CC Elections (Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Naples: appointed, insurance, crime)
Fort Myers - Cape Coral areaLee County
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, only 16% voter turnout. Looks like the two incumbents are out, 2 union guys in, 1 incumbent stays.
NHKev, I looked long and hard at your analysis into the candidates and still could not arrive at a vote for the incumbents. They've too much damaged CC's reputation with the citizenry at large with their not-so-legit practices and arrogance. I have to think that - since there was even an expose on WINK news regarding the passion over this election - that if CC residents really felt that the current set of councilpeople were succeeding, they would have had more support. All over Cape Coral the majority of signage was for the newbies. Even at the early voting site, hardly any representation by the incumbents, which could indicate 1) they knew their chances were slim OR 2)they were so arrogant they felt none was needed.
In terms of the closeness of the race, I think it was close for Diele. But again, if people really wanted to maintain the status quo, he should have had more support. It wasn't as close for Brandt.
The amendment resolutions came in as I wanted them - the city manager still needs to provide recommendations for personnel matters. This keeps a good balance of power. The 4 month severance package was changed for 4 months to up to a max of four months, which is very good.
I am optimistic my vote will improve relationships here while still encouraging business growth and sound financial practices. These days, it's a crap shoot, I know.
Well, only 16% voter turnout. Looks like the two incumbents are out, 2 union guys in, 1 incumbent stays.
NHKev, I looked long and hard at your analysis into the candidates and still could not arrive at a vote for the incumbents. They've too much damaged CC's reputation with the citizenry at large with their not-so-legit practices and arrogance. I have to think that - since there was even an expose on WINK news regarding the passion over this election - that if CC residents really felt that the current set of councilpeople were succeeding, they would have had more support. All over Cape Coral the majority of signage was for the newbies. Even at the early voting site, hardly any representation by the incumbents, which could indicate 1) they knew their chances were slim OR 2)they were so arrogant they felt none was needed.
In terms of the closeness of the race, I think it was close for Diele. But again, if people really wanted to maintain the status quo, he should have had more support. It wasn't as close for Brandt.
The amendment resolutions came in as I wanted them - the city manager still needs to provide recommendations for personnel matters. This keeps a good balance of power. The 4 month severance package was changed for 4 months to up to a max of four months, which is very good.
I am optimistic my vote will improve relationships here while still encouraging business growth and sound financial practices. These days, it's a crap shoot, I know.
i see the support thing different. first there is notoriously low turnout all the time. this may have been more than normal.
the past council had to address issues with 9 different city unions. in almost all cases they were asking for cuts in pay, or benefits, or pensions. So take all these workers and family and close friends. Unions are very organized and politically charged. So when they put people on the ballot that are former police officers and fire dept, you know they were going to get full support.
The avg citizen of cape coral obviously is either apathetic to having their hard earned money being taken from them and their own families in form of higher property taxes to fund the local gov't and services, or they are stupid.
but the unions used scare tactics, how crime would sky rocket and insurance rates would go up and response times would be dreadful. And the avg citizens said yes I would rather have my taxes go up $ in order to keep the police and fire as is. what they didn't understand was if the fire fighters and police were overpaid and had benefits and pensions plans that far exceeded what is normal for todays employment structure, it shouldn't have changed anything except how much these people were getting paid, and how much they had to pay for their own benefits and how much they had to fund their own retirement. So if the police and fire aren't going to fund these things than we are as tax payers. The people of Cape Coral were fooled.
this is a miniture version of what is going on with medicare and social security.. if someone was to look down the road they would see that there are problems ahead in funding entitlement programs. so you either have to cut benefits, or raise more revenue to fund them. well in cape coral they decided to raise more revenue to fund them. So in an area where people are always saying pay is lower than other places and the median income is low that people should pay the people who work for the city double what the avg person that lives there makes, and there benefits should be better than the avg person that lives there, and their retirement plan should be better than the avg person that lives there. It's a shame and quite honestly disgusts me of how people don't get this.
Kev, you are looking at a huge wave of retirees who will be looking for that social security and medicare in the coming years. With pensions being cut and everyone's 401K having taken a hit over the past 3 years, they will be depending on that money for survival, such that it is. We have to raise revenue or we'll look like a third world country in 10 years.
I am sorry it disgusts you, but there are alternative solutions out there.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhkev
i see the support thing different. first there is notoriously low turnout all the time. this may have been more than normal.
the past council had to address issues with 9 different city unions. in almost all cases they were asking for cuts in pay, or benefits, or pensions. So take all these workers and family and close friends. Unions are very organized and politically charged. So when they put people on the ballot that are former police officers and fire dept, you know they were going to get full support.
The avg citizen of cape coral obviously is either apathetic to having their hard earned money being taken from them and their own families in form of higher property taxes to fund the local gov't and services, or they are stupid.
but the unions used scare tactics, how crime would sky rocket and insurance rates would go up and response times would be dreadful. And the avg citizens said yes I would rather have my taxes go up $ in order to keep the police and fire as is. what they didn't understand was if the fire fighters and police were overpaid and had benefits and pensions plans that far exceeded what is normal for todays employment structure, it shouldn't have changed anything except how much these people were getting paid, and how much they had to pay for their own benefits and how much they had to fund their own retirement. So if the police and fire aren't going to fund these things than we are as tax payers. The people of Cape Coral were fooled.
this is a miniture version of what is going on with medicare and social security.. if someone was to look down the road they would see that there are problems ahead in funding entitlement programs. so you either have to cut benefits, or raise more revenue to fund them. well in cape coral they decided to raise more revenue to fund them. So in an area where people are always saying pay is lower than other places and the median income is low that people should pay the people who work for the city double what the avg person that lives there makes, and there benefits should be better than the avg person that lives there, and their retirement plan should be better than the avg person that lives there. It's a shame and quite honestly disgusts me of how people don't get this.
Kev, you are looking at a huge wave of retirees who will be looking for that social security and medicare in the coming years. With pensions being cut and everyone's 401K having taken a hit over the past 3 years, they will be depending on that money for survival, such that it is. We have to raise revenue or we'll look like a third world country in 10 years.
I am sorry it disgusts you, but there are alternative solutions out there.....
so.... social security is created to ensure that people have some income coming in when they can no longer work. Because the gov't can't trust people to save it themselves, and /or they can't trust that family members will take care of these people. So the gov't decides they will force people to save 7.5% of their income and force employers to put in 7.5% of the income. This was put in place when people had a life expectancy of say age 72? (not sure of the actual age just a guess) so if people were expected to be able to work untill age 62 it meant it was funded for an expectancy of 10 yrs.
So when people are now expected to live until age 80 you can do a couple things.... make it that people can't collect until 70?? make it that people have to fund more money into it so it lasts for 15 yrs vs only 10. or cut back the amount you were going to pay them monthly.. so if you were planning to receive $1500 month for 120 months it would be a total payout of $180k take that 180k and divide by 180 months (15 yrs) and the monthly pay would be $1000 month.
Or continue doing exactly what we're doing, "NOTHING" because if you do any of those things the seniors or soon to be retired will be outraged and vote you out of office. So here's what the seniors plan is .... spend more of social security than what you put in and what was originally allotted for you. Make your children make up the rest, so instead of putting into their own 401k's or IRA's they must have money stolen from their paychecks and be told it won't be there when you retire... sounds fair. Even better for me, I'm self employed so I have to put in 15% of my income into social security... and while we are at it. I don't get any sick time, vacation time, pension plan, unemployment, disability, automatic raises, promotions, healthcare benefits. I am responsible for taking care of all of these things myself.... oh and I'm also expected to give all these things to city workers, instead of them funding all these things by themselves.
Kev: It's even worse than you thought: "The original Act provided for monthly retirement benefits, payable to persons 65 and older who were no longer working." And the life expectancy was 66! Social Security: A Program and Policy History
Izmack: As far as the city manager, I don't like the idea of someone who is appointed having so much power. I would rather have an accountable, elected official making decisions so I can vote them out if I don't like their decisions.
I was surprised that no one on the ballot had a party designation next to their name.
Of course no one wants cuts to anything that benefits them. That is what leads to problems like they have in Greece and Italy. We need strong politicians that will make the tough decisions and are not afraid to serve one term.
Due to my inability to figure out multiquote functionality, see below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl
Izmack: As far as the city manager, I don't like the idea of someone who is appointed having so much power. I would rather have an accountable, elected official making decisions so I can vote them out if I don't like their decisions.
Riko, the amendments as I read them balanced the power between council and the city manager, so at least that's progress. I agree, the city manger should be elected.
I was surprised that no one on the ballot had a party designation next to their name.
I am expected to fund the schools system even though I don't have children. It's a part of living in a society versus every man for himself.
Save it themselves?
I guess that's a good solution for the percentage of folks who don't live paycheck to paycheck. I save 15% of my earnings into a 401K and yet that didn't help it from getting cut down 50% as the markets tanked.
Family members?
Just as an example, my folks died before I was 23. My brothers have their own families to worry about. I am sure I am not alone in this. Not everyone has families to take care of them. Witness the thousands (and still growing) in nursing homes today without any support other than what the state provides.
You are a smart guy and are obviously in a high income tax bracket as am I. We have two different views on what it means to contribute to a society that works. The extreme number of retirees that this country is looking at supporting over the next 10-20 years is staggering. It cannot be every man by himself.
Is this an example of what you mean that the current city management is fiscally conservative and not concerned about public opinion?
so.... social security is created to ensure that people have some income coming in when they can no longer work. Because the gov't can't trust people to save it themselves, and /or they can't trust that family members will take care of these people. So the gov't decides they will force people to save 7.5% of their income and force employers to put in 7.5% of the income. This was put in place when people had a life expectancy of say age 72? (not sure of the actual age just a guess) so if people were expected to be able to work untill age 62 it meant it was funded for an expectancy of 10 yrs.
So when people are now expected to live until age 80 you can do a couple things.... make it that people can't collect until 70?? make it that people have to fund more money into it so it lasts for 15 yrs vs only 10. or cut back the amount you were going to pay them monthly.. so if you were planning to receive $1500 month for 120 months it would be a total payout of $180k take that 180k and divide by 180 months (15 yrs) and the monthly pay would be $1000 month.
Or continue doing exactly what we're doing, "NOTHING" because if you do any of those things the seniors or soon to be retired will be outraged and vote you out of office. So here's what the seniors plan is .... spend more of social security than what you put in and what was originally allotted for you. Make your children make up the rest, so instead of putting into their own 401k's or IRA's they must have money stolen from their paychecks and be told it won't be there when you retire... sounds fair. Even better for me, I'm self employed so I have to put in 15% of my income into social security... and while we are at it. I don't get any sick time, vacation time, pension plan, unemployment, disability, automatic raises, promotions, healthcare benefits. I am responsible for taking care of all of these things myself.... oh and I'm also expected to give all these things to city workers, instead of them funding all these things by themselves.
I don't go for the every man for himself. I'm just the opposite. I think more needs to be done for schools. we spend too much on criminals, and ways to stop them. (reactionary) as opposed to dealing with the initial problems, one of which is education. And I'm not necessarily saying pay teachers more. but spend more on the students, programs, buildings, resources, ongoing education for teachers.
The problem is the way the entitlement programs are set up is they will take money from me that they say is for my retirement. but instead it will go to someone elses and not be there for me. I would like the opportunity to opt out and not put in 15% and instead use that 15% to put in an IRA where I have a better chance of setting up my retirement. it is stealing from one group and giving to another.
The problem is the way the entitlement programs are set up is they will take money from me that they say is for my retirement. but instead it will go to someone elses and not be there for me. I would like the opportunity to opt out and not put in 15% and instead use that 15% to put in an IRA where I have a better chance of setting up my retirement. it is stealing from one group and giving to another.
I totally understand your point, but if we did that, what would happen to all the people who don't earn what we do? Their contributions to a government fund would not fund the system appropriately. They can't save on their own, so come retirement age, we have a situation that is so terrifying that none of us can imagine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Unions sent a clear message
