoly of power where there is no debate, the opinions of the people are irrelevant and anyone who does not subscribe to the narrow developer mentality is purged from government and sometimes from the community.
"In every free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties, and violent dissensions and discords;…” Thomas Jefferson
Examples abound of this government monopoly acting with impunity. The Republican controlled Planning Commission has not bothered to update the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development because they don’t care to plan nor follow one. There has not been a word of protest from the Democrats on the Commission. Apolitical commissions such as the Commission on the Arts, the Library Board and the Candlewood Lake Authority have had long-serving members purged and have been stacked with developer cronies whose views, in some cases, are in direct conflict with the purpose of the commission. The monopoly is running out of family members and so has resorted to having the same person serve on two or three boards and commissions.
The most important point, however, is that this monopoly could not exist without the sanction of a government body. What government body sanctions this monopoly? Well, the Democratic Party of course and its leader John Lillis. Mr. Lillis is the enabler of this developer monopoly.
George Washington did not like political parties:
"However combinations or associations of the above description [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
But political parties is what we have and they have an implicit responsibility as Jefferson says.
Don’t listen to what Mr. Lillis, the Town Council member, says or how he votes. He knows full well that his words and votes on the Republican controlled Town Council are meaningless. Watch what Mr. Lillis, the head of the Democratic Town Committee, does or doesn’t do.
What serious issues have the Democrats championed lately? What debates have they engaged? Why is there no discussion about the POCD? Governments around the world are rethinking their models in order to attract business and jobs. Why is there no discussion about the competitiveness of New Milford’s taxation and regulatory system? Why is there no discussion about priorities in town?
The Democrats ran a Mayoral candidate last election who was not serious about running. He garnered fewer votes than some New Milford First candidates. Clearly the voters saw through this charade. What will Mr. Lillis do this time? Will he simply not bother to run anyone? Will he run another “filler” candidate? Or will he run a developer crony in Democratic clothing? My bet is that we will see no serious competition from the Democrats.
Perhaps Mr. Lillis behaves as he does out of a sense of loyalty to friends and business partners in the Republican Party. A laudable quality in a personal relationship but not so laudable in a competitive democracy. Mr. Lillis is an attorney. He knows that an attorney must argue his client’s viewpoint regardless of his own beliefs. As head of a political party, Mr. Lillis’ client is democracy itself. I call on Mr. Lillis to reflect on his own personal conflicts and step aside as head of the Democratic Party if he feels that he cannot fulfill the responsibilities that our Founding Fathers envisioned. If he feels he is up to the task, then I look forward to a competitive election.
New Milford First is attempting to fill the vacuum created by the inaction of the Democratic Party and the inbreeding of the Republican Party. We are small and uncompetitive at this point. We have taken some baby steps. We are working to create an alternative voice in New Milford. We are working to foster some competition and discussion. We are working to break the monopoly. The results of the 2007 election will tell us if we are making progress.
----------------------------------------------
Why did we all grow up hating the cable company? Because it was a monopoly sanctioned by the government. The cable company had no competition. Prices continually rose, customer service was always lacking and they certainly did not care what the customer thought.
The same situation exists in New Milford government today. Rather than being a competitive democracy where issues and viewpoints are debated, we have a monopoly of power where there is no debate, the opinions of the people are irrelevant and anyone who does not subscribe to the narrow developer mentality is purged from government and sometimes from the community.
"In every free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties, and violent dissensions and discords;…” Thomas Jefferson
Examples abound of this government monopoly acting with impunity. The Republican controlled Planning Commission has not bothered to update the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development because they don’t care to plan nor follow one. There has not been a word of protest from the Democrats on the Commission. Apolitical commissions such as the Commission on the Arts, the Library Board and the Candlewood Lake Authority have had long-serving members purged and have been stacked with developer cronies whose views, in some cases, are in direct conflict with the purpose of the commission. The monopoly is running out of family members and so has resorted to having the same person serve on two or three boards and commissions.
The most important point, however, is that this monopoly could not exist without the sanction of a government body. What government body sanctions this monopoly? Well, the Democratic Party of course and its leader John Lillis. Mr. Lillis is the enabler of this developer monopoly.
George Washington did not like political parties:
"However combinations or associations of the above description [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
But political parties is what we have and they have an implicit responsibility as Jefferson says.
Don’t listen to what Mr. Lillis, the Town Council member, says or how he votes. He knows full well that his words and votes on the Republican controlled Town Council are meaningless. Watch what Mr. Lillis, the head of the Democratic Town Committee, does or doesn’t do.
What serious issues have the Democrats championed lately? What debates have they engaged? Why is there no discussion about the POCD? Governments around the world are rethinking their models in order to attract business and jobs. Why is there no discussion about the competitiveness of New Milford’s taxation and regulatory system? Why is there no discussion about priorities in town?
The Democrats ran a Mayoral candidate last election who was not serious about running. He garnered fewer votes than some New Milford First candidates. Clearly the voters saw through this charade. What will Mr. Lillis do this time? Will he simply not bother to run anyone? Will he run another “filler” candidate? Or will he run a developer crony in Democratic clothing? My bet is that we will see no serious competition from the Democrats.
Perhaps Mr. Lillis behaves as he does out of a sense of loyalty to friends and business partners in the Republican Party. A laudable quality in a personal relationship but not so laudable in a competitive democracy. Mr. Lillis is an attorney. He knows that an attorney must argue his client’s viewpoint regardless of his own beliefs. As head of a political party, Mr. Lillis’ client is democracy itself. I call on Mr. Lillis to reflect on his own personal conflicts and step aside as head of the Democratic Party if he feels that he cannot fulfill the responsibilities that our Founding Fathers envisioned. If he feels he is up to the task, then I look forward to a competitive election.
New Milford First is attempting to fill the vacuum created by the inaction of the Democratic Party and the inbreeding of the Republican Party. We are small and uncompetitive at this point. We have taken some baby steps. We are working to create an alternative voice in New Milford. We are working to foster some competition and discussion. We are working to break the monopoly. The results of the 2007 election will tell us if we are making progress.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
2007 Budget
Soon you will be asked to vote on the budget for New Milford. Below are some charts to help you quickly see where your taxes are being spent.
So $63 million of the town budget must be raised via local property taxes.
The vast majority of the budget is related to people. Teachers or town employees who provide the services of the town. So short of cutting back on people there is little opportunity to significantly cut the budget.
63% of your taxes are going to education . If you include the portion of the Debt that is paying for education-related items such as the high school, then two thirds, or 66%, of your taxes are going to education.
Not all of the $89 million budget is coming from property taxes. About 29%, or $25 million, is coming from other sources such as fees and the state government. Over half of the $25 million comes from the state government which, as you know, gets its money ultimately from one place: your wallet.
So $63 million of the town budget must be raised via local property taxes.The vast majority of the budget is related to people. Teachers or town employees who provide the services of the town. So short of cutting back on people there is little opportunity to significantly cut the budget.
What never seems to be talked about is how to increase revenue other than property taxes. Our town pension fund, which is close to $25 million, has investment returns which are well below its peers. Each percentage point of increased investment returns means $250,000. Other towns in our same economic situation get much more money from the state. Why?
Every year we hear the argument, "I don't have any kids so why should I pay for education." I think that is the wrong way of looking at it. I was the youngest of six kids. There is no way the taxes my mother and father paid made up for the cost of six educations. I think if you look at your yearly taxes as payment for the education you received as a child, education taxes might seem more palatable. You might not agree with the dollar amount spent on education but at least you can agree that you should pay some amount towards education.
Robert Kostes
Chairman - New Milford First
Friday, April 6, 2007
Republican Monopoly
Robert Kostes - Chairman
The Republican monopoly pushed through more cuts before approving the budget. They marched in to the Town Council meeting with a list of cuts and didn't even bother to have copies for their Democratic colleagues.
The Republicans made heartfelt pleas for the working families who have to work two jobs to pay their mortgage. It is hard for me to disagree with the desire to cut costs but not at the expense of quality of life. However, it was the way in which these cuts were done which was disturbing.
Councilman Szendy refused to give a reason for the cuts. Perhaps he didn't want to divulge the real reason. Herein lies the dilemma for the monopoly.
The monopoly answers to the developers in town and no one else. Some level of development is necessary in a healthy community, but when it is the sole focus, problems arise. Lower taxes make homes more competitive versus other towns further south.
Building a house has a certain amount of economic benefit; however, there are also costs which include an increased demand on town services (roads, schools, police, etc.). A child in the school system costs about $9,000. A typical home pays $6-8,000 in taxes. Every new home puts an upward pressure on the cost of town services. A small group reaps the economic benefit but the additional costs are borne by all homeowners.
The monopoly is the very cause of the higher budgets they are cutting. I expect that the plan is to keep taxes artificially low until there are no more homes to build. Then taxes will jump dramatically to reflect the true needs of the town. At that point, they won't care if you can afford to live here or not. Voters must decide if this is the path they desire.
Robert Kostes - Chairman
The Republican monopoly pushed through more cuts before approving the budget. They marched in to the Town Council meeting with a list of cuts and didn't even bother to have copies for their Democratic colleagues.
The Republicans made heartfelt pleas for the working families who have to work two jobs to pay their mortgage. It is hard for me to disagree with the desire to cut costs but not at the expense of quality of life. However, it was the way in which these cuts were done which was disturbing.
Councilman Szendy refused to give a reason for the cuts. Perhaps he didn't want to divulge the real reason. Herein lies the dilemma for the monopoly.
The monopoly answers to the developers in town and no one else. Some level of development is necessary in a healthy community, but when it is the sole focus, problems arise. Lower taxes make homes more competitive versus other towns further south.
Building a house has a certain amount of economic benefit; however, there are also costs which include an increased demand on town services (roads, schools, police, etc.). A child in the school system costs about $9,000. A typical home pays $6-8,000 in taxes. Every new home puts an upward pressure on the cost of town services. A small group reaps the economic benefit but the additional costs are borne by all homeowners.
The monopoly is the very cause of the higher budgets they are cutting. I expect that the plan is to keep taxes artificially low until there are no more homes to build. Then taxes will jump dramatically to reflect the true needs of the town. At that point, they won't care if you can afford to live here or not. Voters must decide if this is the path they desire.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Welcome
Welcome to the New Milford First blog. New Milford First is a local political party in New Milford, Connecticut. Visit our web site at www.newmilfordfirst.org.
Here you will find letters and articles that have appeared in the local papers as well as discussions on topics suggested by NMF members and members of the New Milford community.
Any comments to this blog will be moderated by NMF.
Here you will find letters and articles that have appeared in the local papers as well as discussions on topics suggested by NMF members and members of the New Milford community.
Any comments to this blog will be moderated by NMF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)