3 > 5
Congratulations to the voters of Orchard Park who traipsed out to the singular polling place, which opened at 11am, to vote in favor of downsizing their town board last night. The tally – using all new voting machines – was 2,034 – 1,063.
Why this ballot question didn’t appear, say, during the September 15th primary or the proper election day in November is anyone’s guess.
But come 2012, Orchard Park’s town board will be reduced to two members, plus its supervisor.
Chris Smith was there, and he adds this anecdote:
That lack of leadership and a surplus of government obstinacy was evident today in Orchard Park. By selecting a special election date on a Wednesday between the primary and general elections, choosing only one polling place, putting that polling place in the basement of the municipal building, lack of signs or directions to the voting booth, selecting odd voting hours which didn’t allow for people to vote before 11AM and blocking the parking lot this morning with barricades and police to reduce “congestion” in the parking lot. It was a mess. Local voter Rich Wilson said, “Honestly, I planned to vote ‘No’ on downsizing until I got down here today and saw all these shenanigans. If the local council members are so opposed to this and will go to these lengths to block participation, maybe Gaughan’s got it right.”
Maybe.
Chris says this may be sparking a renewal of the whole regionalism idea. The metropolitan-style government we see in Toronto is a model of what regional government and planning can look like. So is Ontario’s Niagara Region. Imagine that. One needs only cross a short bridge to see regionalism in action and we’re busy talking about places like Charlotte or Indianapolis.
But it’s not just the electeds that are the problem. Sure, that’ll help with legacy costs, but how do we reduce and regionalize the bureaucracies?
19 Comments
-
Advertisement
-
Latest
-
BfloBlog
Latest: Bruins @ Sabres Live Chat -
Olympics 2010
Latest: DJ Champion, Cœur de pirate, and Team Canada DJs -
Pink Bflo
Latest: Gender Bender – From QB to Boobie -
Bill O'Loughlin
Latest: Bill O'Loughlin Show: Tue 2/9/10 -
Chris Smith
Latest: The Cost of Bad Government -
Broadway Fillmore Alive
Latest: Hoping to get you taxes done on time? -
Scott Leffler
Latest: Spitzer: What we need -
The Goose's Roost
Latest: Wants and Needs: Columbus Blue Jackets -
Alan Bedenko
Latest: Flame Bait: Statler -
The Answer Lady
Latest: Making Widgets at the Corporate University
-
Advertisement
This isn’t regionalism though, the jurisdiction is exactly the same, there are just 2 less representatives. No one merged the towns of Orchard Park and Aurora or eliminated the village of Orchard Park, they just got rid of two representatives. The real outcome of this is that it now only takes 2 votes to raise Town taxes in exchange for about a dollar of savings per resident.
This movement has all been all about Kevin Gaughan trying to get lay the ground work to finally fulfill his lifelong dream and win elective office. But the fact is what he has done is found an issue that looks popular and grabs headlines but is completely irrelevant. Gaughan has targeted large Towns, rather than Holland or Brant because the big Towns get headlines even though the small Towns have much higher “cost” per elected official.
Andrew Cuomo just got a bill signed into law that makes it much easier to eliminate the layers and layers of special districts, an actual move towards regionalism, but where is Kevin Gaughan on that? I haven’t heard of Mr. Gaughan organizing petition drives to merge all sewer districts in Lancaster, it must be because there are no headlines to follow.
Cool. Now a woman and her husband can take over the town board.
This will be looked back on as a mistake.
As much as I commend Kevin for his attempts to reduce the size of overall government, I can’t help but think his approach is misguided. Reducing local governance – where it is most effective and accountable – moves power and authority into the layers above; and as we are painfully aware, those uppermost layers are not only extraordinarily expensive but also ineffective, unaccountable and uninterested in doing the peoples’ business.
BBD
No mystery why the vote was scheduled for an off-day. Easier for the status quo to taxi their base to the polls (they thought).
It didn’t work, just like it didn’t work for the OP school vote on the $87 m new school building that would only cost the family “the equivalent of a large pizza per week”.
The people whining about easier takeovers are missing the point.
The people prefer LESS government, period. The votes are there. This is the first step. It’s an easy symbolic gesture to demonstrate the will of the people.
I heard the idiot supervisor from Alden on WBEN this morning whining that it’d be hard to “provide the same level of service”. The people don’t WANT the same level of service if that means the same byzantine labyrinth of bureaucracies, patronage, and red tape.
Downsizing town boards is just the tip of the spear.
re: “Now 2 people can take over the board and rule the town”:
If you let them, sure. But the same could have been said of a 5 or 7 member board. You seem to have forgetten that they are still YOUR representatives. If you don’t like what those people do as the elected leaders of your town, vote them out next election cycle. They are still ACCOUNTABLE to you. In fact, they’re probably more accountable now since you will know exactly who voted for what. If you abdicate your civic duty though, then, yeah, 2 people might commandeer your town and ruin everything forever. But, then that’s on you and your apathetic, non-voting neighbors. But I don’t blame you for espousing views that belie a fundamental misunderstanding of representative democracy. I blame the public schools for failing to impart any sense of civic responsibility or intelligence to several generations of Americans.
I wasn’t aware that, in the sleepy bedroom community of O.P. that there were all of these evil underhanded conspiracies going on. I voted yesterday and had no problems or issues whatsoever. I think people are making far too much of this, espcecially the media. I also think that Brad’s point about letting the board members do what they want is WAY offbase. The point is, once they’re elected, they can essentially do whatever they please until their term expires. By that time, if they even want to run again, they can take all kinds of measures to assure “things are forgotten.” THIS HAPPENS EVERY DAY IN POLITICS. Think about it! The problem is that the limited # of boardmembers CAN do in the mean time. The point about voting them out is a better argument for not downsizing. That is, If more people would take an interest in their communitites’ goverments and take an active role in affecting change, everyone would be better off. Unfortunately, it took an OUTSIDER with his own agenda to wake people up – problem is that the result is very specific with out regard for the specific community being affected..
^^^ Suggesting that board members should be able to do “whatever they want” is not the point that I made at all. Either way, I thought you said there weren’t a lot of underhanded conspiracies going on in OP – that there was no consipiracy by the town board to suppress the vote. But, when the board is reduced to 3, immediately two of those members will conspire to do bad, underhanded things and no one can stop them. And, to boot, they will make you forget their evil deeds come election time. That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Either that or just a complete lack of faith in democracy. Oh no…if we elect these people…they’ll do stuff! And we’ll be powerless to stop them! If only there was some kind of “process” whereby “the people” could do something to have a say in how the government works. Ah! If only such a thing existed….
I voted against reducing the board from 5 to 3. My wife and arrived at about 6pm, there were plenty of parking spots and the process was smooth and took little time. As to the timing of the vote it starts with the submission of the petitions – then there is a mandated window to set the date. If the date and hours were politically motivated it none-the-less had to be within a set number of days. I have confidence that by 2012 the three elected members will be quality citizens intent on doing their best for the community. I have discussed the issue with many and have not been persuaded by anyone that a board of three will mean there will be less governmental issues, better deliviery of services, result in meaningful tax savings or generate any regionalism results. But I know there are many smart people, including those who contribute to this blog, who believe to the contrary.
WNY has either the most or near the most elected officials per capita in the nation. The results speak for themselves. Start by reducing teh boards then start reducing the jurisdictions. Defending the status quo in NWY and NYS is just a strange thing to do
Brad – I wasn’t saying that you suggested that they should be able to do whatever they want. I apologize if I wasn’t clear. If you re-read my post you’ll find that I was actually agreeing with what seems to be your main point – that the citizens need to be more involved. I just don’t think that that involvement needed to be in the uncharted measure of downsizing; advocated by an outsider who doesn’t live there. I for one would’ve preferred to wait and see how it works out in W. Seneca & Eden first. What you didn’t seem to grasp is that I was rebutting your comments about 3 being the same as 5 (or 7) because you can keep them from colluding or deal making (of which we’ve seen evidence, not conspiracy – ask Mary Travers-Murphy) because “they are STILL accountable to you” and “you can vote them out.” They will still do it to you if they choose to but NOW IT’LL BE EASIER. You could ALWAYS have voted them out but people keep reelecting them. …and, again, I’m not talking conspiracy theory here. I’m talking about standard operating procedures in politics. The problem with our system is timing. The people are somewhat powerless to do anything until election time. By then, much is forgotten clouded. Again I’m commenting on the system, not conspiracy theory. It happens all the time.
The results, which speak for themselves, are caused by too many elected officials. Therefore having three voices on the town board in Orchard Park, not five, will address the “results.” And to think to the contrary is strange?
Jesse (from ea) and many others on here, the fewer veto points there are generally the larger government is or the easier it can expand. When people speak of smaller government, they’re generally not talking about fewer representatives. They’re mostly takling about less bureaucracy, less restrictions, less reach, and often less tax burden. This move accomplishes none of that. It clouds the real issue and endangers future attempts at real consolidation and regionalism by making it about a false concept that’s destined to backfire.
Yes, we have far more elected officials than we need. Yes, the status quo is killing our region. Yes, our tax burden is absurdly high. We need to do something real about that, not some fake, feel good, symbolic gesture that solves none of that. We need to attain fewer elected officials through consolidating governments, eliminating redundancies and merging small or unnecessary governments or districts. We need to reduce taxes by really and honestly reducing the size of government. These moves do not reduce the size of government. It allows government to grow more easily. Don’t be fooled into thinking that government is only the elected officials. That’s not even the tip of the iceberg.
Brad – I apologize if I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t saying that you suggested that they should be able to do whatever they want. If you re-read my post, you’ll find that I was fundamentally agreeing with, what I believe to be your major point – that the citizenry needs to be more involved. The poor voter turnout was evidence of that. The point that I believe you missed in my post was my rebuttal of your point that 3 is the same as 5 (or 7) because “They are still ACCOUNTABLE to you” and simply “vote them out next election cycle.” This didn’t happen under the current structure. My point, which is based on evidence (ask Mary Travers-Murphy) and is not conspiracy theorism, is that, if so inclined, they’ll do it to you while they’re in office and you are somewhat powerless UNTIL the next election. Having only 3 Members makes it easier and more likely that they could act in concert. This again is not conspiracy theorism, it’s standard operating procedure in government and politics.
I’d like to know what the people REALLY think. The problem with the actual vote was that those in favor of downsizing were much more passionate and organized. Therefore, the turnout seems as though it may have been skewed and thus the results may not be truly indicative of the town’s desires. Judging by the news clips – it looked like a senior citizen meeting – a segment that is generally assumed to be in favor of downsizing because it’ll save money. I’d be curious to know how the vote would’ve turned out if a majority of registerd voters in the town was polled. I guess it’s moot since what’s done is done. Now we just have to live with it. Hopefully we’re not all screwed. Only time will tell.
Not voting is voting
Hey Russell -
“These moves do not reduce the size of government.”
No kidding. That’s the point. It’s setting the stage, and making it patently obvious that people think there’s too much gov’t already. This is only the first step. You think Gaughan is going to just quit after the town boards are reduced?
I’m sick of the traditional “yes” “no” paradigm. I demand a real third choice, not a lesser of two evils!
Jesse – Everyone is painfully aware of the over-government, over-taxed issue in NYS. You seem typical of the angered, mob-mentality response to it. I loathe politics and the way the 2 party system has put a stanglehold on progress and righteousness. However, when this downsizing issue comes to your town and you seriously consider the uncertainty and possible consequences (because this is truly uncharted territory – the only 3 member board in the state is in the process of upsizing to 5), it becomes more personal than this revolution/crusade. Now you may have to “take one for the team.” I don’t particularly want to feel the pain for everyone else when things are pretty damn good in O.P. already!!