FORT SMITH’S FUZZY MATH DOCTRINE: DIVERT—CREATE—OVERSPEND—EXPAND.
“AS LONG AS IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE LAW MAY BE DIVERTED FROM IT’S TRUE PURPOSE…THAT IT MAY VIOLATE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF PROTECTING IT, then,”……..Frederick Bastiat
CITY FINANCIAL MISMANGEMENT EMBEDDED IN A SEA OF QUASI HONESTY? November 4, 2014
The 1% Fort Smith city street tax was SPECIFICALLY designated for: construction of streets, bridges, existing waste water, sewer & drainage management!
In view of current Fort Smith city financial shortfalls and 3+ decades of ongoing discussions and threats of litigation by the EPA pertaining to major unresolved drainage problems in Fort Smith and the specificity of the 1% street tax that it demands, one would reasonably think at this point in time all drainage concerns would long since have been resolved, and for sure better streets. Not the case! Where did good management and the money go?! And by the way, Police & Fire Pensions are on the rocks. Where are the rainy day funds that would deal with such alleged shortfalls?
City Manager Ray Gosack offers no detailed explanation pertaining to the city’s financial shortfall. Gosack’s solution and apparently the City Directors, to satisfy the deficiencies is a balm that all politician/bureaucrats rely on—spend the totality of financial resources (no reserves), raise taxes and divert funds.
In this case a cogent example of the above—A 25% increase of existing utility fees…4% on water & sewer rates, raise franchise fees 25% for telephone service, electric, gas, & cable TV ¼ %. Also entertained by Gosack and Directors is the institution of a business license. The mandated upgrade of the city’s sewer system by the EPA is also in line for a tax raise. As previously mentioned, sewer deficiencies should have been resolved by the sewer systems portion of the 1% street tax.
Why is the City Board of Directors contemplating diverting 20% ($4 million) of the 1% street tax revenue to one new and 2 old programs and at the same time fanning the flames for multiple tax increases on residents?
1. The new–U.N. Agenda 21’s trails, bikeways, event nodes, wayfinding signs, quality of place, & a never ending list that grows government.
2. The old–Police & Fire pensions. Why would these two trust funds not be sacrosanct? Have the pension monies been spent on other projects or is it mismanagement? What was the previous source of funding for these pensions?
3. The Directors, in a vote buying scheme, are contemplating an across the board pay increase for 9,000+ city employees. Merit is not a consideration.
The city’s share of the county’s 1% tax ($11.68 million) was spent on what?
In view of the city’s alleged financial shortfalls, why would City Manager Gosack urge City Directors to entertain the idea of expanding government (costs and manpower) to launch a new campaign for a massive multi trails program to be used for not more than 0.1% of the urban population?
The city held 2 public hearings to gauge interest in the camouflaged trail scheme. The T.R. wrote “between the two meetings dozens of residents weighed in”. Dozens not hundreds…obviously not a success. Gosack would have city residents believe the opinions of a few dozen residents’ should reign supreme and speak for a metroplex of 150,000 residents.
What is really behind the sudden wave of interest in multi-purpose trails by a very select group representing 2 NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations), Trails & Greenways Committee & The Fort Smith Parks Commission—none of the aforementioned are elected, nor do they have any firsthand information regarding the city’s true financial status. Further reminding citizens that NGO’s remove citizen input & influence in dealing with the tenor of government business.
Two named Fort Smithians spoke in favor of the trail project: NGO Parks Commission Bryan Merry, “We really have to educate people”. To Merry, if you comprehend the ultimate goal of the trails project, which in all likelihood you do not, that would indeed be progress.
Merry & others should know and publicly admit that the trails project is a manifesto for the United Nations’ Agenda 21. Following Merry was a comment by Lorie Robertson, the Chair of the NGO Parks’ Commission, in a celebratory remark “The beauty of this is not being written into the main part of it”, referring to the extension of the1 cent sales tax? Apparently Robertson means that the voters will not read the back-end of the bill and will vote for the 1 cent bill, giving city government a carte blanche approval to spend 20% of the street/sewer tax to use as they deem on a nefarious trail program and a new source of funding for Fire & Police pensions, and perhaps more.
In the grand scheme, the recent extreme show of interest by City Manager Gosack and his sycophants is nothing more than a subterfuge to continue their pursuits of the United Nations’ Agenda 21, without revealing government’s real course of action.
Later, At Large Director Pam Weber said, “I really sense the community wants the trail system”. The city in alleged financial stress and Director Weber concludes that the opinions of 3-4 dozen people should decide for 150,000 residents.
The phrase “I sense” belongs in the same scrap heap where political “visions” & “values”, et al, lie.
An Agenda 21 cover-up—do the City Directors know what they are involved in? Probably not. It appears they have taken the bait thrown out by Gosack and have not taken the opportunity to research precisely what Agenda 21 entails and its goals which lead to the ultimate devastation of citizen’s freedoms and individual rights.
The misguided attitudes that the City Directors are now demonstrating is reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland, i.e.; all the city streets are fixed, the EPA has withdrawn their complaint, meaning waste water, overflow & sewer concerns have been corrected and voila everything is hunky dory in Marshall Town.
Really? Is it the intent of the City Directors under the spell of City Mgr. Gosack to tap into the city’s very specific 1% street tax and deploy millions of dollars, expand city government, give unconstitutional across the board raises to city employees, while subsidizing an array of freedom-killing Agenda 21 programs?
City leaders are proposing to neglect much needed citizen necessities in order to fund non-essential pack & stack projects offered up by the United Nations’ Agenda 21.
When you hear the word Sustainability be very wary. Sustainability is the call to arms by Agenda 21 luminaries.
Is city government engaged in or about to be engaged in the practice of malfeasance and/or misfeasance?
Quick, comprehensive websites explain Agenda 21 for those who care to learn; www.americanpolicy.org and http://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/?s=Agenda+21
Joe McCutchen
P.S. Are we to believe these officials conduct their own finances in such a fashion….if so, they are hopelessly in debt and maxed on their credit cards and the debt collectors are at the door.
arkansasfreedom.net