From Fosters…
ROCHESTER — He knew he had no chance of blocking the citizen-initiated tax and spending cap, but Councilor Chuck Grassie said he was taking a principled stand Tuesday when he voted against putting the question on the Nov. 4 ballot.
He said voting in support of putting the question on the ballot — as 10 other councilors did — would have only buttressed government critics’ claims that once councilors get into office they abandon promises of fiscal prudence in favor of doing “whatever we want.”
“You’re either agreeing — ‘Yeah, I told my constituents a bunch of lies, you elected me and then I’m going to do the exact opposite of what I said I will do,'” the Ward 6 councilor said after the meeting.”Or the other thing you can say is the voters are too stupid to know” where their representatives stand.
Opposing the resolution, he said, proves “you trust the voters made an informed decision when they voted for you.”
Only Sandra Keans of Ward 2 joined Grassie in voting against the procedural move. Grassie, who doesn’t support the cap, said he wasn’t surprised he didn’t get more support.
“I think most of these people are scared to death — ‘Oh geez, they (voters) are not going to vote for me if I don’t vote for this,'” he said.
That’s not the case, said Ward 4 Councilor Geoffrey Hamann. “I would have liked to vote against it, because I’m not for it. But they (cap supporters) did the right thing. They followed every step … and we need to put it on the ballot, even if we totally disagree with it,” he said.
“I’m not going to vote for it on Election Day,” Councilor Ray Lundborn of Ward 4 said, “but I’m going to vote for it tonight to put it on the ballot.”
Earlier in the night, during the first of two public hearings on the cap, former mayoral candidate Omer Ouellette blasted councilors who did not sign the petition that guaranteed the question is placed on the ballot. Just one sitting councilor, Brian Labranche of Ward 1, signed the petition.
“This petition was not to enact the cap, but only to allow the citizens to decide if it (has) merit to be made into law,” Ouellette said. “That fact that many of you refuse to sign to even allow Rochester citizens to vote on it shows arrogance and your unwillingness to allow the people’s voice to be heard. Your refusal is to even allow … the opportunity for them to act on their rights to a fair and honest discussion on this issue.”
Councilors didn’t budge as they sat listening in their seats, elevated a few feet from where about 50 residents were sitting.
Just 10 residents — many fewer than anticipated — addressed councilors in what was the first of two hearings. Fred Leonard, who helped gather signatures, said questions about the hearing’s legality and venue kept people away.
Still, councilors weren’t spared from direct comments accusing them of abandoning care for residents’ ability to pay.
Walnut Street resident Sue O’Connor struck a personal note when she shared that two members of “my family” who work for the city didn’t get a pay raise this year because they don’t belong to a union. “Where others may get 2 percent, we get zero,” she said.
Joe Moffet said the “runaway spending” needs to stop.
Cliff Newton, who also helped gather signatures, said the cap is needed to ensure local government remains “affordable and accountable.” He said the cap won’t stifle the city’s growth but restrain it to a rate that’s in line with what the “hardworking, proud citizens of Rochester” can sustain.
“It has proved positive that year after year you have spent our money and increased government costs at many times the rate of inflation,” Newton said.
The cap restricts a tax rate increase to a “factor equal to the change in the National Consumer Price Index — Urban … for the calendar year immediately preceding the year of the budget adoption.” Since talk of the cap surfaced, opponents, including several councilors, have said it’s a way to limit the role of elected officials in crafting budgets and directing policy.
David Camire of Continental Boulevard was one of two voices to urge caution on the cap. He said the city should hold an information session. “Anyone who believes that a tax cap or spending cap is going to lower their taxes is misinformed,” he said.
Park Street resident Laura Hainey said she currently sleeps well at night knowing her house is adequately protected against fire, schools have enough staff, and there’s enough police on the streets in case a man with a gun is running through a neighborhood.
“Those things are going to go away” with the cap, she said.
Before residents spoke, City Clerk Joe Gray accepted blame for not noticing a city-financed newspaper advertisement broadcasting the hearing included the wrong date. The error raised questions for some cap supporters whether Tuesday’s hearing was legal.
Per legal advice, the council decided to go on with the hearing with the understanding public comments will be combined with those from the Sept. 2 hearing, which was agreed to Tuesday.
As the city prepares for that, Gray said it’s important residents give their government a “fair shake” and realize “how hard” employees in the City Clerk’s Office have worked to ensure the citizen-initiated effort met deadlines.
Resident Doris Gates asked the second hearing be held in the Opera House to accommodate a large crowd. Before the night was through, councilors agreed to hold the next hearing in the larger venue.