X

Warr lacks facts to back up his opinion

Posted 9/6/11

To the Editor: I am writing in response to Trustee Warr’s recent letter about dissolution where he writes about alarmists using scare tactics to scare people into voting against dissolution. He …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Warr lacks facts to back up his opinion

Posted

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to Trustee Warr’s recent letter about dissolution where he writes about alarmists using scare tactics to scare people into voting against dissolution.

He says the residents should instead use the facts.

Unfortunately, he provides no facts to back up his letter.

For instance, he tells voters to answer four questions.

One is about happiness with government, a second about the potential of attracting more business if there’s only one government, a third about the community size required for one level of government, and a fourth about ways to stop bickering.

None of these questions can be answered by fact.

Despite telling readers to rely on facts, he does just the opposite by telling readers to use opinions, hopes and wishes to make their decision.

Mr. Warr goes on to say that dissolution is not about taxes, but instead about chances of something better in the next 200 years.

Relying on chance is hardly factual…unless you’re playing blackjack or slots, chance is a wish, a hope.

He goes on to support forming a (new) police district in the former Village.

This, while a factual possibility, is misleading.

As a member of the dissolution committee, Mr. Warr knows that the dissolution report clearly states: “This option (referring to the formation of a police district) is technically feasible, but politically unrealistic.”

In fact, the report recommends AGAINST forming a police district noting that if a district is formed, former Village taxpayers could actually see higher taxes.

Instead, it recommends a Town-wide police force that will provide less service to the former Village unless the force size is increased.

To accomplish this, it recommends that the Town agree in advance in writing as to their intentions.

The fact is that the Town has repeatedly declined to make any agreements about post-dissolution services.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Town, their position is nonetheless fact.

Finally, Mr. Warr urges us not to be afraid of change.

While many agree that change can indeed be good, few would support the notion that change, simply for the sake of change, is good or rational.

Rather, most people believe that change has the best chance of succeeding with a well thought out plan and with a set of reasonable, well-defined, achievable and measurable objectives and goals.

Trust and hope alone, while noble beliefs, are probably not the best way to predict, achieve or ensure success.

As Mr. Warr’s letter suggests, the decision to dissolve (or not) should be based on facts, not on wishes, fears or hopes.

The Dissolution Study provides some of the facts needed to inform.

I urge residents to thoroughly read, understand, discuss and analyze the Dissolution Study before simply casting a vote for or against dissolution.

The study can be found on the web at http://www.cgr.org/potsdam/docs/PotsdamDissolutionStudyPlanApproved7-27-11.pdf.

Michael Weil

Potsdam