|
dissolveearlville
Forum Admin
USA
22 Posts |
 Posted - 03/13/2008 : 16:21:59
|
In a "Letter to the Editor" of the Evening Sun (Norwich) dated March 11, 2008, Village Clerk Christian Vischi stated that the village was "currently in the process of applying for funding - both grants, and low interest loans" for various projects.
To date, many of the grants the village has applied for to fund upgrades to the water system have been denied, so now the village must seek to finance this upgrade with loans. On the eve of a nationwide recession, and square in the middle of a nationwide mortgage crisis, the village government has resolved to amass millions in debt.
First we were told grants would pay for most or all of the water project. Should the current trend of these grants being denied continue, the only remaining alternative would be to finance the project with loans, which will presumably force both our water bills, and our taxes, to be dramaticaly increased in order to pay for these loans.
How long will these loans take to be paid off?
What, exactly, is the "low" interest rate?
The Clerk also claims in his letter that "...all of our departments are fully funded..."
Why, then, has the $20,000.00 that was originally allocated for police coverage been spent elsewhere?
Possibly to cover the "full funding" of other departments in the village?
Mr. Vischi goes further in saying:
"...although NYSEG is the sole transmitter of power to the area, we have switched suppliers and are not 'at the mercy of NYSEG.'"
Yes, NYSEG is the sole transmitter of power. That means they control whether or not the power actually gets to the customer, regardless of who the producer is. They are the only company in the Village that does this, and very soon, they will be owned by a corporation based in Spain. So a Spanish corporation will have direct control over our electric delivery rates, and we will have no choice but to pay what they charge, because they own the only means of transmitting power in the Village of Earlville.
Also, according to the 2007-2008 budget, the allocation to pay for having streetlights in the village increased from approx. $15,000.00 in 2005-2006 to over $17,000.00 for 2007-2008. A two thousand dollar increase in one year, and yet Mr. Vischi still claims we are "not at the mercy of NYSEG?"
Residents of Sherburne, Hamilton, Madison, and even Bouckville, do not deal directly with NYSEG because they have public power. Fighting for public power was another promise our current elected officials had made to voters in the past, but they have apparently abandoned this idea in favor of gazebos and softball tournaments.
Mr. Vischi also discussed the $330,000.00 "Community Development Block Grant" the village is currently applying for. While it is a noble effort to spend public money to beautify private homes, many of our "Blocks" lack even basic asthetic appeal. This includes quality sidewalks and curbing (where there are any at all).
Why not apply for a $330,000.00 grant to install sidewalks on:
Stoddard Ave?
Parsons Street?
Greene Street?
Clyde Street?
Or major repairs to the existing sidewalks?
Why not apply for a grant for curbing on these streets and others?
The village will not do this, but they have no problem making village residents that live on streets with no sidewalks or curbing pay taxes to service the sidewalks and curbing that grace other village streets.
Mr. Vischi also claims, regarding dissolution:
"For one, the township does get a vote and does not have to take the village that is seeking to dissolve."
If he had reviewed this site in depth, as he claims, he would have found a link to the state documents that outline the process a village must go through to dissolve. This document states:
"A village may dissolve on its own initiative, after
a referendum by village voters approving
dissolution, without consulting the town in which
the village is located."
Page 4, "Consolidation of Towns and Villages"
Subcategory: "Dissolving a Village"
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/consolid.pdf
The state goes further to recommend that the two municipalities work together to formulate a smooth transition that would best benefit all, but the town has no legal power to quash a village dissolution movement.
|
|
Letter to the Editor.
