This coming town election is the most crucial election in twenty years and the stakes couldn’t be higher. The results of this election will determine the direction this town takes for the next ten years and beyond.
The issues are clear. Will the Board of Selectmen be a town centered board maintaining Stoneham’s independence or a cheering section for Beacon Hill and their special interests? Also will the Board continue to put the taxpayer’s first, or will it pursue the big government tax payer be dammed philosophy of Beacon Hill? Let us look at our choices.
On one side you have the incumbent Selectmen up for re-election this year who have during the worst economic recession since the depression directed the resizing of the town departments and the containment of budget growth while maintaining government services.
On the other side you have a School Committee member whose response was to call for and demand more revenue. During her time on the School Committee, their controllable budget (less health insurance, pensions and the repayment of debt) increased over 20%, while the Board of Selectman held the Town side to level funding. At the height of the downturn she fought for and gave the school employees a double digit pay increase, while the Selectmen held the town employees to a zero percent increase.
The other challenger, the former Finance Board chairman’s strategy for dealing with the downturn was to recommend and push for an unbalanced budget, a trash fee and an override. His philosophy is clear when he wrote, “Let the residents see/feel the pain in DPW this year and they will beg for three people with an override next year”. His motives are clear; bigger government, more spending and more money for special interests from the taxpayers. He proposed and is supporting another override on the same ballot this year, the Community Preservation Act tax.
Your choice is clear; two candidates favor controlled government spending, managed growth and taxpayer relief, while the other two candidates favor more spending, bigger government and more taxation.
Who will stand up and fight the State to protect Stoneham’s interests? Again, the choice is clear. The incumbent Selectmen up for re-election have been outspoken critics of the MWRA with regard to the proposed pipeline and storage tank. They also have proposed a law suit against the State because of Stoneham’s unfair share of educational funding.
The challengers, a Beacon Hill employee and a Beacon Hill insider have remained unusually quiet on these issues. They are once again being a cheerleader for Beacon Hill.
As you can see the results of this year’s election are critical and will decide what direction Stoneham takes over the next decade. It can maintain the philosophy of budget constraint, managed growth and taxpayer relief or it can take the direction of uncontrolled spending, uncontrolled growth and the implementation of more taxes, fees and surcharges. There has never been a clearer choice and it is your vote that will decide.
Russ
11:33 am on Monday, March 18, 2013
There is no choice in the race for Stoneham Selectman. Stoneham residents are facing the equivalent of a proposition 2 1/2 override called the CPA. It must be stopped. We have not learned our lesson quite yet. Sending money to Boston is the equivalent of a gambling addiction ... we know that we will benefit from neither.
Interestingly, our political representation has mentioned the possibility of an increase in state Chapter 70 money of approximately $530,000. This woulld be much appreciated. However, in the same email it was stated that this is 'heavily dependent' on approving an increase in our state income tax. This increase in income tax would take approximately $7,810,000 out of the pockets of Stoneham residents. The state can keep the $530,000. I'd prefer that Stoneham residents keep the $7,810,000.
Mark
8:51 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
If Lewis and Clark are for Warren/MacNeill run away, far away!
Lewis/Clark are part of the existing Communist Regime who steal our tax dollars and give them to towns to hire interpreters for Illegal Aliens short changing Stoneham children of a DARE officer. Forcing parents of Special Need Children to drain their savings to educate their children. Those tax dollars could be used for families user fees to participate in School athletics/music/art. Or Seniors on a fixed income for trash fees. Or Veteran services. Or even funds for a playground/fire station/turf field etc.
Ask yourself! Why does cities like Malden/Everett/Revere/Chelsea et al receive $46M or more of our tax dollars in Chap 70 funding while Stoneham receives $3M?
These two are nothing more than enablers for the pigs at the trough up on Beacon Hill.
Vote for Vallarelli/DePinto!
Russ
11:52 am on Monday, April 1, 2013
Thanks for the summary and the excellent content. You provide much to think about.
Cindy Hemenway
9:48 am on Monday, March 25, 2013
Vote for Shelly MacNeill and John Warren for Selectmen on Tuesday, April 2. Shelly's experience on Beacon Hill can help take Stoneham in a new and better direction. Young families deciding on where to live are looking to bring up their children in a safe community with a good school system. Stoneham is a good choice because Shelly's hard work on the school committee have improved the school system. The great teachers of Stoneham deserve a competative salary. Otherwise, we lose good young teachers to other, better paying communities. John served for 15 years on Stoneham's Finance committee. His experience in this capacity and his willingness to listen to will make him an effective leader on the board of selectmen. Take Stoneham in a new and better direction = Shelly and John.
Susan
10:19 am on Monday, March 25, 2013
Wow. Improved the school system? Competitive teachers' salaries? Did you click on the link in my comment on Russ's blog before you commented there? If you did you would see that our test scores are below those of our neighboring towns, well below in the case of Reading and Winchester, and we spend more per pupil! This has been the case for several years now. You want one of those school committee members to take that kind of track record over to the board of selectmen? We don't need that kind of new direction.
Russ
11:56 am on Monday, April 1, 2013
Cindy - It has been suggested that we compensate our educators more fairly and effectively. However, the union insists that all teachers are equal. While this meets their needs it misses the mark when it comes to supporting our children. Our teachers should be competitively compensated based on their inherent market value.
Sorry to say that we again have allegations of expertise without specific examples of the accomplishments.
Russ
2:43 pm on Monday, April 1, 2013
The above comment may be attributable to Ms. Hanson, co-owner of the Fells Rd property. The bias is identified. Please leave personal issues out of the issue of taxation.
Russ
2:51 pm on Monday, April 1, 2013
It's sometimes hard to understand how a person can take a position on an issue, call out certain candidates for selectman on the other side of the issue, but conspicuously omit a school committee candidate with the same position as the selectmen candidates. Maybe I misunderstand the dynamics but if not then hypocrisy reigns.