Newcomers can only say what they WOULD do if elected. Incumbents ought to be able to say what they DID
Harshly and repeatedly criticizing one’s colleagues is not a convincing platform for reelection. Standard advice to job seekers is NOT to trash their former employers and co-workers because it would reflect badly on themselves and is hardly a strong argument for being hired. That should work here as well. Dirty politics has no place in a suburban council election.
The tax increase prematurely quoted in the press is very far from final. It was merely a first look at the budget. Many residents don’t realize that it would apply only to the small municipal government portion of the budget, which is mostly a blank check to the schools. They are mentally multiplying the number by their existing property taxes and panicking.
Raises: Aronsohn has voted for every police and fire union contract in the past 4 years. Employee contracts (not counting the current Village Manager’s) were approved by the former Council. Four reasonable council members voted for the village manager’s raise. Disagree? OK. But is their decision to give somebody a raise really a good enough reason to vote for somebody else? It was one thing, blasted out of proportion by Aronsohn when he (or White Horse Strategies) grabbed it as a key to reelection…because he has very little else to offer.
Besides the fact that a 0%-based budget is better as a soundbite than as a plan for municipal government, how can Aronsohn reduce taxes or keep them low, as he claims he will do, while fully funding the library, revitalizing downtown, and pressing for enormous so-called accessibility projects when more thought could have had the job done better and at far lower cost?
Take a look at the new sidewalk at the Stable. Who planned it–the designer of Candyland? Or maybe Chutes and Ladders. It takes you (that is, apparently everyone) up from the parking lot, turn left, turn right, turn left, go to the Maple Avenue regular sidewalk, then up to the door–it couldn’t be more circuitous, with hard 90-degree turns rather than rounded edges. The turn radius at each corner, and there are many, is sharp and not easily maneuvered.
Yes, a very gentle specific maximum slope is required for wheelchairs; on hills, that requires a twisty-turny path. But accessibility to a building is supposed to give everybody a fair shot at getting through the door, not make things harder for everybody else every day. Did a single accessibility engineer review the plans? Unless another path will be added, and it doesn’t look that way, people attending meetings at the Stable (there are many) will have to leave home 5 minutes earlier–no exaggeration–just to get from the parking lot to the main door.
That trip is entirely exposed to the elements, too. When it’s raining or snowing or windy, this will be a long, wet, cold trip for all. And it will have to be cleared routinely of ice, snow, and debris in order for ANYONE to get in.
People in wheelchairs are not the only population needing better access. Those with Parkinson’s, a cane, a walker, crutches, a small child in tow, etc.–far greater numbers–will be exhausted. It can be difficult, but it’s not impossible, to accommodate all, and that’s what it’s all about. Why didn’t Aronsohn find and consult an expert? These projects require care and expertise. But no–just having the concrete poured is good enough for Paul Aronsohn, and now, 6 figures later, we are stuck with it.
