Its time we end the "SANTAX" that have forced many long time residents to move out of Kearny, and prepare for changing direction with leaders that are willing to make decisions, rather than ask the public to weigh in to give direction on the tax issue. This is what he was elected to do, and finally after 7 years as Mayor he has asked the public for their input. What window dressing!! Just like a lawyer!!
0
Every year he has been Mayor Taxes went up.
Started by
*Town Watch*
, Dec 01 2007 02:49 PM
67 replies to this topic
#2 *Guest*
*Guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 December 2007 - 05:06 PM
Town Watch, on Dec 1 2007, 02:49 PM, said:
Its time we end the "SANTAX" that have forced many long time residents to move out of Kearny, and prepare for changing direction with leaders that are willing to make decisions, rather than ask the public to weigh in to give direction on the tax issue. This is what he was elected to do, and finally after 7 years as Mayor he has asked the public for their input. What window dressing!! Just like a lawyer!!
Please find a surrounding town that has not had a tax increase every year.
#3
Strife767
-
- Members
-
- 2,138 posts
A realistic optimist
Posted 01 December 2007 - 05:07 PM
Town Watch, on Dec 1 2007, 03:49 PM, said:
Its time we end the "SANTAX"
Were taxes decreasing or static before Santos took office? And have Kearny's taxes gone up significantly 'faster' than that of surrounding towns?
Quote
that have forced many long time residents to move out of Kearny, and prepare for changing direction with leaders that are willing to make decisions, rather than ask the public to weigh in to give direction on the tax issue.
He's been making decisions all this time, and I've yet to see you or anyone else give valid ideas on how to do things differently to save the taxpayers money without having to sacrifice services. No matter who is mayor, taxes will not magically drop by themselves.
Also, don't forget that the ever-weakening dollar is another force making taxes rise over the past few years. We are all getting less bang for our buck nationwide, and therefore we need to pay more just to get the same results, much less anything additional.
Quote
This is what he was elected to do, and finally after 7 years as Mayor he has asked the public for their input. What window dressing!! Just like a lawyer!!
Regardless of what you say, fact is no one's beating a path to his door with money-saving ideas. Maybe, just maybe, lowering taxes as not so simple as you think?
#4 *Guest*
*Guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 December 2007 - 05:57 PM
Town Watch, on Dec 1 2007, 02:49 PM, said:
Its time we end the "SANTAX" that have forced many long time residents to move out of Kearny, and prepare for changing direction with leaders that are willing to make decisions, rather than ask the public to weigh in to give direction on the tax issue. This is what he was elected to do, and finally after 7 years as Mayor he has asked the public for their input. What window dressing!! Just like a lawyer!!
Buzz off. You're being a jerk.
All the towns have had tax increases. Replacing the current mayor is not a solution. Either propose a solution or kindly can it.
#5 *Guest*
*Guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 01 December 2007 - 10:53 PM
Guest, on Dec 1 2007, 05:57 PM, said:
Buzz off. You're being a jerk.
All the towns have had tax increases. Replacing the current mayor is not a solution. Either propose a solution or kindly can it.
All the towns have had tax increases. Replacing the current mayor is not a solution. Either propose a solution or kindly can it.
#6 *Guest*
*Guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 02 December 2007 - 07:16 AM
Guest, on Dec 1 2007, 10:53 PM, said:
My my all the Santonian's are out to protect there boy king. It's true the taxes have gone up each year he's held the office. You want idea's, Try this. Cut the legal costs and get rid of D'Arco all he does is cost the town money in legal judgements. If all those legal bills were gone what a pile of money the town would have. That's the truth. By the way there are towns that maintain lower taxes and keep them down with proper managment of the funds. Stop the bonding and deal with the tax issues.
Everything isn't explained by the fact that many people support Al Santos and think he is doing a good job. We think it because we see it. You still haven't offered any alternatives, including the ones you just posted. For example:
How much money are we spending on D'Arco?
What legal judgments? What are you talking about?
What work is he doing, and why?
What will happen if we aren't paying someone to do that work?
In other words, what's the real alternative, not just your big-talk.
As for "Stop the bonding and deal with the tax issues": How?
You talk big, but your gun is empty.
#7 *Guest*
*Guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 02 December 2007 - 08:58 PM
Guest, on Dec 2 2007, 07:16 AM, said:
Everything isn't explained by the fact that many people support Al Santos and think he is doing a good job. We think it because we see it. You still haven't offered any alternatives, including the ones you just posted. For example:
How much money are we spending on Darko?
What legal judgments? What are you talking about?
What work is he doing, and why?
What will happen if we aren't paying someone to do that work?
In other words, what's the real alternative, not just your big-talk.
As for "Stop the bonding and deal with the tax issues": How?
You talk big, but your gun is empty.
How much money are we spending on Darko?
What legal judgments? What are you talking about?
What work is he doing, and why?
What will happen if we aren't paying someone to do that work?
In other words, what's the real alternative, not just your big-talk.
As for "Stop the bonding and deal with the tax issues": How?
You talk big, but your gun is empty.
#8
Strife767
-
- Members
-
- 2,138 posts
A realistic optimist
Posted 02 December 2007 - 11:09 PM
Guest, on Dec 2 2007, 09:58 PM, said:
I don't think so I've got plenty of ammo my friend. But that is for me to know.
There is absolutely no reason for one to keep such alleged 'ammo' a secret. Actually, I'd imagine the taxpayers would be outraged if 'ammo' so important was withheld.
In other words, I'm calling your bluff. Put up or shut up--I bet I'm not the only one tired of hearing empty accusations. Let's see some real, hard info--if you've got it, that is.
#9 *Guest*
*Guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 03 December 2007 - 08:49 AM
Guest, on Dec 2 2007, 08:58 PM, said:
I don't think so I've got plenty of ammo my friend. But that is for me to know. So you think my weapon is empty then you must know more then you let on. As for the how... What would a family do if money was tight. It's time to get real and cut the fluff. It's not so hard to understand. Elementary my dear citizen.
What's elementary is that you're not saying anything.
Equally elementary is that you have a public forum here to make a case against the mayor and/or council, and you're not making it. There's no good reason for you not to state your case here. The more people who know about anything the mayor has done wrong, the stronger your position is. Therefore, if you had something on him, you would be publishing here and everywhere. Your silence tells a reasonable person that you're failing to make a case against the mayor because you can't.
"That's for me to know." What a ridiculous comment, coming from someone who is trying to convince people to bounce a mayor out of office.
#10 *guest*
*guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 03 December 2007 - 09:18 AM
Guest, on Dec 2 2007, 08:58 PM, said:
I don't think so I've got plenty of ammo my friend. But that is for me to know. So you think my weapon is empty then you must know more then you let on. As for the how... What would a family do if money was tight. It's time to get real and cut the fluff. It's not so hard to understand. Elementary my dear citizen.
#11 *Guest*
*Guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 03 December 2007 - 04:24 PM
Guest, on Dec 3 2007, 08:49 AM, said:
What's elementary is that you're not saying anything.
Equally elementary is that you have a public forum here to make a case against the mayor and/or council, and you're not making it. There's no good reason for you not to state your case here. The more people who know about anything the mayor has done wrong, the stronger your position is. Therefore, if you had something on him, you would be publishing here and everywhere. Your silence tells a reasonable person that you're failing to make a case against the mayor because you can't.
"That's for me to know." What a ridiculous comment, coming from someone who is trying to convince people to bounce a mayor out of office.
Equally elementary is that you have a public forum here to make a case against the mayor and/or council, and you're not making it. There's no good reason for you not to state your case here. The more people who know about anything the mayor has done wrong, the stronger your position is. Therefore, if you had something on him, you would be publishing here and everywhere. Your silence tells a reasonable person that you're failing to make a case against the mayor because you can't.
"That's for me to know." What a ridiculous comment, coming from someone who is trying to convince people to bounce a mayor out of office.
#12 *Guest*
*Guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 03 December 2007 - 09:04 PM
Guest, on Dec 3 2007, 04:24 PM, said:
You didn't address the family that's tight on money and the course of action they would take. Open your eyes tell me what the council has done for the town's tax load. It is very simple you just don't want to see.
What's simple is that things cost money. In the adult world, people understand that.
#13 *Paul*
*Paul*
-
- Guests
Posted 04 December 2007 - 07:12 AM
Guest, on Dec 3 2007, 05:24 PM, said:
You didn't address the family that's tight on money and the course of action they would take. Open your eyes tell me what the council has done for the town's tax load. It is very simple you just don't want to see.
I get people like this Guest coming to me with cases all the time. The conversation goes something like this:
Client: "I want to sue my doctor."
Me: "Let's see if we can. Tell me what happened."
Client: "Well, I was diagnosed with lung cancer five years ago, and the doctors removed part of my left lung and now the cancer is back. The doctors say it metastasized, and that I have maybe a year to live"
Me (knowing that with metastatic lung cancer the client will die): "I"m very sorry to hear that. I'll need to look at the medical records."
Client: "Why? I just told you I'm going to die."
Me: "Because as hard as this may be for you to accept right now, that's not enough to make a case. To make a case we have to prove that the doctor did something wrong to cause your cancer to metastasize."
Client: "Why should that matter? If we get in front of a jury, they'll feel sorry for me and give me money."
Me: "It doesn't work like that. If we get into trial and can't prove that the doctor did something wrong, the judge will dismiss the case, and the jury will never decide it. Look, maybe if we review your records, we'll see that the doctor missed something. Maybe there was evidence of cancer in another part of the lung, which should also have been removed, but honestly, if that's true, your prognosis was probably going to be the same anyway because by definition that's already metastatic. Or maybe there was a delay in the original diagnosis. I don't know until I see the records."
Until someone can present solid evidence of something the mayor and council have done wrong, there's no "case" here. Now this isn't a trial. People get to vote for whomever they like, no matter how good or bad their reasons are. But I think reasonable people understand that it makes no sense to blame a mayor and council for things that aren't their fault. Just because your taxes went up doesn't mean they did anything wrong, and if you put someone else in, it's just going to be the same thing --- if you're lucky. It can get a whole lot worse.
Me: "By the way do you smoke?"
Client: "Yeah, I've been trying to quit, but I just can't." In other words, the client is still smoking, even after a diagnosis of lung cancer and removal of part of a lung.
Guys, if you want to help yourselves, take some responsibility. Complaining just because your taxes went up isn't going to help you, no matter how strapped you may be financially.
#14 *Guest*
*Guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 04 December 2007 - 03:26 PM
Guest, on Dec 3 2007, 09:04 PM, said:
What's simple is that things cost money. In the adult world, people understand that.
#15 *Guest*
*Guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 04 December 2007 - 10:08 PM
Guest, on Dec 4 2007, 03:26 PM, said:
So what does a family with a tight money situation do? This family knows things cost money. So what do they do? You see unlike the municipality they can't tax people to raise funds. So what can they do?
It's not up to your town government to solve all your problems. Everybody is trying to make a living. Some people end up having to sell their homes. What would you like to hear?
#16 *Guest*
*Guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 December 2007 - 10:20 AM
Guest, on Dec 4 2007, 03:26 PM, said:
So what does a family with a tight money situation do? This family knows things cost money. So what do they do? You see unlike the municipality they can't tax people to raise funds. So what can they do?
Live within their finances. If they can't afford to own, sell and rent.
#17 *Guest*
*Guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 December 2007 - 09:19 PM
Guest, on Dec 5 2007, 10:20 AM, said:
Live within their finances. If they can't afford to own, sell and rent.
#18 *GUEST*
*GUEST*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 December 2007 - 10:51 AM
Town Watch, on Dec 1 2007, 02:49 PM, said:
Its time we end the "SANTAX" that have forced many long time residents to move out of Kearny, and prepare for changing direction with leaders that are willing to make decisions, rather than ask the public to weigh in to give direction on the tax issue. This is what he was elected to do, and finally after 7 years as Mayor he has asked the public for their input. What window dressing!! Just like a lawyer!!
#19 *Recall Mayor Santos*
*Recall Mayor Santos*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 December 2007 - 02:33 PM
[quote name='Paul' date='Dec 4 2007, 07:12 AM']
I get people like this Guest coming to me with cases all the time. The conversation goes something like this:
Client: "I want to sue my doctor."
Me: "Let's see if we can. Tell me what happened."
Client: "Well, I was diagnosed with lung cancer five years ago, and the doctors removed part of my left lung and now the cancer is back. The doctors say it metastasized, and that I have maybe a year to live"
Me (knowing that with metastatic lung cancer the client will die): "I"m very sorry to hear that. I'll need to look at the medical records."
Client: "Why? I just told you I'm going to die."
Me: "Because as hard as this may be for you to accept right now, that's not enough to make a case. To make a case we have to prove that the doctor did something wrong to cause your cancer to metastasize."
Client: "Why should that matter? If we get in front of a jury, they'll feel sorry for me and give me money."
Me: "It doesn't work like that. If we get into trial and can't prove that the doctor did something wrong, the judge will dismiss the case, and the jury will never decide it. Look, maybe if we review your records, we'll see that the doctor missed something. Maybe there was evidence of cancer in another part of the lung, which should also have been removed, but honestly, if that's true, your prognosis was probably going to be the same anyway because by definition that's already metastatic. Or maybe there was a delay in the original diagnosis. I don't know until I see the records."
Until someone can present solid evidence of something the mayor and council have done wrong, there's no "case" here. Now this isn't a trial. People get to vote for whomever they like, no matter how good or bad their reasons are. But I think reasonable people understand that it makes no sense to blame a mayor and council for things that aren't their fault. Just because your taxes went up doesn't mean they did anything wrong, and if you put someone else in, it's just going to be the same thing --- if you're lucky. It can get a whole lot worse.
Me: "By the way do you smoke?"
Client: "Yeah, I've been trying to quit, but I just can't." In other words, the client is still smoking, even after a diagnosis of lung cancer and removal of part of a lung.
Guys, if you want to help yourselves, take some responsibility. Complaining just because your taxes went up isn't going to help you, no matter how strapped you may be financially.
[right][/right]
[/quote
What's this a courtroom. Its Apples and Oranges and has nothing to do with the issue.
I get people like this Guest coming to me with cases all the time. The conversation goes something like this:
Client: "I want to sue my doctor."
Me: "Let's see if we can. Tell me what happened."
Client: "Well, I was diagnosed with lung cancer five years ago, and the doctors removed part of my left lung and now the cancer is back. The doctors say it metastasized, and that I have maybe a year to live"
Me (knowing that with metastatic lung cancer the client will die): "I"m very sorry to hear that. I'll need to look at the medical records."
Client: "Why? I just told you I'm going to die."
Me: "Because as hard as this may be for you to accept right now, that's not enough to make a case. To make a case we have to prove that the doctor did something wrong to cause your cancer to metastasize."
Client: "Why should that matter? If we get in front of a jury, they'll feel sorry for me and give me money."
Me: "It doesn't work like that. If we get into trial and can't prove that the doctor did something wrong, the judge will dismiss the case, and the jury will never decide it. Look, maybe if we review your records, we'll see that the doctor missed something. Maybe there was evidence of cancer in another part of the lung, which should also have been removed, but honestly, if that's true, your prognosis was probably going to be the same anyway because by definition that's already metastatic. Or maybe there was a delay in the original diagnosis. I don't know until I see the records."
Until someone can present solid evidence of something the mayor and council have done wrong, there's no "case" here. Now this isn't a trial. People get to vote for whomever they like, no matter how good or bad their reasons are. But I think reasonable people understand that it makes no sense to blame a mayor and council for things that aren't their fault. Just because your taxes went up doesn't mean they did anything wrong, and if you put someone else in, it's just going to be the same thing --- if you're lucky. It can get a whole lot worse.
Me: "By the way do you smoke?"
Client: "Yeah, I've been trying to quit, but I just can't." In other words, the client is still smoking, even after a diagnosis of lung cancer and removal of part of a lung.
Guys, if you want to help yourselves, take some responsibility. Complaining just because your taxes went up isn't going to help you, no matter how strapped you may be financially.
[right]
[/right][/quote
What's this a courtroom. Its Apples and Oranges and has nothing to do with the issue.
#20 *Guest*
*Guest*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 December 2007 - 03:11 PM
Guest, on Dec 5 2007, 09:19 PM, said:
So much for the American dream. Well I see your a pro tax and spend person. That's some solution to the problem. I hope your never in that position and never have to take your own advice.
That's nonsense. Governments rely on taxes to provide services and infrastructure. Acknowledging the fact is being responsible, not evidence of a "tax and spend" mentality.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
