Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Results of the Special Town Vote
Yes, repeal the Rental Registry Ordinance: 376
No, keep the Rental Registry Ordinance: 339
Photo: 2p1.jpg
According to Selectboard Chairman Kristi Morris, the expense of holding this special election was somewhere between $2, 500.00 – $3,000.00 .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
---
Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts
So the ghetto will continue too grow. Color me disgusted...
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised. Will admit,reading text on the ballot was confusing with the double negatives. Why couldn't it have simply read, "Approve ordinance, yes or no."
ReplyDeleteWhich idiot in the town office was responsible for this debacle?
To anonymous 9:10 PM.
DeleteThe ballot language is crafted by the creators of the referendum. The Town Office does not have authority to change the wording.
According to Selectboard Chairman Kristi Morris, the expense of holding this special election was somewhere between $2, 500.00 – $3,000.00,,, and who pays for this,
ReplyDeleteI think maybe the "Jersey Boys" da
DeleteAccording to Anon 4:57 the vote cost between $2500 and $3000 so we will go in the middle and say $2750. There were 715 voters that showed up. This means each vote was worth $3.85
DeleteI also saw 6 people working. I'm estimating the ballots cost $100 to make, there was no polling machine so we are down to $2650 I doubt they have to pay to rent Riverside.
Answer me this riddle? Why did it cost more then $100??
Look, this just means that we put this on the ballot again closer to next years town vote. I don't think it would NOT pass again because the majority of voters want to see something like this on the books.
ReplyDeleteWhat you saw happen here were the landlords scare tactics with their renters with a subtle threat that their housing was in danger if they didn't vote to repeal this. THAT is all you saw. Let's face it. Springfielder's are lazy and don't want to come out to vote but once a year UNLESS it directly impacts them. What we should realize is that the lack of this ordinance DOES impact them by devaluing their property. I think we should print a list of yesman's properties and the other landlords who wanted this repealed and let the public have the ability to drive by and look at the state the properties are in. I think THAT would serve better to move this community into action having the ability to see which properties and put a name and face to them would explain a lot of the drive behind some of the slumlord's actions.
Sounds like a good plan to me
Deleteas said from an Anonymous poster!
DeleteFull pictures of all Yesman's properties on the cover of the town report this year, please!
DeleteOkay media members, get out there and show us a photo essay of Yesman's home versus the rental properties that he subjects his tenants to.
Save the tenants! Show them the vast disparity between the hovels they, as serfs, receive from the town's aristocrats. Expose this travesty and awaken the economically disadvantaged so that they might realize how much better off they could be by "redistributing" their landlord's residence!
You do not have to put it on the ballot the Select Board can pass another ordinance.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the onerous tax burden the town of Springfield has inparted to all land owners in town (except the state which if they payed for their many facilities in town would reduce our taxes) I am a land lord by nessessaty. I need money to pay for the towns excesses. The tax level in my opinion is a direct result of many poor decisions by our elected officials in the past such as the unbelieveable expendature that resulted in the "reconstructed" union and Elm hill schools by the most expensive possible techinques.
ReplyDeleteI can tell you I am a multigeneration resident in town and will probably be fourced to move once I retire as I will not be able to support this foolishness.
I can say one thing about the ordinance as it was passed. It would absolutely require more town employees to do the paper work. Would absolutely add a sizeable cost to any "renter" to support the paperwork that would be required and also be a burden on the renters that would of been subjected to "3 seperate inspections by buracrates" ever five years.
Let me ask thoes of you who are NOT renters, would you want goverment officials poking around your property every few years with potential huge fines for arbitrary infractions. I think not.
yes there are probably some slum lords out there. I am sure the town officials know who they are.
A town of 6,000 people in the mountains of Vermont does NOT need nor could afford the same level of goverment interference as New York City.
Amen!!!! Springfield voters seldom see the consequences of their votes. More expenditures required to support whatever they voted yes on. The bike path that requires maintenance, the wreck center that doesn't support itself, and others.
DeleteOnce again the majority of the minority have spoken and the town circles deeper down the porcelain pipeline.
ReplyDeleteWell done renter voters. To oblivion and beyond!