Originally Posted by buckman (Post 762387)

There is enough Mansfield guys here for our on thread.
What's your take on the schools threat to eliminate sports?

Originally Posted by striperman36 (Post 762398)

And turn those damn lights off!!!

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 762421)

Looks like there should be a Mansfield fling!

BTW - where is Mansfield?

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 762418)

Please tell me you're talking about the stadium lights for the practice field??

Sometimes I'd be driving home at 11pm and see the stadium lights on. Those drove me absolutely insane:fury::fury:

Originally Posted by Sweetwater (Post 762514)

Mansfield...call the bluff and refuse any tax increases. If you let tax increases go through, you'll never get it back. But...the economy will improve eventually. Tax increases are never short term solutions.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 762532)

There was so much money coming in that they could spend, spend spend and with that, huge areas of waste developed along with massive areas of bloat. Now, that there's significantly less money coming it and a huge bubble of students entering the middle and high schools, they don't know where to gather the funds.

It's absolutely ridiculous that with so many different revenue streams that the town is consistently facing so much hardship. Add in that piece of crap Town Manager that they finally fired and the current state of the town is the result.
:fury::fury:

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 762645)

A big part of the problem is the forced "low income" apartments we had to have per state mandate. The project on West Street alone is killing us. These people add nothing to the tax base and have alot of children. 28% of our population is in school.

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 762645)

These people add nothing to the tax base and have alot of children. 28% of our population is in school.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 762649)

Now if they would just relax the Mortgage requirements for these people so they could buy a house.....Oh, Wait...that didn't work very well before either. :hihi:

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 762645)

A big part of the problem is the forced "low income" apartments we had to have per state mandate. The project on West Street alone is killing us. These people add nothing to the tax base and have alot of children. 28% of our population is in school.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 762704)

Everyone forgets the strange coincidence of the increased drug problems and crime after the Mansfield Depot was built. Lots of trash came into town with that place.

Originally Posted by striperman36 (Post 762907)

mansfield selectman transfer 890K from various funds to the school budget.

Mansfield will transfer funds to save school sports - The Boston Globe

okay, now the selectman will put the override on the table? Magic money.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 762909)

"In return, the committee will remove a property tax override vote from next month’s Town Meeting agenda."

Like I've been saying and as Miller was quoted, this is only a band-aid. The town keeps putting these band-aids on problems, yet it'll be an issue again next year - or the areas where they "transferred" funds from will be at contention next year. They've basically decided that instead of dealing with the PR backlash, they'll take funds away from areas that won't cause as much long-lasting, bad publicity for them come election time.

Hope we don't get too much snow next year or there will be a whole lot of snow days for the kids.

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 762910)

What they are looking for is about 1.5 million in somewhat painless concessions from the teachers union and town employees. either that or a lot of them will lose their jobs. Kind of a no-brainer.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 762914)

Doubling their health insurance contribution and taking a one year freeze on wages is far from painless.

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 762921)

Is is when your job is on the line. Like the rest of us:uhuh:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 762925)

Necessary and painless are two separate things. I haven't taken a paycheck at work in almost 3 weeks because it's been necessary... it has been anything but painless though.

It's just another downfall of unions having a lock on public schools. The senior teachers continue to vote against anything that might affect them personally knowing that they have nothing to fear and can't be fired. Just think of how much the quality of school systems would increase if teachers that had been there for 15 years still had to worry about performance reviews - currently, they're all but invincible as long as they don't sleep with their students.

Just another reason why, when I have kids, they'll be going to private school.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 762925)

Necessary and painless are two separate things. I haven't taken a paycheck at work in almost 3 weeks because it's been necessary... it has been anything but painless though.

It's just another downfall of unions having a lock on public schools. The senior teachers continue to vote against anything that might affect them personally knowing that they have nothing to fear and can't be fired. Just think of how much the quality of school systems would increase if teachers that had been there for 15 years still had to worry about performance reviews - currently, they're all but invincible as long as they don't sleep with their students.

Just another reason why, when I have kids, they'll be going to private school.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 762704)

Everyone forgets the strange coincidence of the increased drug problems and crime after the Mansfield Depot was built. Lots of trash came into town with that place.

Originally Posted by sokinwet (Post 763950)

"What they are looking for is about 1.5 million in somewhat painless concessions from the teachers union and town employees. either that or a lot of them will lose their jobs. Kind of a no-brainer."

From a public employee perspective. Why should public employees shoulder the financial burden for the whole community? They teach your kids, provide public safety, repair your streets....all things demanded by the "general public"; yet the general public doesn't want to pay for it....just ask your town employees to take the hit. How many of you would voluntarily reduce your pay, give back negotiated contract provisions and health benefits , take a furlough, etc. if your employer promised to give the $$ savings to your town?

Originally Posted by likwid (Post 763931)

Bwaaaah.
You could buy craploads of drugs downtown long before the depot was even thought of.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 763965)

I'm sure you're right. The difference was the people supplying the drugs. A whole different "culture" came into town with the Depot. And there is no denying the correlation of the Depot and increased crime along with residual trash that came into the schools.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 763965)

I'm sure you're right. The difference was the people supplying the drugs. A whole different "culture" came into town with the Depot. And there is no denying the correlation of the Depot and increased crime along with residual trash that came into the schools.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 763957)

There are many instances of private sector businesses that ask for and get concessions from employees in order to survive. Private sector employees are probably more vulnerable in this respect because their companies can actually go out of business, whereas municipalities don't depend on profitable income, but the taxes imposed on the private sector. So long as there is a private sector to tax, the public sector will exist.

Originally Posted by likwid (Post 764018)

So tell me, which 'culture' is this?
Trash is trash man, no matter what 'culture' its from. Get over blaming one 'culture' over another.

Originally Posted by sokinwet (Post 764028)

Totally agree with your 1st point DB; things are tough for "everyone"...including municipal employee's. A couple of points to consider in your private sector arguement. The "widget co." sells a bunch of widgets to consumers, makes a profit & hires a few employees. Things are lookin good...until the widget market dries up, then with less "demand", less $$ is coming in and something has to give. Maybe it's the co. or the employees that take the hit, regardless it's the reduced demand for the product that causes the problem and it's not really feasible to pass the costs on to the consumer due to decreased demand.

Reduced demand is one scenario. The private business offers a specific product for which demand wanes. The business must cut back or fold. The Public sector, as it grows to a complex offering of services, can impose "demands" which not every tax payer wants, needs, agrees with, or ever uses. Once upon a time it was illegal for public sector employees to strike. That was tested when friendly judges were in place, and voila, what was clearly illegal magically became OK. Public sector unions were formed and the ills that plagued the private sector and brought industries to their knees, now filtered into government. Services, especially for those who don't support them through tax donations, became a "demand" in plush times when they seemed affordable, and, voila, that which is encouraged, grows.

Another scenario is the effect of competition in the private sector. Private companies can suffer not only from the loss of demand, but from the inability to compete. The public sector is a monopoly and can dictate not only what is "demanded", but the quality and price. This often leads to not only providing services that the majority of taxpayers don't use, but to providing services at reduced efficiency and quality, and, since there is no alternative, at higher costs. It is a sorry phenomenon that government employees are now on aggregate at the high end in salaries and benefits for similar work.

The situation for municipal government isn't the same; generally the demand for services increases, especially in a growing community (Mansfield?) that sees lots of residential development...more kids in schools, more roads to plow, etc.

If the demand increases due to a growing community of tax-payers, which also includes more jobs and businesses to accomodate them, there should be enough money to cover costs due to the greater influx of revenue. Of course, if the growth is of the non-tax-contributing kind, and if "demands" were created for services to such growth, you have the reverse of private sector solution. You do pass the cost of your loss of revenue to the paying customer and call it his fair share.

Municipal gov.is not a "profit making" enterprise, it's business is to provide public services at cost. The revenue coming into municipalities is severly impacted by the economy; less state aid coming in & reduced RE tax revenues due to delinquencies resulting from the poor economy, etc. However, municipalities are required by law to submit a balanced budget every year, so with 2 1/2 limitations and reduced revenues there are only so many options. Municipal governments responsibility is to operate as efficiently as possible while meeting the needs of residents, but beyond that when costs exceed revenues who should pay. It's either cut services, make public employees absorb the losses or everyone pays their fair share. Having just gone through the "budget battle" I can tell you that fat in municipal budgets is a thing of the past and the projections for the next fiscal year are worse. If you knew how many municipalities are close to "going out of business" you'd be shocked. It's time for tough "responsible" decisions on everyones part...I'm just glad I drive a 4WD truck and my kid is out of school!