Dear Editor,
This is an open letter to Lawrence residents and Lawrence Council regarding the upcoming referendum.
After reading our and Letters to the Editor from earlier this week, I would like to offer an alternate opinion from an ordinary tax-paying citizen. As background, my wife and I moved to Lawrenceville from New York City 12 years ago, right after getting married but prior to having children. We moved here because it gave us the best of both worlds: An opportunity to raise our future children in a great, safe neighborhood with reasonable taxes and a superior school system, and still be able to commute to New York.
Prior to moving here, we thoroughly researched at least 15 different municipalities with the above criteria, and have never once regretted moving here. We've since had two children who were both born in Princeton Medical Center and both currently attend Lawrence Public Schools, with our youngest just finishing up Kindergarten, and neither of us needs to commute to New York any longer, thank goodness. We've made great friends here that we expect to have for not only our lives, but also those of our children. (Read: We have a lot at stake in this community, and I am sure there are 30,000 other similar stories.)
Now to the point:
- In 2004, the year we bought our current home, our property taxes were $8,155
- In 2005, they rose 10.3 percent to $8,996
- In 2006, they rose 2.6 percent to $9,234
- In 2007, they rose 4.1 percent to $9,614
- In 2008, I was lucky enough to join the 5-figure club as my property taxes rose 5.4 percent to $10,133
- In 2009, they rose 1.6 percent to $10,294
- In 2010, they rose 5.3 percent to $10,841
- In 2011, they rose 1.8 percent to $11,039
Now in 2012, they will rise again to either $11,245 (a 1.9 percent increase) if we vote "No" on next Tuesday's referendum or to $11,476 (a 4.0 percent increase) if we vote "Yes" on the referendum.
My question to our Council is this: When does it stop? The issue clearly isn't revenue collection as all of our council members are on the record stating. This township is/will be collecting 40 percent more "Revenue" from me (and you) than they did just 9 short years ago. Do we have 40 percent more residents? 40 percent more roads? 40 percent more schools? I don't think we do.
But what I can clearly see, (as any first-year accounting student could tell you in about five minutes) is unsustainable spending habits and projections. And the unfortunate fact that no one on the council seems to want to face is that one of our largest expenses (if not the largest) is Salaries and Wages, which is projected at just over $14,000,000 in the 2012 Municipal Budget.
Again, my question to the council is this: When does it stop? The 2012 Municipal budget includes an average 5.2 percent wage increase for the Municipal Manager and his 196 other fellow Municipal employees. The line items for Appropriations for Wages and Salary are increasing in net value from $13,357,000 to $14,048,000 in the 2012 budget. That's a total of $690,488 which averages to $3,504 PER Municipal Employee. All this while our Municipal Manager tells us that we increased headcount by one part-time plumber over 2011. Heaven forbid we need a full time plumber!
So here's the bottom line: We either Vote "Yes" next Tuesday for their pay raises OR they stop collecting our Garbage (and they still get their pay raises.) That's Mr. Krawczun's proposal. That's what this referendum is about. And that's what OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS consider "not dismantling the Township."
I will vote "No" next Tuesday, and I urge my fellow residents to do the same. I also urge the council to stand up for the residents and vote "No" as well. I urge the council and the manager to go back to the drawing board, do the work they were elected (and appointed) to do, keep our taxes in line with our DEMANDS (it's our Township, not the Municipal Employees’) and not threaten to stop collecting our garbage.
Regards,
Max Ramos, Woodlane Road
When you forecast lower "revenues" you adjust your expenses
And as I have commented previously, if you cut 2.2 million out of the Township budget, the effects are not just a reduced police force and public services, its on the value of our homes. and your assertion that you just lower corporate taxes to attract new business, also fails. Chain stores require a certain demographic to open. and high crime is a factor. Then when property values drop, do does tax revenue and you get in a downward spiral. and South Lawrence and further becomes Trenton.
If I work just as hard and just as well as I did last year, but this year you pay me with dollars that are worth less, then you are shorting me. That's just as simple, isn't it? Actually, nothing is simple. Except in the comments section of the Patch.
It's a crappy deal and a false choice. Believe me, I share the frustration! Voting YES now and then voting in a council that is clear about cutting or stabilizing taxes (yes, it does happen) is the answer.
There is also a graph on that web site showing incorrectly how wages have gone up over a 5 year period, when in fact take home pay is down. So you can point to a website that is littered with errors, or you can face the fact that Council has placed us in a very difficult position. and we need to be adults. Do you want a protest vote which will hurt the majority of township residents, or do you want to keep the same level of services and tax benefits that you presently have. And not be beholden to a a non elected private trash hauler to dictate price to us. I wonder how many of the NO's actually voted in the last election. Less then 6000 out of over 17,000 or about 30% voted last fall. And yet you have them bitching about the next time the elected party can be deposed. Maybe the other party should have thought about running more then one real candidate.
and how nice of you to provide rides to people who support your protest vote. I'll pick you up it you vote for more money out of your fixed income. And don't forget to pay that new paper bill from the trash hauler, or your house might get auctioned off.
2012 Municipal Budget: Salary and Wages: $14,813215 (Section 8(B), Sheet 17) 2011 Municipal Budget: Salary and Wages: $14,094,895 (Section 8(B), Sheet 17) Difference: $721,000 And we're told they are being proactive with "headcount" Decide for yourself. Read the budget. The go vote. Stinki
A NO vote is not a protest vote. A NO vote is only step 1. Step 2 is going to Town Hall Wednesday night, and showing up at 6 PM, 1/2 hour before council starts. Please, if you have the foresight to vote NO tomorrow, don't forget to go to Town Hall on Wednesday night and let's start working on the solution.
ohh any your chart, how much do you think the price of the cost of a private hauler will go up in 5 years... my guess is a lot more then the increases on your chart. the price of trash hauling has sharply risen as landfills fill up, and hauling is longer... meaning higher transportation costs... and who do you think will shoulder that cost? right US. It is a protest vote for almost every township resident... and a higher cost. don't be fooled by the angry mob of public service haters...
That should not be so hard
so yes LET'S BE CLEAR a no vote is like shooting yourself in the foot... higher trash fee that is not tax deductible, and a fee that could shoot up.
But if I do a stellar job for grill master this year, I'll have to quit next year when inflation hits and I can't work any harder, because his competitor will hire me at the new current rate.
BTW If you've been reading Patch long, I have previously posted ideas to raise income. Like grant money, both federal and corporate. Back when this was first announced to the public for review. i too am upset that the way this vote was placed to us as not up or down... but now its big boy time. time to select between the choice on the ballot. Not what isn't. It is like in 2008 saying I don't like Obama or McCain or anyone else... So I'm going to vote for McCain and then petition his removal. It is NOT how it works. and you keep expanding your ignorance post by post, I just hope that people actually look at what they are voting for or against. If you vote no, and no wins you will be paying for trash pick up. This isn't like trying to put a child to bed, and you'll get ice cream if you cry. You will get private trash pick up which you will have to pay separately from your tax bill. Just like your sewer, and just like swear, it can go up and will at a market rate, with no help from commercial taxes. don't protest vote. vote Yes
or you will one day wake up homeless because of property tax theft.....it must end NOW
When I see cops go home for lunch in their squad car and public works employees use a dump truck to hitch a ride home...yeah, it kinda pisses me off that I'm paying for it. Everyone's money is worth less than it was last year, so what's your point?
My anger as you put it, is that there is ignorance and disinformation being put out there. And if you had been on these posts going back to the first announcement of the budget, you would also know my anger is at the council. This should have been a straight up or down vote. I want to press council to go after more grants, go after the fake non profits, then I want them to create a 10 year plan to level taxes. That is what I want.
So is it OK for those same seniors that you are so concerned for to pay increasingly more in taxes every year? That garbage bill pales in comparison to the $3000 to $4000 tax bill each quarter.
And in that "real world", people who use company vehicles don't switch vehicles to take their lunch breaks. Their employers don't want them wasting time like that. Only in public service jobs do employees typically have to put up with such nonsense like to satisfy a fickle public. So we have to pay them more to compensate in order to compete with the private sector for employees in the Real World, which is competitive.
The Democrat on Monday introduced legislation aimed at stopping municipalities from reclassifying certain services, such as trash collection, as user fees. Those fees don’t count against the 2 percent cap under current law, which lawmakers approved in 2010. The previous cap was 4 percent. http://statehousesteps.com/steve-sweeney-wants-to-close-property-tax-loophole/