|
Post by Admin on Sept 16, 2012 22:44:35 GMT -5
The Town Council would like for us to believe that the Council Manger form of government is more efficient, but studies have shown that the Mayor Manager is more cost efficient with its checks and balances of the executive and legislative brances. This study says the mayor-council form of government (with a directly elected mayor) has 10% lower overall public spending than the council-manager city. The study authors clearly state in their conclusions that mayor-council cities contain more checks and balances to hold down public spending. Read Larry's full story: larryinfishers.com/Council_Manager.htmlVote NO to Question 1 and Yes to Question 2 for a more efficient form of government.
|
|
|
Post by OldMan on Sept 21, 2012 9:38:27 GMT -5
This is why no one buys your arguement. You can't even present your evidence without lieing. You state "studies have shown", when in fact it is ONE study! "This study says the mayor-council form of government (with a directly elected mayor) has 10% lower overall public spending than the council-manager city. The study authors clearly state in their conclusions that mayor-council cities contain more checks and balances to hold down public spending."
This is correct but you conveniently left out the rest if the story. Larryinfishers continues:
"Here's a key part of the study's conclusion.. Essentially, the decision to switch from council-manager to mayor-council involves trading off an expected social benefit and an expected social cost. The social benefit is that the additional checks and balances under mayor-council will eliminate socially wasteful projects that would be implemented under council-manager. The social cost is that the additional checks and balances will create a form of gridlock that blocks socially beneficial projects that would be implemented under council-manager. The determinants of the size and likelihood of these social benefits and costs must be assessed at the community level."
This is exactly why many don't take you seriously. The Town of Fishers invited CityYes to the public discussion, yet this group has consistently misinformed the public with a disingenuous argument. Not simply content to provide a one-sided argument, but to blatantly mis-state or even ignore evidence, however strong or weak, that is contrary to your position. To the informed voters (being the majority of those who actually DO vote), your position is viewed as weak and unremarkable due to the inherent dishonesty in your presentation. I actually don't totally disagree with the things your group says but the apparent desperation in your words (eg "real city", "sham city", "hoax", "appointed mayor") simply cause voters to ignore your opinions as angry hyperbole.
You guys do what you want but your questionable tactics are hurting your cause...just sayin.
|
|
|
Post by faulty on Oct 28, 2012 6:07:50 GMT -5
The City-Yes group has listed four communities of where their is a city-manager form of government - All four of those cities have a directly elected Mayor and directly elected councils. Dallas San Jose Virginia Beach Phoenix So if all four of these have an elected Mayor how come Fishers would have an appointed Mayor? Also no where in Indiana law does it state a City can not hire a city manager. But once again the yes people fail to make this know, instead the Town itself has made the statement you can't. This is where the real lie appears to be. The Town government in its education process is misleading the citizens of the Town. So maybe the word sham is very correct.
|
|