| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 10:40:04 AM
|
| I think JMC was a decent mayor. I know he was arrogant and mean spirited but he was also usually well prepared. I can remember him ordering the department heads to level fund their budgets to keep the tax rate under control. Too bad the present administration didn't take that page from JMC's rule book. I'm not saying all was right with the city when he was mayor but it certainly was better than it is now. The city was also better off when Ragucci was mayor, too. I don't think anyone can be as bad as this guy. |
 |
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 06/25/2007 : 12:11:54 PM
|
I agree John McCarthy wasn't the best but I wasn't saying he was. He was however, significantly better qualified than Honest John Hanlon.
One thing I will say on McCarthy's behalf.......... he didn't clean out city hall when he took office and if a department head didn't support him, they didn't lose their job!
The point really is that people need to start voting for the most qualified candidate, not the most personable. |
Edited by - justme on 06/25/2007 12:12:45 PM |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 12:13:01 PM
|
| The thing about mean-spirited and arrogant people is that no one wants to work with them. One of the things that I recall about JMC is about Telecom City. I recall he wouldn't work with the other mayors because he worried about "sovereignity" and the agreement was delayed as a result. It wasn't until Barry Ericksen shamed him into it that JMC actually signed on. It's true that JMC kept the tax rate down....but he also could have done more to steer community development...ala Medford mayor Mike McGlynn. That guy never missed a trick. JMC ran the city on autopilot at times, and if he had had more foresight - he'd still be mayor, despite his ugly personality. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 12:22:53 PM
|
You could be right CK, but we'll never know.
Since he's in the area, I'd like to cast my vote for Buddy Cianci. He did great things for Providence! Yes' I know there were problems, but he got things done.......... |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 7:49:02 PM
|
Chuck just said something about after the 3% cuts are made, the budget has to be submitted to the DOR. I didn't realize the state was involved. This is a good thing. (I think)
Can anyone provide more information? |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 7:49:10 PM
|
| If you go into a little greater detail with the McCarthy years you'll find he did indeed keep the taxes the envy of most of the state. You gotta give him that. In my opinion, if you can keep personality out of it, the biggest problem with his administration was allowing the city to fall apart brick by brick while he was running the show. Anyone who owns a home knows maintenence is crucial. If you don't keep up with it you'll have a disaster on your hands. In 12 years he was mayor very little road construction was done, the old city yard building completely fell apart, not a single school was built during his tenure. (They did do a library addition during his time I believe) I know he had a hand in the school building plan before he left but a plan is just that, only a plan. Surely he could have done more in that much time on the job. Contrast that with his replacement who rebuilt multiple streets and sidewalks every year, oversaw the construction of 4 new schools including the new high school and built a brand new DPW building on land the city took for non-payment of property tax. Ragucci was basically forced to rebuild the entire city in 8 years after 12 years of neglect by his predesessor. I know he increased the taxes here some but at least you could see tangible evidence of what you were getting for your tax money. Those buildings and roads will serve the city well for years to come. Fast forward to the current administration which is increasing taxes as much in 2 years as Ragu did in 8 with nothing to show for it as far as I can see. He's the worst of both worlds. Higher taxes and no evidence they were used wisely. I'm still trying to figure out why the voters made the now apparent ill-advised change at the top of the city hierarchy. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 8:03:54 PM
|
| Can you believe that Hanlon is at Foxwoods instead of being here for the Alderman's meeting. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 8:16:34 PM
|
| Amazing isn't it? He continues to out do himself. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 8:23:16 PM
|
| The budget hearing committee really backed themselves into a corner by voting for that 3% reduction off the bottom line. They should have voted a 6 or 7% reduction off the bottom line. So, if McGonagle is correct our taxes will be going up between $400. to $500. What a mess. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 8:51:35 PM
|
| Do we know that he's at Foxwoods? I understand that there's a mayor's convention going on. Menino had to leave it to attend to the family of that little boy who was killed. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 8:53:15 PM
|
The city is in a mess and our elected officials, once again, dropped the ball. They always seem to be a day late and a dollar short!
Hanlon wouldn't do the right thing and the CC & BOA took the easy way out telling him to cut 3%. Now Carlo says that's a good starting point but last week he voted favorably. Does he have a clue what he's doing? They grandstand and take votes and then they say that's not what they "thought" was going to happen. Now they want to see where the cuts are but last week they weren't smart enough to think of that and although Hanlon isn't too bright, he manages to stay a step ahead of them because they don't think things through and he walks right though all the holes they leave!
We not only need a new mayor............... We need a complete change of the CC & BOA too! |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 9:17:49 PM
|
| Court, it was said at the BOA meeting that Hanlon is in Foxwoods. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2007 : 10:58:42 PM
|
I just read the following on The Mirror. Anyone hear anything about this?
did you hear the lastest city council and board of alderman screwed the budget up must stay at city hall thursday nite and go line by line to do the cuts DOR says we are a bi-camerial board and you can't vote on the whole when it comes to the budget. Wonder if Hanlon will be back
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 12:20:04 AM
|
Massdee,
This is the best I could find from MGL Chapter 44, Section 32:
"The city council may by majority vote make appropriations for the purposes recommended and may reduce or reject any amount recommended in the annual budget."
If you accept the budget's bottom line as "any amount recommended in the budget", I don't see why they couldn't reduce it by a specified percentage. Just my interpretation (And I'm by no means an expert!) but, I think it flies.
As far as there being a difference in how the budget can be cut by a bicarmel form of government, I didn't see any in this chapter and section of MGL. It could be elsewhere but it would make the most sense for it to be in that chapter and section. However, one requirement of the bicarmel goverment is that the Committee of the Whole can not approve the budget; they can only make a recommendation. It has to be sent on to the BOA and CC for approval. |
Edited by - tetris on 06/28/2007 08:59:03 AM |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 05:42:28 AM
|
The CC & BOA are voting separately so, on that part, it looks like we're okay.
This is a perfect time to get rid of our bicameral government. As usual, Sierra (sp) chose not to participate in the budget at all. (No surprise there, he only goes to a few meetings a year.) It seems to me others were also missing, but perhaps it's just that not all of them were at all the meetings. There's too many of them. They all stand and repeat the same thing and waste time instead of doing something constructive.
They chose not to go line by line, which is what they should have done, because they'd be hard pressed to get it done with all of the grandstanding. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Budget
