The Motion of Preliminary Injunction filed in Superior Court by Mr. Gagne can be found here. The hearing is scheduled for February 12th at 2 PM in Courtroom 1 of the Fall River Superior Court. The Answer and Counterclaim to the original suit seeking declaratory judgement ...
...is much lengthier and I am having trouble scanning the document so I will leave it at the above motion.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Motion for injunction
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Let's change the subject. I am interested in what Bill's position/thoughts are of the huge spending stimulus plan the President is pushing? Is anybody concerned about how we are going to pay for this? Our children's grandchildren will still be paying this off 30 years from now. Now, shift to Dartmouth; All we hear from this Blog is to cut, cut cut, "expenditures outpacing revenues" and so forth. Sounds like we have some hyprocrisy here. How can you advocate fiscal governing and support reckless spending at the same time?
Who said anyone was supporting reckless spending??? You are talking about leaving behind massive debt for our children yet it sounds like you are not in favor of cutting spending in Dartmouth.
We need to focus on Dartmouth's fiscal problems here. At least, we taxpayers have some control over that!
As far as the President's stimulus plan. Were you yelling while we were spending billions daily in Iraq? And probably still are?
Bill posts the news from meetings or current new articles and then others post their opinions. Some of those opinions include cut, cut, cut and some do not.
It is becoming apparent that Barack Obama wants one of the big winners in his stimulus plan to be the business of education. I don't think this is such a bad thing. If we have to spend on stimulus, I prefer infrastructure and education. I agree that we have little control over the feds compared to our local government. If we get the money from the stimulus, it will be important that we use it wisely.
I was against the bailout bill for the banks which I think rewarded their poor business policies. I would rather that the money had gone to homeowners to pay their mortgages. The financial industry has confirmed my fears by not spending the taxpayers money prudently.
I am for the current stimulus bill because it is an investment on our national future that will help to keep our economy afloat. The taxpayers will get something for the spending: Educated citizens, roads, bridges, schools and, importantly at this moment, JOBS.
Current economic thought is that the government can reduce the length and severity of economic downturns by spending to replace demand lost when business and consumers cannot or do not spend.
If you will accept that premise as most economists do, then the question is, how can government spend more than they levy in taxes?. Most governments, such as our state and town, are not allowed by law to have deficit spending even within a single year, much less year over year.
The federal government does have the ability to deficit spend. Witness the trillion or so dollars that have been spent in Iraq that we as a nation have not yet paid for. So we need to have government spend to stimulate the economy and the state and town cannot do so. The federal government can and should in order to limit the damage caused by economic recession.
I think it is important that the money not be used for new programs but instead be used for one time projects. The town has adopted a similar policy in regard to one time revenue.
Finally I want to say that I do not want to cut from government because I think government is bad. I think government has a legitimate role in providing services and infrastructure that we as a society want to do collectively. But Dartmouth's revenue and spending has gotten out of whack. We must cut our spending in Dartmouth either by reducing the cost of service or reducing the services themselves. As I said, we are not allowed to have deficit spending. I have posted here many times about why this has to be done on the expense side of things. Read here for example
The latest iteration of the bail out is no better than the first dose of billions which has been squandered. Barney Franks response to critics after the first $350 billion was pissed away. We'll do better next time. Sure they will. We are saddling our future generations with this debt and will be no better than the third world countries that are now in debt to us.
You want to stimulate the economy? Give every citizen in Americ a tax holiday.
Hey Bill are you prepared for when deflation sets in. Look around you everything is coming down more in line with 3% annual increase versus the 7 to 10% we have been experiencing under W. That is sure to change things locally wouldn't ya say?
Historically, our non personnel expenses have been growing at a rate of 3-5%. Even if that rate were to be halved, it would not solve our budget problems since these expenditures only account for about 30% of our budget while people comprise about 70% of the budget.
So the name of the game is get rid of LABOR, correct? Just curious any cuts at the Water Department??
No cuts planned at the water department or the fire department or anywhere else there is an enterprise fund. Those units continue on in their own little world unnoticed and immune from any talk of cut backs. If its an enterprise fund it's safe.
Post a Comment