Ousted Miami-Dade Mayor: 'It's a Sad Day for Me'
Published March 16, 2011 | FoxNews.com
IS IT POSSIBLE IN A TOWN TO HAVE A REFERENDUM TO REMOVE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IN A TOWN MEETING FORM OF GOVERNMENT? WHY NOT!
Ousted Miami Mayor Carlos Alvarez said Wednesday that not only were the last 24 hours in which he was recalled by voters "extremely difficult," but also the last two years in which his administration struggled to close huge budget deficits.
"A lot of people ask me 'How do you feel?'" he said during a news conference. "It's a sad day for me. But I'm also relieved."
Alvarez defended his budget, which included a property tax rate increase and salary raise for county employees in a county struggling to recover from the recession.
"I made a decision to recommend a budget that held services together as much as we could," he said, adding that it's not easy to confront four consecutive years of budget gaps.
"Everyone has an opinion. It's much harder to actually make decisions and live with them," he said.
With 100 percent of precinct votes counted, 88 percent voted to oust the mayor Tuesday, making Miami-Dade the most populous area, with more than 2.5 million people, ever to recall a local official. Just 12 percent of the 204,500 who cast ballots were in favor of allowing Alvarez to finish his second term, which ends in 2012.
The county commission will most likely schedule a special election to fill the remainder of Alvarez' term. The effort to remove Alvarez was led by billionaire car dealer Norman Braman.
"County voters have demonstrated by their ballots that they are tired of unaccountable officials, of being ignored and of being overtaxed in this very difficult recessionary time," Braman said at a news conference.
Alvarez maintained throughout the recall effort that raising taxes was necessary to fill a $444 million gap and avoid cuts to critical social services. He said those affected by the property tax increase had enjoyed an artificially low 3 percent annual cap on tax increases during the real estate boom, and that the last round of contract negotiations had authorized most of the employee raises.
Alvarez said Wednesday that the next mayor will have a clear mandate after the recall election.
"It's very clear where the voters stand on the issues and they want smaller government and that's what they'll get," he said. "But they'll get it at a price."
Alvarez said he has no bitter feelings.
"I want to wish the next mayor much success and all the luck in the world and that hopefully the economy turns around," he said. "It certainly makes a difference."
There have been numerous recalls of state officials in recent years, but not any of a local government official in an area as big as Miami-Dade County, said Joshua Spivak, a recall expert and senior fellow at Wagner College in New York. The Los Angeles mayor was recalled in 1938, but Spivak said the population at that time was smaller.
Alvarez, a former county police chief, also says Braman is angry over losing an effort to block the county from funding a new $600 million stadium for the Florida Marlins baseball team.
At Alvarez's urging, the county commission approved it.
"The defining issue really is the type of government that the citizens of this community are looking for," Braman said. "It's about empowering the people of this community to take it back from the politicians who have been running it, and running it in a way that I think endangers the fiscal future of our community."
Braman, a former Philadelphia Eagles owner, gathered twice the 51,000 signatures needed to recall the mayor. County Commissioner Natacha Seijas was also on the recall ballot and removed from office.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/16/miami-dade-voters-overwhelmingly-choose-remove-mayor/#ixzz1H0e9Wk9k
Friday, March 18, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
KEEP YOUR OPINION IN THE UPRIGHT AND LOCKED POSITION ... I DON'T THINK SO!
New Fairfield leader buys communications tower in Patterson
Robert Miller, Staff Writer
Published 09:35 p.m., Friday, March 11, 2011
It gives the town a tower to complete its emergency radio system, Hodge said, and because the town owns the tower, it will be able to rent space on it to generate revenue.
"This will pay us back in eight years,'' Hodge said Friday.
It also gets the tower out of Great Hollow, he said.
The state attorney general's office had objected to the town's plan to build the tower there, claiming it would go against the will of Walter Merritt, who left the land to Wesleyan University with the expressed intention that a wildlife sanctuary would be created there.
"That's good new,'' said Dr. Peter Rostenberg, the leader of the Friends of the Quaker Brook Haviland Hollow Watershed, which includes the Great Hollow property. "It means the town will have safety and a communication system. And it preserves open space, which I think provides the town with economic benefits.''
Susan Kinsman, spokeswoman for the attorney general's office, said Friday the attorneys involved with the case were pleased by the purchase and would reconsider their actions against New Fairfield.
But some opponents of having a tower in Great Hollow also faulted Hodge's decision to buy the Tower Hill property.
"It's terrible,'' said Ronald Graiff, a radio frequency consultant who works on cell tower projects.
The tower, he said, is far too high to work well as an emergency communications tower without picking up a lot of interference.
The tower is also too high for cell phone companies, so Hodge's plan to generate revenue won't work, he said. "It's useless." [A POINT WELL TAKEN ... IF THE LOCATION WAS THAT GOOD AND COVERAGE AS COMPREHENSIVE ... THEN WHY DID THE CELLULAR PHONE COMPANIES PUT THEIR ANTENNA'S ON OTHER TOWERS WHEN THIS ONE EXISTED?]
Graiff and Steven Roe, another opponent of the tower at Great Hollow, also questioned who will pay for maintenance of the 1,200-foot road to the tower and its aging buildings.The tower, built in 1947, was part of the nation's first microwave system, allowing television broadcasts.
Graiff and Roe also wondered if the town will have to pay Patterson taxes because it owns the land.
Roe said the town could have avoided these issues if it had rented space on a tower in New York at Quail Ridge.
"Let's say it cost us $1,000 a month, Roe said. "At $190,000, that's something like 13 years without worrying about maintenance."
Roe also complained that no one in town was consulted about the project. Hodge completed the sale without going to the Board of Finance or the Planning Commission and without a vote of the Board of Selectmen.
"There are probably more questions about this now than if we had followed the process,'' said Selectman Monika Thiel.
Hodge said Friday all these criticisms came from people who have always been opposed to the tower.
"They'll never be happy,'' he said.
Hodge said Thursday the height of the tower had been an issue -- one that made the town's consultant, RCC Communications, reject the site.
But after a second look, Hodge said, RCC and Motorola, which is supplying the town with radio equipment, realized the Tower Hill site was viable and could be a good location for the town's emergency system. [WHAT CHANGED?]
Hodge also said it made no sense for the town to rent space at Quail Ridge when it could own Tower Hill and rent space on it to other companies. The town's existing emergency communications tower earns about $140,000 a year in rental fees. [WHY WASN'T THIS CONSIDERED DURING THE INITIAL PLANNING?]
"It's the old question, why do people own their own home as opposed to renting?''' Hodge said.
He also said the town had approved building a new communications system and allocated money for it, so there was no reason for him to consult the Board of Finance. [THE ISSUE HERE IS THE POTENTIAL CONTINUED ON GOING LIABILITY AND TAXES]
Likewise, he said, because the land the tower sits on is in Patterson, not town land, the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over it. [WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT?]
Hodge said he hopes to have the emergency system installed and running in a few months, and it will provide coverage to police, fire and ambulance crews in 95 percent of the town. [WHERE ARE THE NEW MAPS OF COVERAGE?]
"That's the most important thing,'' he said.
Contact Robert Miller
at bmiller@newstimes.com
or at 203-731-3345.
Read more: http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/New-Fairfield-leader-buys-communications-tower-in-1083541.php#ixzz1GOZcmfch
Robert Miller, Staff Writer
Published 09:35 p.m., Friday, March 11, 2011
NEW FAIRFIELD -- One controversy is resolved.
Another may be starting.
On Thursday, the town completed the $190,000 purchase of a communications tower in Patterson, N.Y., just over the town line. The site had been owned by Tower Hill Communications.
The tower, which sits in the middle of the Michael Ciailoa Conservation Area, does away with a plan to build a tower for the town's emergency radio communications system in the middle of the 890-acre Great Hollow Preserve.
First Selectman John Hodge said Thursday the tower purchase is a "win-win.'' [SO WAS THE BRIDGE TO THE OLD HOUSES ...
Another may be starting.
On Thursday, the town completed the $190,000 purchase of a communications tower in Patterson, N.Y., just over the town line. The site had been owned by Tower Hill Communications.
The tower, which sits in the middle of the Michael Ciailoa Conservation Area, does away with a plan to build a tower for the town's emergency radio communications system in the middle of the 890-acre Great Hollow Preserve.
First Selectman John Hodge said Thursday the tower purchase is a "win-win.'' [SO WAS THE BRIDGE TO THE OLD HOUSES ...
AND THE TOUR BUSES TO NEW FAIRFIELD TO THE MUSEUM DISTRICT TO ENJOY THE HISTORY OF THE TOWN! LET'S NOT MENTION THE RESTAURANT ON THE BEACH ... AND THE MANY OTHER "WILL NOT COST ONE THIN DIME OF TAXPAYER FUNDS PLANS"!]
It gives the town a tower to complete its emergency radio system, Hodge said, and because the town owns the tower, it will be able to rent space on it to generate revenue.
"This will pay us back in eight years,'' Hodge said Friday.
It also gets the tower out of Great Hollow, he said.
The state attorney general's office had objected to the town's plan to build the tower there, claiming it would go against the will of Walter Merritt, who left the land to Wesleyan University with the expressed intention that a wildlife sanctuary would be created there.
"That's good new,'' said Dr. Peter Rostenberg, the leader of the Friends of the Quaker Brook Haviland Hollow Watershed, which includes the Great Hollow property. "It means the town will have safety and a communication system. And it preserves open space, which I think provides the town with economic benefits.''
Susan Kinsman, spokeswoman for the attorney general's office, said Friday the attorneys involved with the case were pleased by the purchase and would reconsider their actions against New Fairfield.
But some opponents of having a tower in Great Hollow also faulted Hodge's decision to buy the Tower Hill property.
"It's terrible,'' said Ronald Graiff, a radio frequency consultant who works on cell tower projects.
The tower, he said, is far too high to work well as an emergency communications tower without picking up a lot of interference.
The tower is also too high for cell phone companies, so Hodge's plan to generate revenue won't work, he said. "It's useless." [A POINT WELL TAKEN ... IF THE LOCATION WAS THAT GOOD AND COVERAGE AS COMPREHENSIVE ... THEN WHY DID THE CELLULAR PHONE COMPANIES PUT THEIR ANTENNA'S ON OTHER TOWERS WHEN THIS ONE EXISTED?]
Graiff and Steven Roe, another opponent of the tower at Great Hollow, also questioned who will pay for maintenance of the 1,200-foot road to the tower and its aging buildings.The tower, built in 1947, was part of the nation's first microwave system, allowing television broadcasts.
Graiff and Roe also wondered if the town will have to pay Patterson taxes because it owns the land.
Roe said the town could have avoided these issues if it had rented space on a tower in New York at Quail Ridge.
"Let's say it cost us $1,000 a month, Roe said. "At $190,000, that's something like 13 years without worrying about maintenance."
Roe also complained that no one in town was consulted about the project. Hodge completed the sale without going to the Board of Finance or the Planning Commission and without a vote of the Board of Selectmen.
"There are probably more questions about this now than if we had followed the process,'' said Selectman Monika Thiel.
Hodge said Friday all these criticisms came from people who have always been opposed to the tower.
"They'll never be happy,'' he said.
Hodge said Thursday the height of the tower had been an issue -- one that made the town's consultant, RCC Communications, reject the site.
But after a second look, Hodge said, RCC and Motorola, which is supplying the town with radio equipment, realized the Tower Hill site was viable and could be a good location for the town's emergency system. [WHAT CHANGED?]
Hodge also said it made no sense for the town to rent space at Quail Ridge when it could own Tower Hill and rent space on it to other companies. The town's existing emergency communications tower earns about $140,000 a year in rental fees. [WHY WASN'T THIS CONSIDERED DURING THE INITIAL PLANNING?]
"It's the old question, why do people own their own home as opposed to renting?''' Hodge said.
He also said the town had approved building a new communications system and allocated money for it, so there was no reason for him to consult the Board of Finance. [THE ISSUE HERE IS THE POTENTIAL CONTINUED ON GOING LIABILITY AND TAXES]
Likewise, he said, because the land the tower sits on is in Patterson, not town land, the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over it. [WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT?]
Hodge said he hopes to have the emergency system installed and running in a few months, and it will provide coverage to police, fire and ambulance crews in 95 percent of the town. [WHERE ARE THE NEW MAPS OF COVERAGE?]
"That's the most important thing,'' he said.
Contact Robert Miller
at bmiller@newstimes.com
or at 203-731-3345.
Read more: http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/New-Fairfield-leader-buys-communications-tower-in-1083541.php#ixzz1GOZcmfch
Friday, March 11, 2011
A BRIDGE OF BROKEN PROMISES, HALF TRUTHS, AND SPIN ...
WHEN EVERYTHING IS AN EMERGENCY AND PLANNING IS THE FIRST CAUSALITY ... AN AFTER THOUGHT ... THIS IS WHAT THE BRIDGE TO THE FUTURE LOOKS LIKE! THE LANDING FOR THIS RUBE GOLDBERG (NO OFFENSE TO THE JEWISH COMMUNITY) IS BEHIND THE SENIOR CENTER. IT IS A BRIDGE OF SORTS TO THE OLD SHACKS. NOT CERTAIN WHETHER A HELMET AND LIFE VEST IS REQUIRED.
BALANCED BUDGETS, FALLING FUND BALANCES, AND A 'TRUST ME BABY' FORM OF GOVERNMENT LEADS TO A BRIDGE OF REMEMBRANCE REQUIRING HIP BOOTS TO GET THROUGH BRAGADOCIOUS POSTURING.
JUST IN CASE ... A BRIDGE OF REMEMBRANCE DOES EXIST AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE:
AND TO THOSE WORLDLY TRAVELERS THIS IS WHERE ITS LOCATED: BRIDGE OF REMEMBERANCE.
THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR ... REMEMBER THE BRIDGE!
BALANCED BUDGETS, FALLING FUND BALANCES, AND A 'TRUST ME BABY' FORM OF GOVERNMENT LEADS TO A BRIDGE OF REMEMBRANCE REQUIRING HIP BOOTS TO GET THROUGH BRAGADOCIOUS POSTURING.
JUST IN CASE ... A BRIDGE OF REMEMBRANCE DOES EXIST AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE:
AND TO THOSE WORLDLY TRAVELERS THIS IS WHERE ITS LOCATED: BRIDGE OF REMEMBERANCE.
THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR ... REMEMBER THE BRIDGE!
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
U.S. CENSUS FOR CONNECTICUT DUE TODAY ...
Conn. census results to be released today
Tim Loh, Staff Writer
Published 07:20 a.m., Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The U.S. Census Bureau will release today the results of Connecticut's 2010 headcount, offering a once-in-a-decade glimpse of how many of state residents there are, where they can be found, how much they earn, how educated they are, and how they stack up against neighboring towns, states and the rest of America.
To make sense of the reams of data, the Connecticut Post will be sifting out the past decade's biggest demographic shifts -- on a statewide, regional and town-by-town basis.
Here's a preview of what we're looking for:
-- Is Bridgeport still shrinking? In 1990, nearly 142,000 people called the Park City their home. By 2000, though, that number had dropped to about 139,500. Recent studies ballpark the city's current population at 3,000 or so people fewer, which could bring financial and political trouble. But how accurate is that assessment? Who's leaving? Who's staying? And who's arriving? Taken together, can Bridgeport still claim to be Connecticut's largest city?
-- Southwestern Connecticut is home to extreme income gaps. A decade ago, Easton's median household income -- nearly $126,000 -- was almost four times greater than that of neighboring Bridgeport. But has the economic tsunami that's hit the globe in recent years served to soften that income gap or amplified it? And have any towns and cities come out on top of the downturn? Which ones have come out as losers?
-- Outside evidence -- anecdotal included -- suggests that diverging trends have flown through the Valley this decade. Some areas have grown younger and more diverse -- Derby and Ansonia -- while others are aging. Does the census data bear this out? Or has something altogether different been taking place?
One preview: A study released earlier this week found that Fairfield County's population has climbed 2 percent in the past decade to about 900,000 people. That information, however, was drawn from the American Community Survey, and not the U.S. Census data. Whether it's true will take sharper focus by the end of Wednesday. As will the question of whether Connecticut can claim a spot as housing one of the nation's oldest populations.
Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Conn-census-results-to-be-released-today-1049345.php#ixzz1G755K71m
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)