West Hartford Budget Vote Date Change...

West Hartford Budget Vote Date Changed To Avoid Rosh Hashana

There are 38 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Aug 12, 2008, titled West Hartford Budget Vote Date Changed To Avoid Rosh Hashana. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

30 to Oct. 7 to avoid a conflict with Rosh Hashana. Town lawyers found a 31-year-old Rhode Island case that mirrored West Hartford 's situation and gave council members the grounds for a one-time waiver of the ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Bill Generous

Topsham, ME

#1 Aug 13, 2008
It is past time for West Hartford, Winchester, Naugatuck, and New London to change their town charter with regard to the duration of the budget adoption process. New London will have their first annual budget referendum in September. Naugatuck will soon vote at a second referendum, but possibly waiting until November to vote at a second referendum in West Hartford is ridiculous. If greater voter turnout is one of the reasons for this, there is no statistical correlation between voter turnout and the passage of a town budget. There is however a strong correlation between budget passage and lower tax increases.
Good Job

Danbury, CT

#2 Aug 13, 2008
I applaud the Town Council for working so hard to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and has the ability to vote during the referendum. I also think it’s a great idea to try and save $30,000 and have the referendum on the same day as the presidential election. Doesn’t really seem to be a down side.
Also it was great to see them finally all working together and getting along.
MuaHaHa

Farmington, CT

#3 Aug 13, 2008
Yeah they are all working together all right - that is why the Mayor had not shared any information with the minority party at all prior to the TC meeting.
You seriously think they majority party wants to work with anyone but themselves? Boy are you easily fooled.
Glenn

Bridgeport, CT

#4 Aug 13, 2008
"...as the town works to redraw the contract with the Butler Co. Inc of Windsor and bring the service back at a lower cost. "

Shouldn't they be doing this regardless if it was cut from the budget or not? How many other contracts does WH have that they just let rollover and not renegotiate?
Bill Generous

Topsham, ME

#5 Aug 13, 2008
Good Job wrote:
I applaud the Town Council for working so hard to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and has the ability to vote during the referendum. I also think it’s a great idea to try and save $30,000 and have the referendum on the same day as the presidential election. Doesn’t really seem to be a down side.
Also it was great to see them finally all working together and getting along.
Here is one possible downside: Although voter turnout may change from about 30% to 80%, will the additional 50% voter turnout have any knowledge about the budget? How many will arrive at the voting site and only at that point realize that they can accept or reject the budget the Town Council set. Yes, there will be many new voters, but how many will be educated voters with regard to the budget? For many communities, voting on an election day would be complicated since not all those eligible to vote in a general election can also vote on a budget UNLESS they own property in excess of $1,000. West Hartford must be a town that allows any registered voter to cast a ballot for a budget, even if they do not own property.
Interesting Bill

Danbury, CT

#6 Aug 13, 2008
The only way for a democracy to actually work is for people to have the right to vote. Who get's to decide who is informed enough on a subject to vote? Also a little scary that you would have to prove that you own over $1,000 worth of property to actually get to vote on any subject. Sounds like a way to just skew an election and keep people away. Sounds illegal.
Bill Generous

Topsham, ME

#7 Aug 13, 2008
Correction to Post #5: Most Communities allow any voter registered in that town to vote on the town budget, but most towns also allow those not registered to vote in that town to vote on the town budget if they own $1,000 or more dollars of property in that town. These voters must be accomodated to vote on the town budget while at the same time not allowing them to vote in the general election in that town.
Bill Generous

Topsham, ME

#8 Aug 13, 2008
Interesting Bill wrote:
The only way for a democracy to actually work is for people to have the right to vote. Who get's to decide who is informed enough on a subject to vote? Also a little scary that you would have to prove that you own over $1,000 worth of property to actually get to vote on any subject. Sounds like a way to just skew an election and keep people away. Sounds illegal.
It is illegal. I corrected my major goof in another post. In any event, I do think that if the budget referendum coincided with the general election, a number of voters will be blindsided with regard to the budget vote.
shoreliner

Branford, CT

#9 Aug 13, 2008
Another delay tactic to reduce voter turnout.

Let's hope West Hartford taxpayers vote this budget down too.
Mr delay

AOL

#10 Aug 13, 2008
By the time the actual vote takes place (I'm sure it eill be November to save the $30,000 (out of a 215 million budget) no one will remember the excess spending and the reason for the referendum in the 1st place. Talk about a political maneuver to change results, this one is obvious and the process should have time limitations of no more than 2 months to complete a vote with no exceptions. If the budget is defeated how will intellegent, fully thought out and meaningful reductions be achieved in any reasonable time frame and remember the Town Manager is leaving. Face it, Politicians (especially here in West Hartford) just don't think ahead, Blueback is a good example, millions added to our bond obligations with little if any return to date.
Raucous

Denver, CO

#11 Aug 13, 2008
shoreliner wrote:
Another delay tactic to reduce voter turnout.
Let's hope West Hartford taxpayers vote this budget down too.
Um, did you read the article or did you just happen to stick your nose (yet again) into our town's business without reading the full piece? The targeted delay would actually increase turnout drastically by coinciding with the presidential election.

Since: Apr 08

West Hartford

#12 Aug 13, 2008
In West Hartford property owners have the opposite problem. If they own property but are not residents they get to pay the tax, but can't vote.
Raucous

Denver, CO

#13 Aug 13, 2008
shoreliner wrote:
Another delay tactic to reduce voter turnout.
Let's hope West Hartford taxpayers vote this budget down too.
Moreover, I am watching the video replay of the town council meeting right now (are you? didn't think so as you don't live anywhere near her) and so far Messrs Visconti and Adler have supported the proposed change to November in order to maximize voter turnout and save money.

Shoreliner, do you ever speak from knowledge or do you like to toe the party line?(By the way, Visconti and Adler are Republicans. You can take up your dispute with them. They might or might not care to talk with you, though, as you don't live here.)

Geesh.
shoreliner

Branford, CT

#14 Aug 14, 2008
Raucous wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, did you read the article or did you just happen to stick your nose (yet again) into our town's business without reading the full piece? The targeted delay would actually increase turnout drastically by coinciding with the presidential election.
Hey Jerky - I pay property in West Hartford too.

So it is 'my' town too.
Mr delay

AOL

#15 Aug 14, 2008
Raucous wrote:
<quoted text>
Moreover, I am watching the video replay of the town council meeting right now (are you? didn't think so as you don't live anywhere near her) and so far Messrs Visconti and Adler have supported the proposed change to November in order to maximize voter turnout and save money.
Shoreliner, do you ever speak from knowledge or do you like to toe the party line?(By the way, Visconti and Adler are Republicans. You can take up your dispute with them. They might or might not care to talk with you, though, as you don't live here.)
Geesh.
Raucous, did you read my post #10, why no comment? I surely expected one. I live here. If held in Nov in conjunction with the general election there will no doubt be more votes cast but that dosen't mean for or against the referendum, right. I personally don't like this issue just added so it's there for convenience and to save a paltry $30,000.
How many uninformed will just check a box (yes or no) to complete the form while they are there? Final result may have more to do with turnout than what is actually wanted or who spends the most money (those for verses those against) just prior to the vote.
Raucous

Denver, CO

#16 Aug 14, 2008
Mr delay wrote:
<quoted text>Raucous, did you read my post #10, why no comment? I surely expected one. I live here. If held in Nov in conjunction with the general election there will no doubt be more votes cast but that dosen't mean for or against the referendum, right. I personally don't like this issue just added so it's there for convenience and to save a paltry $30,000.
How many uninformed will just check a box (yes or no) to complete the form while they are there? Final result may have more to do with turnout than what is actually wanted or who spends the most money (those for verses those against) just prior to the vote.
So you are worried that the outcome might be affected in a way you don't like... You want fewer votes but you want only people voting who are informed and motivated on the issue. I'd rather have more people voting in any election regardless of the issue our outcome.

I think a "yes/no" on a budget is silly. I'd rather see a survey so that we can really learn what residents care about in detail, not a simple yes/no to the budget as a whole.
Raucous

Denver, CO

#17 Aug 14, 2008
shoreliner wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Jerky - I pay property in West Hartford too.
So it is 'my' town too.
Tell us about your property interests here, and why after all the times I've asked you this question you never brought it up. I'm guessing you just recently though to make it up.
Mr delay

AOL

#18 Aug 14, 2008
Raucous wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are worried that the outcome might be affected in a way you don't like... You want fewer votes but you want only people voting who are informed and motivated on the issue. I'd rather have more people voting in any election regardless of the issue our outcome.
I think a "yes/no" on a budget is silly. I'd rather see a survey so that we can really learn what residents care about in detail, not a simple yes/no to the budget as a whole.
Thanks for your response, I was feeling left out.
You really don't mean what you posted do you.
I think you said it's more important to vote than to know what your voting for? That has got to be the most controversial opinion I have ever seen posted.
Obviously I don't agree and I would surely hope others weigh in.
You did make a very valid point about a more extensive ballot rather than just a yes or no on the budget. If defeated the council can take School Board member Putterman's approach as he said last month and just ignore the it and not make any cuts. Democracy at it's finest. Personally I think the business community that has a tremendous investment in this town should step up and offer suggestions as to how we might better solve our dilemma ie. larger bills for schools and services and fewer dollars. Their mighty smart folks who I am sure have ideas. With their help no vote would even be necessary.
Here's an idea, how about all business property be taxed at the same rate that it was before the reval. That would add significantly to the income side. Are you aware that many of the larger establishments actually saw the value of their property decline, thus lowering their tax burden.
Raucous

Denver, CO

#19 Aug 14, 2008
Mr delay wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for your response, I was feeling left out.
You really don't mean what you posted do you.
I think you said it's more important to vote than to know what your voting for? That has got to be the most controversial opinion I have ever seen posted.
Obviously I don't agree and I would surely hope others weigh in.
You did make a very valid point about a more extensive ballot rather than just a yes or no on the budget. If defeated the council can take School Board member Putterman's approach as he said last month and just ignore the it and not make any cuts. Democracy at it's finest. Personally I think the business community that has a tremendous investment in this town should step up and offer suggestions as to how we might better solve our dilemma ie. larger bills for schools and services and fewer dollars. Their mighty smart folks who I am sure have ideas. With their help no vote would even be necessary.
Here's an idea, how about all business property be taxed at the same rate that it was before the reval. That would add significantly to the income side. Are you aware that many of the larger establishments actually saw the value of their property decline, thus lowering their tax burden.
If more people vote in Nov than would on Oct, it is not fair to assume that all the additional voters are not knowledgeable about the issue. If more people vote in Nov than would have in Oct, and even if some who vote don't know the issue well, more of the people who are informed will be voting and that is good for democracy and
WH.

I am aware that business values declined and that bothers me, too.

Since: Apr 08

West Hartford

#20 Aug 14, 2008
Raucous wrote:
<quoted text>

I am aware that business values declined and that bothers me, too.
Of more concern is; was the reval done properly for commercial property?
It is hard to believe that some commercial properties have actually dropped in value.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rosh Hashana Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Uman Hasidic Pilgrims May Carry Ebola Virus, Uk... (Sep '14) Oct '14 Does Not Compute 3
News Who needs Jews? (Sep '13) Sep '13 NukUShima 17
News Israelis celebrate Jewish New Year, amid turmoil (Sep '13) Sep '13 paul SHYKORA arts 3
News Ukraine Robbers Steal $50K From Hasidic Pilgrimage (Jul '13) Aug '13 American Observer 17
News On Jewish new year, Israelis fear Iran strike (Sep '12) Sep '12 SHYKORA ARTs paul 1
News On eve of Jewish new year, Israelis dread possi... (Sep '12) Sep '12 harper 1
News Polls show Israelis optimistic on Jewish New Year (Sep '11) Sep '11 paul SHYKORA arts 1
More from around the web