Hi Louis, that is an important distinction and I appreciate you pointing it out.
While the thresholds for approval are important, I don’t think that’s germane in the context of my note. I feel my viewpoint was unambiguously expressed.
Seth On May 4, 2023, at 12:00 PM, Louis Zipes <louiszi...@gmail.com> wrote:
This response does not endorse a viewpoint.
Such is the democratic process. The folks who feel strongly about this will show up in force and can be a majority of the vote despite being a minority of the town. The folks who do not show up will be paying most of the bill.
If you are referring to the final funding vote that would be coming next year, then remember that just like with the initial vote last November it is not a 'majority', at least how most people would understand a majority to be (50% plus one) that will decide on the eventual project's funding. To approve funding it will take a super-majority, during the Town Meeting part of the vote, so actually the people that will be in favor of it will need to turn out more voters than the people opposed to it. Apologies if you were not referring to that part.
Hi Ned, I agree with you and Sarah. Candidly this was my fear and why I was such a vocal opponent of authorizing the funds.
What was green-lighted to be an exploration of various alternatives is rapidly turning into a foregone conclusion that will cost at least $12.5M, with options up to $25M or more.
For example, I am quite certain that no one is going to propose a $3 or $4m renovation of the pods and attendant alternative uses of other pre-existing spaces. I’d be most supportive of something along those lines, as I think it’s prudent, responsive to the community’s needs, correctly sized in proportion to our population, and fiscally responsible. But that proposal is not coming.
Such is the democratic process. The folks who feel strongly about this will show up in force and can be a majority of the vote despite being a minority of the town. The folks who do not show up will be paying most of the bill.
If folks feel such a large expenditure is imprudent, they will need to show up to vote it down.
Seth
> On May 4, 2023, at 10:25 AM, Edward Young via Lincoln <lincoln@lincolntalk.org> wrote:
>
> I certainly heard what Sarah heard at the Spc. Town Meeting.
> The process we have seen to date is not the process I expected from the discussion at the meeting.
>
> Sarah wrote:
>
> "And, finally, I respectfully disagree on the sense of the amendment passed at Spc. Town Meeting.
> My read was there was a clear desire for continued use and potential expansion of use of alternative spaces for programming?an expanded use of spaces off campus.
> I am curious what others heard."
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
> Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
|
