|
|
Post by seedfarmer on Apr 28, 2004 15:20:49 GMT -5
Dear Too Old:
Am I actually supposed to answer your question, am I a NIMBY?
Think about it, I felt like I had a good reason, so I signed. I'm not going to discuss it here.
I would like to see other things happening around here.
How about fixing the roads, attracting businesses which would be good for our town (not dollar stores).
Some kind of solution for the SD Highway would be good.
I'm ready to be attacked now.
|
|
|
|
Post by LightsOut on Apr 28, 2004 18:25:52 GMT -5
TooOld,
I have been told, when asked, that the lights at Millwoods would be grandfathered. No removal necessary. They belong there.
I support the budget purposal. Our town is in sorry shape and it sounds like the school system and library system are as well. I trust the taxes paid will be spent in a productive and proactive manner.
I too signed a petition, but only one of the two. That is democracy at work.
|
|
|
|
Post by tooold on Apr 28, 2004 18:32:31 GMT -5
The current petition states nothing relative to grandfathering any lit fields, unless there is a second petition that is being circulated.
When a question is posed and people sign a petition that is in direct response to the stated question that is what stands. As much as you want to infer and/or change it to grandfathering existing lighting that is not what it states nor what will be acted upon.
We want to get alot done in town, which include the roads and develpoing the SD. Spend some time and read the other areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by LightsOut on Apr 28, 2004 18:37:05 GMT -5
Neither does it state that existing infrastructure is to be removed.
It would not make sense to remove what is already in place. I do not believe that people circulating the petition are that naive.
I am 100% behind getting our town in order. Repairing/replacing streets, roads and sidewalks. We also need to support our library and educational systems. The Silas Deane should also be a major priority, but it needs a vision. A skatepark would not be a bad idea either.
|
|
|
|
Post by LouS on Apr 28, 2004 18:42:05 GMT -5
If I can put my two cents in.
I think the petition reads and correct me if I am wrong that artificial turf and lights should not be allowe in town.
I think what tooold is saying is that no where in the petition does it state grandfathering existing lighting. There is a formal process that must be followed.
|
|
|
|
Post by LightsOut on Apr 28, 2004 18:48:59 GMT -5
Lou,
Agreed, but will a formal process be followed? This is a question that many in town have.
I think that we have bigger concerns and worries than this issue. 2 weeks ago I would have said otherwise, but now we need to get smart with our tax dollars.
|
|
|
|
Post by LouS on Apr 28, 2004 18:54:22 GMT -5
Agreed relative to the lights. Private funds will hopefully pay the $270,000 price tag not taxes.
The field is another story.
|
|
|
|
Post by seedfarmer on May 1, 2004 7:24:58 GMT -5
I think at least in part taxes are paying for that field. I think this because the other day I emailed the mayor about the proposed budget. I'm not in favor of the budget or the field and I told him so, in what I hope was a polite way. He told me Cottone Field IS part of the budget increase and he would be happy to discuss the budget with me except for anything relating to the field.
That's my two cents of information.
|
|
