Referendum?

Now Saxon Harding wants a referendum, a democratic way to solve the issue to avoid "creating a backlash against the board". This coming from the person who will not post peoples comments unless she thinks "it adds something to the issue". Even then she reserves the right to edit it and paraphrase "Like any publisher, I have the right to edit your comments - it is my blog, after all." she claims. Well last time I checked, editors of newspapers do NOT edit letters to the editor for example, which is exactly what responses to a blog are, in my opinion. They are free to respond, and sometimes do, but the letters are printed as they are written.

Anyways, back to the referendum. So far most of the comments on this blog have demonstrated that people just see it as a non-issue. A couple of people have complained about the cost, but aside from that, people seem happy with the service, and acknowledge that there is a marked difference since it ended. So the "backlash" is basically coming from one voice who wants to claim to speak for the majority, and it has already happened. Twice. And the last time two years ago, it was rebuffed, allegations considered, and denied. Why will this time be any different?

Lets examine Ms. Harding's major beefs:

1. The costs have almost doubled in the last 2 years.

False - It has been proven that her "facts" were mistaken, and the numbers are more like a 50% increase in 10 years.

2. There is a conflict of interest on the board.

You can have your own opinion on this one but the facts are that both the board's lawyers and the auditor have found that as long as it is openly reported that the owner of the company who provides the service is a board member, there is no conflict of interest.

3. There is the same amount of garbage as there was, so why the rate increase?

I don't know for sure, but I would counter with the argument that there seems to be a lot of children now in the neighborhood that are under the age of 10. Also some that have recently moved in. More people equals more garbage. I don't know what the tally of people was in 2000, but I would bet dollars to donuts that there are at least 10% more people living in Costello Gardens. Same number of households, yes. Same number of people, not likely. Same amount of garbage, hardly.

Put aside cost of living and inflation , I think the rate increase is justified based on that fact alone.

Also, it is my personal belief based on her comments, that it isn't really the fact that the money is being spent (it is less than 5% of the association fees that goes to garbage), her problem is where it is going, and that is a personal issue for her, and she felt the need to lash out. That is just my opinion.

Very Sad