EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED
9/3/09
We are extremely disappointed with the majority of the City Council and Mayor Evans for the way in which the Bond Issue will be presented to the voters on October 27. We call it the "lil Perk" method. Last year Mayor Perkins presented a Bond Issue which required voters to accept or reject all 52 items in the Issue. This year, we were led to believe, unless we completely misunderstood Mayor Evans, that voters would be able to vote on the INDIVIDUAL ITEMS in the Bond Issue; however, that is NOT what is being presented to voters.
For example, we thought there would be a listing of all streets to be paved and all streets where the sewer system was to be replaced. Voters could select which ones to approve and which to reject, BUT, that is not how the Bond Issue is being present. IT IS PRESENTED ONLY IN 11 general catagories. THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUAL ITEMS TO BE VOTED ON, so for example, you can vote for the entire $2.2 million for Public Works or against it, but not for any individual items. That is why we call the plan of voting the "lil Perk" plan. It is the same plan Perkins used, but is divided into 11 all or nothing choices rather than 1 as Perk proposed.
We are extremely disappointed at the actions of the City last night. Originally, the Council had approved a Bond issue total of $10 million, which is financially responsible. Mayor Evans had reduced the department heads WISH LIST from $15 million to $11 million, but last night, the majority of the Council demolished their own $10 million figure and the Mayor's $11 million figure to raise it to $12 million. The most ridiculous addition was $350,000 for Ruthless Crenshaw, who said she wanted it to close the landfill on Cahaba Road. However, at the last Council Meeting, THE COUNCIL HAD JUST APPROVED AND ADEM HAD APPROVED A CLOSURE PLAN FOR $314,000 FOR THE LANDFILL. What is Ruthless going to do with the extra $350,000? Only Dr. Williamson and Dr. Allen voted AGAINST this ridiculous addition to the Bond Issue.
However, the way Mayor Evans is presenting the Bond Issue to the voters, that $350,000 will be lumped into Public Works and can not be voted for or against as an individual item. We are alos extremely disappointed that THE BOND ISSUE IS NOW FOR 14 YEARS (2010-2023). The way it is structured will PREVENT the city from having another Bond Issue for the next 14 years. We thought we were told it would be for 10 years when it was for $10 million or 12 years when it was for $12 million, but the ballot says it is for 14 years and WE WANT AN EXPLAINATION FROM CITY HALL!
We are not prepared to say people should vote for or against this Bond Issue. We are extremely disappointed with the way it is presented, which is too similar to the way Perkins did it to suit us. We are subject to being wrong about this, but we believe the Bond Issue was presented in the public meetings as one where voters could vote on the individual items. IN FACT, AT THE PUBLIC MEETINGS, BALLOTS WERE PASSED OUT CONTAINING SOME 80 ITEMS AND CITIZENS WERE ASKED TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST THEM. We believe Mayor Evans and the City Council owe us an explaination of why this change in mid-stream.
It is difficult for us to criticize Mayor Evans and most members of the City Council, BECAUSE WE SUPPORTED AND STILL SUPPORT THEM, but we believe our questions about their actions on the Bond Issue are valid.
