Nah. All we get, apparently, is another e-bleat sent out from CCA's secret headquarters today.
This one starts out with paraphrased versions of three Westerly Sun letters to the editor that were published yesterday. The first two are shortened and anonymous letters that make the case for why you should vote YES on Question 2 and approve the new beach facilities at our two town beaches. These two letters were actually written by
Frank Glista and Paula Andersen. But under CCA rules, you don't get to have your name cited.
Then the CCA ran three anonymous e-mails, two questioning whether enough financial information has been released (how much does it take to satisfy the CCA people, I wonder) and one saying they are quite happy with the facilities as they are. They also note that "we use ours at home."
Maybe it's just me, but that last e-mailer person sounds an awful like Ann Onymous, President of CHOLERA.
I'm still wondering where the CCA put all those dozens and dozens of e-mails it claimed it had received and promised to publish.
So here are some final "Voices of Greed" on the up-coming ballot question on Monday.
[From Charlotte Hohl's Westerly Sun letter of June 2nd]:
The taxpayer is under assault from all sides. Some other towns around the state have taken the plight of the taxpayer seriously and decided against tax increases. Shouldn't Charlestown do likewise, in this financial climate that has been called the worst since the Great Depression? The answer is to cut expenditures, not raise taxes; otherwise there will come a point where the taxpayers will just get out, as Steve Laffey did. [editor's note: good riddance!]
Our council, however, seems not to want to hear about cutting expenses. In fact, rather than make an effort to find ways to cut costs, they appear ready and eager to defend the budget as proposed, including additions that we can't afford. When you can't afford what you must pay now, how can you not reduce future expenses?
Who cares about the taxpayer? We do. [editor's note: who's the "we?"] Obviously we're going to have to care for ourselves. On Monday, June 6, we have a way of doing that - the only way that our elected council will understand: Voting "No" on the budget. If enough of us vote "No," a message will be sent: No tax increase of any size. Instead, reduce expenses. Yes - start all over again if necessary. But cut expenses.
Our council, however, seems not to want to hear about cutting expenses. In fact, rather than make an effort to find ways to cut costs, they appear ready and eager to defend the budget as proposed, including additions that we can't afford. When you can't afford what you must pay now, how can you not reduce future expenses?
Who cares about the taxpayer? We do. [editor's note: who's the "we?"] Obviously we're going to have to care for ourselves. On Monday, June 6, we have a way of doing that - the only way that our elected council will understand: Voting "No" on the budget. If enough of us vote "No," a message will be sent: No tax increase of any size. Instead, reduce expenses. Yes - start all over again if necessary. But cut expenses.
Anonymous e-mail from the CCA:
Help us understand with $217, 000 annually in beach parking income (yes, I understand there is Maintenance, wages, insurance etc.) why we are bonding this out over 20 years with tax income. I see no projected budget going forward with present parking fees and/or 10, 20,30 % fee increase to self fund this project. Why is this so difficult to do ????????? What am I missing????? [editor's note: what a straight line! Maybe a few more question marks might help.]
Help us understand with $217, 000 annually in beach parking income (yes, I understand there is Maintenance, wages, insurance etc.) why we are bonding this out over 20 years with tax income. I see no projected budget going forward with present parking fees and/or 10, 20,30 % fee increase to self fund this project. Why is this so difficult to do ????????? What am I missing????? [editor's note: what a straight line! Maybe a few more question marks might help.]Anonymous e-mail from someone channelling e.e. cummings:
the beaches, oh our beaches. they have been working just fine as they are. beautiful and basic. and the costs associated with them are manageable. i don't find the facilities shameful. we use ours at home, and if we have to, we use the units that are there. everywhere we go on vacation, we use the beaches that have basic facilities and we go back every year. leave them alone!
And the final anonymous e-mail
Many thanks for your continued formative emails. Re the beaches:
Many thanks for your continued formative emails. Re the beaches:
- The photos of the existing facilities do look bad and for $10/year on my taxes I can support an upgrade.
- What would it cost to put in the same kind of toilets that the state beach has done at their Breachway beach? I am sure that they studied environmental impacts, hurricane resistance etc ...., lets learn from them.
- The presentation says "enhanced revenue generation" when are we going to get details on this?
- When we are asked to vote we should have 4 options: a) the $1million project, b) if that does not pass then add my vote to the $1/2million project, c) only the $1/2million project, and d) neither. [editor's note: here's a fifth option: Shut up!]