Join the discussion below, or Read more at SouthFlorida.com.
#42082 Apr 22, 2013
The issues regarding what the government, our local town, should or should not do is the only thing to be resolved since it lies at the core of it all.
Simple stated - Government should do what only government can do.
As Arthur pointed out they should stay out of the businesses. As people do, businesses have the right to take risk. If someone in town took a risk and failed it would be unheard of for them to expect the towns taxpayers to help them out. Yet why is it OK or even promoted for businesses to receive those very same funds which is subsidizing the same risk?
There is a very simple way of looking at this. Does the town need to have any special residents? Of course not. Anyone who can, can live here.
Does the town need to have a certain types of business? Of course not. Anyone who wants to open one can.
If that resident or business owner leaves does it make any difference? Very little if any. People like to live here so they will be replaced, when a reasonable price is reached. A business will also be replaced when a reasonable price is reached.
If the buyer pays to much or fails at risk, why should other owners subsidize them? The answer to that. Entitlements.
I would bet the same people who think the town should help out are the same who think the federal government should not being doing as they are now. Its exactly the same thing.
#42083 Apr 22, 2013
Michigan? Gotta be BC.
Revitalize? Put another layer of lipstick on and take away even more parking? What is the expected benefit - again?
What I see happening and it started about 10 years ago is new buildings being put up, more being redone and new businesses - despite what the town is doing. Its all around us.
The large crappy hotels are also being brought up and will be redone or torn down. The current owner is waiting until he can get what he feels is the best deal. He could care less for what the town thinks. He doesn't live here either.
LBS has become hot. Just look at the available homes for sale. The year around crowds. Most weekend nights. We are on the ocean close to everything.
What we should be doing is the opposite of what we are. Don't give it away. And with our own money!!!
#42084 Apr 22, 2013
Fact is, Yanni was one of the best commissioners this town had.
Yanni certainly did more for the town than the present members on the commission.
#42085 Apr 23, 2013
Smells like someone who wants to run again...
#42086 Apr 24, 2013
Did anyone watch the meeting yesterday? The part I found very interesting was VM Sasser stating he didn't want to OK a blank check regarding the Commercial project. The town manager responded by saying the cost is within the budget.
EXCEPT FOR THE PROFIT TO THE CONTRACTOR which is not part of the budget?????
No one asked what that will be or why its done that way!!!!!
The TM has them wrapped around her finger. No one asked!!!!
So that can only mean there is a blank check, for the contractor profit!!!
#42087 Apr 24, 2013
Brown needs to wise up, if that's even possible. He lives and serves in LBS, not county wide or on the Galt. He voted for a 98oooo art thing over commercial after flipping around for months. Last night he gives no opinion but votes no for a measley $9oo for a donation to the USO. Its obvious why he voted against $ for the Boy Scouts, but no $ for the military who visit LBS? For shame. Maybe he'll come up with some excuse in the newspaper he works for. For sure a 1 term commissioner.
#42088 Apr 24, 2013
Oh Cindy! Cindy! Get a life!!!
#42089 Apr 25, 2013
I'm also surprised that didn't generate more like postings. I played the tape back and TM Hoffmann looks right at VM Sasser and the Commission and states the fact the budget number for the Commercial project does not include a profit amount. No question by anyone of what that means, a projected number would've been a start.
Needs to be looked into as there must be State regulations to disallow a vote on a public funded project without knowing the full cost. So yes they all voted for a blank check. The same blank check Sasser did not want to offer. Yet, then voted for.
At a previous meeting, I liked it when Sasser blew up about spending the money for the parking sign, he was spot on. But not this time and I thought for sure at least Dodd would have made a point of it.
Why are they afraid of Hoffmann? To get a direct answer to their questions? It is their job to ask these types of questions. It's the main reason they are elected.
They make sure we have the all the proper services and pay a fair price for them. Then they direct the TM to make it happen. The TM doesn't do that job.
So if this is what the majority wants, based on the feedback, then why don't we just vote for one position - a TM and just he or she handle it? Isn't that happening now anyway?
Obviously that should never be done because it removes checks and balances, just a foundation in our form of government.
#42090 Apr 25, 2013
Our municipal government is not set up right.
Some ideas for changes:
1. Pass a law similar to sunshine at a municipal level that treats the TM as a Commissioner. The whole idea behind sunshine is that government is done in the open. But TM can meet with Commissioners regularly and discuss whatever. So maybe that is why the public meetings are lacking in important questions because everything important was already discussed beforehand outside of the public meeting and no questions need to be asked by Commissioners who are satisfied with the answers that they got. Commissioners may be satisfied with answers to their questions but the public does not hear these questions and answers so there is a feeling of intellectual hunger when it comes to municipal decisions. So let's have any such meetings between a Commissioner and a TM also advertised public meetings.
Let's not forget that the whole idea behind sunshine is for government work to be done in the open. So in my opinion, if a member of the public could sit in on any and all meetings between TM and any Commissioner and such meetings were advertised in advance we would all be better off.
Would not this make a good ordinance?
2. Increase Commissioner salaries. If you are only making $15K per year as Commissioner then you could have inferiority complex when meeting with a member of administration that is making 6 figures. If our town cannot afford to pay Commissioners more than it does now then maybe our town cannot afford to pay administrators 6 figure salaries either. I think that if that difference in salaries between a Commissioner and a TM was reduced that could not be a bad thing despite increased cost.
It would also make Commissioners more responsive to constituents because their work would feel more like a job than a public service where they are prone to think or claim that they sacrifice themselves for us. At their current salaries they do sacrifice themselves for us. Plus they would have more to lose if their lost their seats and more qualified candidates would run against incumbents.
3. Two year terms limits for Commissioners. What is good for the Mayor is good for Commissioners. This would make Commissioners always running for re-election instead of having a couple of years to do whatever. Now some people think that in those first few years the Commissioners are learning, but we can just elect people who do not need to learn on the job.
Any thoughts, speeches, proclamations or accusations about these ideas?
#42091 Apr 25, 2013
Because she is smarter than them.
#42092 Apr 25, 2013
All make sense and if passed, we would find a way to work.
But I do have some thoughts of why we may not end up better off.
1)There is a high probability, less would get done and as of late that would in fact be a good thing. But in the long term it may be more of a hindrance.
2)A raised was tried with the same reasons you give about 4 years ago to much opposition. To which I agreed with. Under normal circumstances its a part time job. As long as we have 5 reasonable people up there we will be fine. What we now have is a huge fund they were given and as you have said - should have been given back to the people to reduce their taxes. Its their money. But the hiring of Hoffmann was the key to open that funding door. As I have stated time and time again, if any of them said they were going to spend all this money they would have not been elected.
3)Staggered 4 yrs for the commission is fine. As long as 3 seats are up every 2 years. I do contribute much of our current problems due to an inexperienced commission under a very experienced TM.
But more to the lack of following basic principles of public service and use of public funds.
To put it very simply-its not their job, nor what they are elected for, to take our money and redistribute as they see fit, off course from the original purpose of collecting those funds in the first place.
What I look at is the benefit those funds are expected to produce and who is paying for it. It certainly is not benefiting from those it came from in any fair and balanced method. Therefore the only logical conclusion one could make is they are deciding who will be subsidize. So they are taking my money and giving to another with out my input. No one who will receive this additional benefit really needs it. They would like it and they make it their business to ask and ask again and again.
A simple solution would be to assess properties to a reasonable level to offset the added benefit. That would would work and if they resist then they really don't need it. By the way this is the norm in may cities.
#42093 Apr 26, 2013
1. But is getting "something done" with less hindrance our main goal?
Your objection also applies to sunshine. Commissioners would be able to get more done with less hindrance if there was no sunshine in place. But is that what we want? Clearly not because we have sunshine in place. Why do we have sunshine in place then if an argument, such as yours, could be made against sunshine?
Because we want government work to be done in the open, and so that is why we have sunshine. There are more important considerations than "getting things done" without hindrance.
2. Some of the opposition to increased salaries for commissioners is coming from well off people who do not like competition, and as such it should be discounted as such.
Some of the opposition to increased salaries for commissioners is coming from supporters of status quo who do not want to see "their" commissioners out of office. It should also be discounted as such.
Higher commissioner salaries would increase competition for these seats, which is why I like it.
3. Current TM was not more experienced than our Commissioners at the start. She did not know our town at all. However, in the process of running a town every day you learn. So pretty much anybody who is town manager will have a huge advantage in knowledge of the town within a few years over any sitting Commissioner. This problem does not go away with 4 year terms.
I think that the opposite is true actually. With 4 year terms Commissioners and the TM can become buddies over the years. It is not in interest of taxpayers of LBTS for administration to be friends with Commission. It is the Commission's job to oversee the administration, and it is the job for which the Commission answers to voters. So in fact if we have more turnover at Commission there will be less friendliness on the dais and taxpayers will be better off.
#42094 Apr 26, 2013
1) To much sun one gets burnt. While I would agree no sunshine is best when you have a morally correct commission, its when you have corrupt commissioners are corruptible ones that it makes it worst off.
2) I would not have a problem with raising as I see your point. But then it can also be a problem when money is the key motivator as it tends to bring in the corruptible ones.
3)She was more experienced. Not with the town so much but on how to go about getting things done. Those things are generally the same everywhere. She brings he own people in anyway so it in part become her town. Which in looking around seems to be the way it going about.
Like an eye opener? Look at the administration costs. All her team and I haven't heard one question from this commission on this most interesting subject.
#42095 Apr 29, 2013
Some of you need to learn the meaning of words such as terse, concise, verbose and redundant.
#42096 May 1, 2013
When is the next Charter Review Board meeting?
#42097 May 2, 2013
#42098 May 7, 2013
charter review board meeting May 7 6:30 PM
#42099 May 8, 2013
two meetings were held but what was accomplished
Special Commission meeting on Commercial Blvd project,
bottom line, this project is almost $2,000,000 over budget???
which is outrageously disgraceful
think how much money could be saved by the town for 'necessities' and 'emergencies' if the town decided to not do this project
Charter Review Board meeting
will be leaving 'height' for commission to decide
bottom line, if the commission decides to put this
item on the ballot, it will be up to 'the people'
to vote on any changes to be made
will be leaving power in the hands of 'the people of town' when it comes to making drastic changes to the town charter
#42100 May 10, 2013
let them know how you want them to view the
height & density limits in town
should this be decided upon through vote of the people
#42101 May 10, 2013
Why? Already done? What changed?
Add your comments below
|Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08)||2 min||Yeah||1,406,608|
|Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09)||4 min||Ize Found||70,858|
|Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08)||10 hr||Mothra||60,675|
|Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09)||12 hr||zazz||98,135|
|WILLIAMS v. SATZ, States Attorney Election||16 hr||Broward s LE Comm...||5|
|Hillary clinton IRS investigation||Jul 28||Norman VN||1|
|One speed hump not enough in Dania Beach neighb... (Mar '08)||Jun 30||Christina||7|
Find what you want!
Search Dania Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC