Thursday, October 18, 2012

Hunt/Ellis debate emphasizes differences

The Cape Cod Times and League of Women Voters debate last night provided an opportunity for State Representative Randy Hunt and challenger R. Patrick Ellis to air out their differences.

You can watch the debate at the Sandwich Community TV website: http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T01161&video=132974. By the way, the Therese Murray / Tom Keyes senate debate is the second half of the video at that link.

One weird situation came up during the debate when Patrick claimed that I had signed the Grover Norquist pledge and wanted me to explain why I would do this. I replied that I hadn't signed the pledge. This morning, I went back through my election file and found the two letters from Americans for Tax Reform (Norquist's organization) that I had received in 2010 and 2012. I had written on each that I did not submit the pledge, and the attached pledge from each letter is blank. See the scanned images here.

It's not the first time I've run into incorrect information posted on the Internet. I'm sure my opponent or someone on his campaign staff read my blog post about this issue (read it here) where, in the comment section, "Anonymous" asked if I signed the Norquist pledge and I responded that I had not. That should have been a clue.

Anyway, we had a good time and I look forward to any comments about the debate that you care to share.

48 comments:

  1. Incorrect information on the internet? Say it ain't so Randy.

    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is Grover N. outfit so sloppy that they would put your name on their list without ever being prompted? This doesn't seem to reflect the GOP mantra of good organization, etc.
    I think both Tom Keyes and you, Randy, are flimflamming the public, and both have more 'splainin' to do. Anybody can generate a blank form from the Norquist site.
    I thought Patrick made an excellent point when he explained that he was asked to sign the pledge, he did not, and as a consequence his name does not appear as a signer. Like the old Senator said during the Watergate investigation: "That dog just don't hunt"
    And if someone in an earlier post suggested that you had signed the pledge, and that this "should have been your first clue", why didn't you "get with" the Norquist people at that point to set them straight?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To answer your questions:

      1) Apparently so.

      2) The person that posted the question in my earlier blog post queried: "But you did sign Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Relief pledge didn't you?" To which I replied: "I did not." Nothing about that question made me think that I should check Norquists' website. I hadn't signed their pledge, so why would I consider that they would publish my name?

      Regarding your comment, "Anybody can generate a blank form from the Norquist site," that is a true statement. I didn't do that, however. You are directly a) calling me a liar, and 2) claiming that I have faked documents to support my statement.

      There is nothing worse than for someone to falsely attack my character. Clearly, you don't know me. That idea of faking documents entered your mind and seems plausible, if not likely, to you. That reflects on your own mindset and possibly your ethical standards. For me, it's something I would never do. Period.

      Delete
    2. I know nothing about you personally, or what you claim to be your character. To me, you are just another politician, and I am just being honest when I tell you that as a constituent, none of this passes the smell test for me. Perhaps I am a bit cynical when I believe a politician is capable of lying if necessary to win election...(okay, maybe more than a "bit").
      Further, Randy, it just doesn't seem like a stretch to me, at all, to consider that you would have signed that pledge. The history of the local Republican Committee, of which you have been a very involved member, is one of far right wing ideology, and I would assume would be all in favor of the Norquist pledge....no?

      Delete
    3. I understand your reasoning and applied to someone besides myself, especially some of the politicians in Washington DC, I can understand your mistrust.

      I've never polled the local Republican Committee to see who would be in favor of the Norquist pledge. As I stated back in July on my blog, I'm not signing pledges to any group for any reason.

      Delete
    4. Besides all of that. Think about this:

      How many politicians do you know that would even engage with you, in a public format, on this issue or something similar?

      How many times have you emailed me with a question about an issue where I didn't personally respond? (I know the answer to this is zero.)

      That, by itself, tells you that I'm not your typical politician.

      I have no campaign manager. I have no campaign office (unless you want to count my dining room table). I make every decision related to my campaign. I update my own website and I write every single word of everything that shows up on it along with my literature, my blog, and my emails.

      If I lose this election, I will blame no one but me. If I win, I will credit everyone who helped.

      Delete
  3. I for one, do not know of any politicians that is as open, honest,
    forthcoming, bright, hardworking, caring, and isle crossing as you.

    Good Luck on your second term. My only regret is that I have but one vote that I can cast for you. You are worth so much to me, my family, my friends, and the entire community that are so fortunate as to have you as their representative.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry, but I accidentally rejected the following comment from an anonymous poster:

    Randy - Would you be willing to get a response for the voters from Americans for Tax Reform regarding why your name appears on the list of elected officials who signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge (http://www.atr.org/atr-releases-list-state-taxpayer-protection-a7166)? Having followed your blog, I'm certainly much more inclined to believe you than Grover Norquist's organization, but I'd like to see some response from ATR.

    ----------

    I finally got a call back from Patrick Gleason, ATR's Massachusetts point person. He told me that Barbara Anderson's Massachusetts group, Citizens for Limited Taxation, shared the taxpayer pledge I signed in 2010 with his organization. That was the source of the posting on ATR's website.

    At last Wednesday's debate, I speculated that this might be the case.

    Patrick Ellis', and now John Walsh's (Democratic State Party Bigwig), declaration that I lied about this situation are unwarranted and clearly defamatory and slanderous.

    That aside, the pledge I signed for CLT is not a pledge to CLT nor to Barbara Anderson, but rather a pledge to the taxpayers of the 5th Barnstable District that recognizes we have a spending problem, not a revenue shortage.

    As I have said many times now, judge me by my record. I voted to put the 6.25% sales tax back to 5%. I voted to return the income tax rate to 5%, which is what was voted in 2000 by citizens' petition.

    With the more-than-doubling of Republican members in the House of Representatives, the stage was set for a more conservative fiscal direction for the past two years. On day one of the 186th General Court, both the House Speaker and Senate President declared that we would not balance the budget with tax increases, fee increases, or gimmicks during the two-year session. And that's what happened. I'm glad to have been a part of that.

    On the other hand, my opponent has made it perfectly clear that he sees no reason to be fiscally conservative and that he will vote to raises taxes so long as he can think of a way to spend the money. I'm betting that the voters in the 5th Barnstable District are not ready to have their pocketbooks raided by this state legislature.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Carl Johansen would also state that your opponent must have plenty of money to spare as he has put on a sign display around our town like I have never seen before. In some cases in the center of our historical down town he has so many signs around that it is one continues line for over 50 feet. Never mind the other locations where multiple signs are placed many in unapproved areas of our town.

    I ask why does it take more then one sign at any location to make a point that he is running for office or for that matter why does any one running for any office need to place more then one sign at any of the public locations in historical Sandwich ? Where is the pride we hear about when attempting to sell our town as some historical cultural place every one should come and visit?

    How about we all start to observe all of the rules when placing the signs and remove the ones that are simply placed to impress those of us that vote.



    ReplyDelete
  6. I received a post card from Ellis yesterday that was meant to be a hit piece. I have to say that it referenced your blog and I've had the pleasure to read about many of your positions on issues. This is fantastic. What politician would put it out there for everyone to see like you do? I also received your very positive mailer yesterday and the two mailings have definitely helped me make up my mind. I can't stand the negativity of campaign ads and postcards. You've got my vote, Mr. Hunt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People who are losing send out this kind of crap.

      Delete
    2. Saw it too. My take away is that Randy supports not giving our tax money to illegals and wants to stop election fraud. I'm in.

      Delete
    3. When a candidate can't run on something positive, they make an election about small things. That is the point of Ellis's campaign, that and I'm a "townie" The point is Mass doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Actually spending addiction would be a better way to describe it. I'm with Randy

      Delete
  7. Carl Johansen would state that Mr. Ellis is running on the only platform he knows and that I am a towney and a Democratic party member.

    Sending out the type of nonsense that he is aware of to the voters about issues that show no crediable value makes one concerned what would happen should he be elected?

    Where is the value in regards to comments he has made in regards to if he gets elected he would find the way to bring a third bridge across the canal.

    This is old news, not any thing new and better yet a tunnel under the canal would be a better idea long term . Both ideas have been discussed over 25 years ago by some rather astute folks , but guess what that is all it is, a good point of discussion.

    I would be more concerned about saving the Barrier beach at Town Neck another idea that has been thrown around for over 25 years and it is still being discussed.

    Not to say about the new police and fire safety building being built in a location that is more central to Sandwich Residents is another long term discussion point that seems to get lost among the historians here in Sandwich.

    Especially for some whom served as Selectmen over the years and continue to spout about being a leader, transparency and what they will do now , but failed to do anything when they actually could have made a difference.

    This brings us back to discrediting others as a means of showing what a good leader they will make if elected.

    If the message being spread is factual and the majority support it, tell me why would some one have a need to loan themselves large sums of money to run a campayne, that they will not recover , unless they get elected?? Must be something I am missing?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr. Johansen, after reading your last post, I have one comment. It looks like the pot is calling the kettle black.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Carl Johansen would congradulations to Mr. Hunt for operating and conducting an issues based campaign. The people in your district realized who the leader between the two running really is. The word around town this morning was your rival put on one of most dishonorable campaigns in an attempt to smear your good name and never addressed the real issues we all are facing going forward.

    This failing tactic did work in other parts of the different elected positions,But hear in the great town of Sandwich the majority saw right through the smoke screen of what has been more attributed to Boston and how sewer politics gets played. I hope the next time we have an election that every one remembers, that tactic does not always work.

    Randy ran an honorable campaign and you kept the message positive and now you will need to get to work and finish a few projects and take on some others.

    I would agree with some that , no matter whom was elected, for what ever position we all voted on, we all must now meet the goals placed before us to go forward in a more harmonious way.

    Our economy depends on many things here in Sandwich and now we all get to pull up our sleeves and try to work as a team to get the job done. Keeping in mind that ethics will remain steadfast in what you do, gives me great comfort that you will rise like the cream in the old milk bottle and do the best you can.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Most of your last post was as it should have been. Randy, a true gentleman and scholar did as he always does and addressed issues and addressed them with facts. I don't believe it is necessary to say anything negative of the man who ran against Randy if one is praising Randy. It only fires up negativity.

    I learned my lesson from another blog debate we had a year or so ago. It seemed to be fueled by the negative. It could have been a much better debate fueled by the positive.

    This all said, I only ask Randy; how do you do all you do in only 24 hours a day? There is no person I would rather see as Governor the next time around or better still Senator in six years.

    God Bless you Randy and God Bless our district that it may stay fortunate to have you represent us.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Carl Johansen would state to Greg, to some degree I would agree with your commontary. I learned a long time ago that in life we have both good and bad. We have truth and untruths. Speaking in regards to the good or the truth we consider it as a positive message, where as if we speak to the bad or untruths it is negative in nature. Having said that, I completly agree that we sort of throw out a mixed message. On the other hand, if no one speaks to the bad or untruths, most would except it as a normal way to conduct ones self in today's world. We then get more bad and untruths messages that perhaps some would come to think, that is the normal path we should all subscribe too. It is not an easy task to balance both messages, in an forum where you really can not have any back and forth face to face contact with the other side of the issues to really engage the whole process and see what the real intent of the message may be.

    When one side of a debate is proccesing all positive messages to the public at large and the other side is processing mostly negative messages we are left with more questions and less answers as to which one really is concerned about the things we all care about that may affect all of our lives. The defining line for me has always been, which one shows the most integrety, speaks to the issues and listens to what we the people are saying.

    Others may have other definitions as to what would do best by the poeple voting and how they vote themselves.

    To speak only about the positive message one side generates , while the other side speaks to the negative, for me does not provide a balanced point of view or contrast whereby any future debates can also be judged, as to what is the normal excepted process to conduct ones self going forward.


    Perhaps it is an old mans dream that growing up with in the negative politics of Boston and how what we call sewer campaigning may some day stop, is to much to ask for. The cape was not affected by this type of campaigning, until recently and having lived with it, most of my life,
    I hope it is not the wave of the future, unless we speak loud and clear as voters, it just may be the way, some will continue with the untruths along with not facing the issues we all are concerned about.

    Now smile

    ReplyDelete
  12. I will say again, negativity is not necessary when on candidate is so outstandling in his factual assertions and his honesty and lack of negativity. That simply stated is the point. I did not think that your statements about Mr. Ellis were at all necessary. Our candidate won; you don't see him being negative; maybe that's one of the reasons that he won.

    There is no reason to be negative towards any person especially when he is down, EVER!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Carl Johansen would say to Greg, speaking to both sides no matter positive or negative is a matter of opinion. I ask if those that speak all to the negative side are never called on it how does it ever change?

    That for me would be like the three who see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil and stick there head in the sand and hope it all goes away. It never goes away until it is fully addressed.

    My personal experience during my life time has shown me that those whom are afraid to speak up against those who speak about evil, no matter where it is or what form it takes live to regret it later on in life.

    I can give you many instances, where those that never spoke about the evil, regretted not speaking. Just look, in the way politics is conducted in Boston. Over the years where many failed to speak up against corruption and unethical behavor now face the task of removing it, after years of folks who were afraid to speak up, lest they feel the wrath of Whitey and his boys.

    This what is great about a free democratic society, we can have differences , based upon actual events in our lives, that formulate our own standards. You may not agree and that is ok, but should you have the time and the coffee is on me, I will share with you two books of political evil that helped provide me with an outlook I speak above.
    We only have one more in a long line of political negativity here in Massachusetts and once .Mr. Bulger is tried and convicted, my early experiences might take on a different perspective. But then I still must address where some of my ancestors never spoke about the negativety and millions of folks died.

    It all starts of on a small scale and then esculates itself to a place where fear prevents the truth from being spoken, no matter whom it may be.

    Yes Mr.Hunt ran a positive filled ethical issue based campaign while Mr. Ellis, in my opinion ran a negative based campaign and we have stated our reasons, as to why we came to this conclusion hopefully above. Perhaps he recieved bad counciling, but he still should have been able to determine the right thing to do, that for me is what a true leader would have done.

    Just think of what direction the district may go had the results been different?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Johansen, I don't think you understand my point. I am suggesting that you are negative. In this particular situation, Mr. Hunt does not need anyone telling people who read this blog negative statements against Mr. Ellis. As you so aptly point out, I think, people do have opinions; some of them negative; and that is fine as we all think differently, but to be so negative only inflames discourse and causes nothing to progress. If you simply stated what Mr. Ellis has done and said, my guess is that folks will understand and make up their own mind. Get it?

      Delete
  14. hmmm. Interesting. One person likes to be positive the other negative, yet, the positive candidate won and the negative candidate lost. I think if we can get rid of the negative people, this nation, state, town can come together.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Carl Johansen would state to Greg. A great and wise philospher once commented that discourse comes of debates between being negative or being positive. How does one discern the path whereby the positive overcomes the negative or the negative overcomes the positive? If speaking only when ideals are positive, how does one rationalize how to correct the ideals that are negative? The paths we choose in an attempt to obtain the positive, come from debates that speak to the negative.

    Greg, You and I can rationilize the wisdom of both approaches as in a lesson of conscious beliefs.

    We have no winner, nor loser, like in a game of chess. That was not my intent when this subject matter was debated.

    Today I have trashed all of the material sent by both positive and negative folks running for offices and judging from most of those whom have posted above they also were not to pleased about getting some of the trash being spouted. We noticed you did not take exception to those folks in any of your postings, perhaps that was an oversite???


    You and I can agree to disagree, on one thing, I would agree with you is, that Mr. Hunt, did run a positive campaign.I would like to feel that his other redeaming qualities were the main reason he actually won.


    It is time to move on and debate other issues that with out a doubt are sure to affect every one here in Sandwich in the next budget cycle.

    Where do you stand on the new fire and police safety building?? That should make for an interesting forum , should our host decide to put it up a seperate debate going into the new year.?


    By the way, how about that coffee invite, are you game???

    ReplyDelete
  16. Public Safety Complex. No doubt there is a need. It is unexceptable that the police and fire personnel live like animals in the wild, that there safety is imperiled, that expensive equipment is at risk, and from what I understand poor living conditions in the fire department living quarters (I have yet to see it). I have to problems 1) location 2) cost.

    I do not think the people of Sandwich buy the cost.

    And, no, I care not to have any coffee, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Carl Johansen would state to Greg, with out question any one who has not taken the tour of both building, we would recommend you do so.

    Yes every one has two problems with this both from a cost and location. Speaking from myself and being on a fixed income we support the location as the town goes forward into economic development for Sandwich. It has been studied to death for the past 20 years and the placement of the main building will be more central to the majority of the population and with a sub station near the High school it is the best plan to provide all the services our town will face into the future, which is what we all should be looking at for those with children who may be looking to stay her after we are all gone.

    The cost issue for the most part has been determined by more stringent codes in todays safety complexes, is there wiggle room , of course, how much is the question??

    Does the town have some options in how they fund it? I believe they do , but that issue needs to be worked out so that it is exceptable for every one. My suggestion speak to when the old buildings are sold, that the money go directly to pay down the long term bond, which can be done by a vote.This would decrease the bond debt and time limit needed.

    This proposal would also show good faith to the taxpayers as one way of reducing in the end the over all cost on every taxpayer. We only need to look at what has occurred in New Jersey, after the storm to realize only for the grace of god go I.
    Can you imagine what we here in Sandwich could face if such a storm took out the only buildings that provided our town with any safety problems are washed away. Can you imagine the conflictions we all here would face as a community?

    I am disapointed that you will not accept my offer for coffee, but such is life

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your opinion. Don't be disapointed, you see me enough as it is. I have a need to speak to those that are not negative.

      Delete
  18. Carl Johansen would state to Greg. Now, who is being negative??? I was hoping we could engage in a coversation that both may derive some mutual satisfaction, as to what the town of Sandwich will do to build a safety building??

    Perhaps even get to agree on a path that may well be chosen to satisfy every ones concerns in regards to the two reasons you brought up as being obsticles.

    I know among the world of blogs and the computer world that many would disagree with both of our concious approaches to life, but thats what make life interesting and educational all at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ya know what is truly wrong in this here town, it's that the huge project of the public safety building is not brought to the people. Read my words when I say MOST people in this town DO NOT read the newspapers and DO NOT watch cable TV. Because the DO NOT we are left with an uninformed public on matters such as the public safety building. It is being rammed up us with the disguise of public meetings. The truth is this--East Sandwich residents need a fire station NOW. We should build it NOW. I am not paying for any new station unless we get a station in East Sandwich NOW.
    Grundman, Pannorfi, Vitacco, Pierce, Kennan, READ MY WORDS....NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW X 30,000,000. NOW!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Carl Johansen would comment to Smokey the pooch that for the most part you are correct when it comes to the folks here in Sandwich not being informed enough to be able to digest the need for a new public safety building in the most centrilized location, where it could serve a larger population with better results. That is why for many years we have spouted to the board of selectman to bring this subject matter before the tax payers to allow the taxpayer the opportunity to vote Yes or No for this project. This will be the only true test in determining the support of the Sandwich Community in accepting the bill for its relocation. It has been stated over many years that the responce time will decrease with the bold plan that has been proposed to the majority of the whole town. The question remains if we the tax payers want to plan for the future of our town or remain with the philosophy of the horse and buggy days. I have made a point to investigate the need and it is about as real as it can get. Hundreds of thousands of tax payers dollars have been spent,[ my estimate is well over one million tax dollars] in discussing and having studies performed and as of yet we the taxpayers do not have any thing to show for all this time and money spent and it is about time more effort is spent in bringing this to the voters here in Sandwich, for approval or not.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Smokey, down boy, down boy. I surely hope you did not have a stroke. You are right to say that they don't get the word out, they pretend they do. I heard one person at a public hearing ask what was Plan B. No answer. I think the question meant to ask if there are any alternatives. They say there were about 8 different choices and the selected the one they wanted, but its a secret as to what the other choices were. By the way, They is Bud.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Unlike Carl, I think that Patrick Ellis has some good ideas. Perhaps he might weigh in on this subject. He knows Sandwich from both the past and knows it now. Pat??

    ReplyDelete
  23. Although I agree with the need for a new police and fire station I will not vote for it as currently proposed. The price tag and size are just way too much.

    Do we really need 12 prisoner cells. How many are there currently? How many times a year are they at capacity? Can't the fire/police dept. share a breakroom/day room. Why a training room and community room? One would suffice, how often will they be in use at the same time. It's called scheduling! Roll call can't be done in the training room? Fire/Police Chief office nearly 300 sq. ft. Lt. Office Space 160 to 200 sq. ft. 11 Bunk rooms ranging from 145 sq. ft. to 153 sq. ft. 2 Upstairs conference rooms each at 300 sq. ft. each. Evidence processing room, that's what the state lab does, and the new facility just opened out on Otis. Does the town currently employ a mechanic? Or will we be hiring one for the space on the fire dept. side?

    Take a look at the design, there will be a lot of unused space on a daily basis. Oh let's not forget about heating all that empty space. Energy efficient or not it's still going to be expensive.
    Hope we only pay for basic cable channels :), after they should be working if we're paying them a salary. Heck if you insist on a roll call room, it could multi-task as a conference room.

    All I'm saying is that this building is just way to big. Many folks refer to this "complex" as the Tajmahal.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think the last post is correct. People do see the need for the complex, but no where near its size. I would vote for it only if East Sandwich had a station of its own. Leave the forestdale and then build the little station in East Sandwich around Jones Road or near it. Yes, we would have to hire more people. Lets not kick the can and do it, then we can move on to overrides and libraries, senior centers, new town hall, etc. etc. When my bill goes to $10,000 a year, I am out. My home is valued at $500,000 plus and I am sure at this rate it is coming soon.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The address of Sandwich High School is 365 Quaker Meeting House Road, EAST Sandwich. The proposed location of the fully manned substation is "at QMHR, on the High School property".

    If my fellow selectmen put the question to the voters, and, if the voters say yes at Town Meeting AND at the ballot box, then there will be a fire station in EAST Sandwich.

    As Carl says, if we don't ask the voters, we wont know. In my opinion, not asking makes no sense. On one hand we'd be second guessing the voters. On the other hand we'd be "protecting the voters from themselves." I'd suggest we treat the voters like thinking, rational adults and let them decide.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jim, the address of QNHR whatever that might be, may be in East Sandwich, but I am more concerned of the more easterly parts of Town. Remember there are parts of East Sandwich that are only 1/2 mile from the proposed taj mahal and parts of older parts of Sandwich that are over six miles away. Its time to figure out where three stations might fit. Remember that if we do not ask the town, we will never know if they would buy it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaun, "QMHR" = Quaker Meetinghouse Road.

      Delete
  27. A citizen expressed concern that some sections of town might be more than 5 road miles (an insurance stipulation) from a manned station under the current proposal.

    My car has a trip odometer, so, I checked that out. (At $3.50 a gallon, I should probably put in for reembursement ;-) From the proposed substation to the Barnstable line on Sandy Neck Rd is 4.7 miles. Well, what about Town Neck parking lot and the Bourne line on 6A near the Sagamore Inn. One was 4.7 miles and the other 4.6 miles from the proposed substation. If, (Big I and big F) the taxpayers go for a two station plan, there is no better proposal regarding location.

    Placing headquarters across from the current human services building leads to a problem. From that location, 5 road miles takes you to the intersection of Town Neck Rd and Tupper Rd. Or, it takes you to 130 and Pine St, the cemetery on 130. Or, it takes you to the Cape Cod 5 on 6A. Or, it takes you to Amari at 6A and Sandy Neck Rd. That leaves a lot of folks outside that 5 road mile limit.

    if (little i little f) the taxpayers turn down a two station option, maybe more costly three station options will end up back on the table.

    The lot under the current E.Sandwich station is too small to accomodate a fire station meeting current building code. Oddly enough, that probably means a substation on the high school grounds will be an element of any solution. That holds true whether the voters have their say soon or another decade from now.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Waterville Maine is in the process of building a 12,000 sq. ft. police station for $3.4 million. Police force of 41.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Waterville Police Station was orginally going to be 14,000 sq. ft. but they cut out the Excercise Room and reduced the size of the Training Room. So building is now at 12,000 sq. ft.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @jim pierce

    to be sure we need a new public safety building. we also need to be fair to all taxpayers in this town, three stations should be built, one in the East Sandwich, one downtown or maybe near the transfer station or Jan Sebastian Way and one in Forestdale, maybe on Town Land on or near the corner of Rt. 130 and Quaker Meetinghouse Road. Maybe we could move the present Forestdale station there.

    It is unfair to have anyone pay more taxes for new buildings and get worse service. I would hate to live in one of those areas where service will be going down and then having to pay more in insurance. Doing what you want with the wanton disregard to the costs to singled out taxpayers and others. I suggest you talk to someone who WILL NOT get money from the building the new structure to advise as to how you might save on both the headquarters building and on the out station. You might get enough to pay for the third station. Go for an override.

    Just an aside, remember my next sentance. The transfer station will be gone in a few years when more and more people can't afford it and go to private haulers.

    Start listening to the people and not the leaders of the done deal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm interested in why people who can't afford the transfer station would move to a private hauler. I refer to Paul Tilton's 9/27/12 recommendations to the selectmen; raise the price of 30 gal bags to $1.95 but not until July 1, 2014 and leave the sticker at $55 until July 1, 2016 when it goes to $100. Those prices wont be in place until 4 years from now. A family using one big bag a week will use 50 per year, about $100/yr. They will also buy a $100 sticke; total $200/yr. I quit using a private hauler 5 years ago when their price went to $30 per month, or $360/yr. Private hauler prices are unlikely to decline. If one can't afford $200/yr why would they pay $360/yr or more?

      Delete
  31. Carl Johansen would state to poster 7:11 NO where has any discussion been made in regards to the closing of the town transfer station.

    The injection of how the transfer station now operates and given all of the financial tax dollars invested in this operation, Sandwich can look for a very long life time for the present operation on disposing trash at a reasonable cost.

    No private hauler would be able to match the value given to those that use this site for disposing of trash and other commodities.

    The community of Sandwich will be well served by this operation far into the future and that is not speculation, but fact.

    I would agree with you on it would not be fair to the taxpayers if the service would not be better. That also will not be the case, study the study taken by having two new buildings placed where they are now intended to go.

    The placement of the two structures will provide Sandwich with shorter responce times to the town as whole and that also is a calculated fact.

    It is time for the community [taxpayers ]chime in by allowing every one to cast a ballot and vote yes or no on this progect which will have a great influence on how the town of Sandwich progresses into the future of economic development and keeping the children of our town here with a safe, secure place to live. This is not just about us presently living here, but also the future of our great town.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Once again you have twisted the facts! The anonymous person to whom you directed the comment above wrote "It is unfair for anyone to pay more taxes for new buildings and get worse service". You see Mr. Johansen, your statement "I would agree with you on it would not be fair to the taxpayers if the servie would not be better" is quite different, I believe; it looks as if the original writer meant that the taxpayers in the far reaches of downtown, more than five miles from the nearest station, are the ones who would have to pay more (in taxes and insurance)yet have to wait longer for the ambulance when a loved one has a heart attach. Your statement may also be accurate if one would look for the overall situation. Sooner or later the town will build a third station and because it is not built now in the proper place, even with the third station some people will not be covered. Scale down the public safety building and take the savings and put it towards a new station and then go for the override. It is the "right" thing to do, but I am sure the Town Manager has his sights on his pet projects over that which would serve the publics health and safety.

    If you can't see that the Town will close the dump in a matter of five to seven years, then there is nothing that I can say. Watch the costs go up and then we can revisit that argument. Right now it is not important.

    What is important is Public Safety and taking away a close ambulance to the downtown area where service will be less responsive, even in the four to five mile zone and put it closer to others (you as an example) is unfair especially since you are pretty close to both stations (a double victory for you). Its time to stand up for those that are hurt by the uncaring public officials, even those that are afraid to speak out. 43 square miles and three stations are located within 2 miles or so from the main one. What have they done to us. What do they think. Tell Mr. J, tell me it ain't so, tell me, please.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jim Pierce, Did you know that you may not be able to fit something into a blue bag that would cost you a whole $10.00 just because of weight? I have run into it quite a bit. I cleaned out my garage and estimated that it would cost at least $400 to get rid of it at the Sandwich dump. If I cut it up wherever I could, I could reduce that figure to about $150 plus the time consuming effort of sawing and breaking items down. A hauler has picked it all up and taken it away for a mere $65.

    Also, when I brought an item to the dump that weighed about 10 lbs., I ended up paying $10. There was a guy next to me dumping an 84" sofa with large arms probably weighing 100 lbs. If I had 10 chairs that weighed 100 lbs. it would have cost me a $100.

    Bud Dunham says that a scale would be too costly. You can buy large scales for a reasonalbe price, maybe that would cost only a few cents on the tax rate. A one year debt exclusion might work in this case and make it fair.

    You see Mr. Pierce, sometimes, as much as I dislike paying higher taxes, I find that fairness to all is much more important.

    When you gain from a new figher station being right near you and have the power of the bully pulpit, you literally screw the guys that live in those areas of town where a station is being taken away, there is something wrong. By the way, the same goes for Miss Grundman, Mr. Pannorfit too.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I can afford the transfer station, but I might end up using a private hauler. The costs, and you will see, keep going up for the transfer station at an amount that to me appears to be faster than the cost of private haulers. I don't enjoy paying for items that are bulky and weigh little as opposed to an item that is huge and weighs a lot. Something is unfair about that. The Town Manager just doesn't accept that fairness should be a consideration.

    I am elderly and have been taken to the hospital a number of times so the proposed station at the high school only helps me and does not hurt me. I have no comment on that issue.

    ReplyDelete

I monitor all comments. As long as there are no personally defamatory statements and/or foul language, I'll post your comment. For this reason, your comment will not appear instantaneously. To comment without registering, choose Name/URL and type a screen name (or your real name if you like) into the Name field. Leave the URL field blank.