Comments for Lafayette to decide deconsolidation at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 11 out of 11 comments http://www.theind.com Fri, 24 May 2013 01:40:16 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8070-lafayette-to-decide-deconsolidation#comment-16441 It is undestandable that residents of the unincorporated area of the parish and residents of the incorporated towns outside of Lafayette would be against "deconsolidation" as they see a benefit in their votes electing a chief executive for the City of Lafayette -- as well as council members who are in the position to influence or even determine policy which impacts the residents of the incorporated City of Lafayette. What is difficult to comprehend is Mr. Hinson and Mr. Bacques view. Mr Hinson refers to Mr Conque having an agenda -- one would have to assume that Mr Hinson must have an agenda -- else how do one explain that it is acceptable for a resident of the town of Broussard to rule the city of Lafayette -- in effect the votes of the residents of Lafayette are watered down by this system and it matters not to the Lafayette citizens what it costs -- we don't want non residents electing our Mayor. I would have thought as a resident of the City of Lafayette that Mr Bacque would have at least voted for the option to allow its residents a vote to "deconsolidate" -- does he have an agenda? -- or is he so inflexible that he will not admit that his legislation and apparent original support was ill-advised? - gmbo Fri, 08 Apr 2011 19:45:28 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8070-lafayette-to-decide-deconsolidation#comment-16429 Mr. Hinson: what you fail to realize, Bruce Conk is not actually speaking. He is only a mouth=piece for the Mighty Lafayette Chamber of Commerce! - The Original Northsidian Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:11:58 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8070-lafayette-to-decide-deconsolidation#comment-16404 I have to agree with Southside. It peeves me to no end to watch the Council meeting on Tuesday night and have members of the council from outside the city vote on city matters. I understand that much of the vote is on Parish business; but, the council members outside the city DO NOT REPRESENT city residents and should not be voting on city matters. - Caring Citizen Fri, 08 Apr 2011 09:22:04 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8070-lafayette-to-decide-deconsolidation#comment-16356 Durel had a very interesting comment on the radio this morning. He said de-con would work great....IF....egos don't get involved in Parish gov't and start wanting to provide services themselves because they think the city isn't doing a good job. People in the Parish already think that today. He'll, people in the CITY think that today. Durel used the exams of public works, saying the Parish shouldn't buy the tractors and hire the public works director that the city already has. So Durel says that Parish people should do what city people won't do today--just accept having no representation? You dont like how PW is being run, you go to Parish gov't., they say "sorry the city handles that", and you don't have representation on the city council....then what? City PW won't Give priority to city projects over parish projects? Of course they will because city residents have a councilman to call who will vote on city PW budget and pay raises--parish citizens will not. So you're gonna end up with duplicated services, that will cost more, and the Parish will have to lay a new tax. Will city residents want to pay more taxes for services, salaries, and government operations that are exactly the same thing that LCG already provides? This is a mess, and I think going back is not realistic. There are a lot of problems with it, and it's going to cost more money for either the same or worse "services" as the administration likes to call it. - ragin_cajun Thu, 07 Apr 2011 08:21:08 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8070-lafayette-to-decide-deconsolidation#comment-16299 "Bankruptcy isn't bad enough for you?" Bankruptcy? Come on, man. LCG is nowhere CLOSE to going bankrupt. That's why this whole de-consolidation push is suspect. The reasons for doing it are pure speculation and fear-mongering. I really don't think there's a whole lot of difference between a "city voter" and "parish voter". The minute you deconsolidate, then everybody'll be up in arms about the rift between the Northside and the Southside...or, Upper Lafayette and, I guess, Lower Lafayette. - ragin_cajun Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:59:18 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8070-lafayette-to-decide-deconsolidation#comment-16281 Quote from Steve: I am not against the concept of the city having its’ own voice; in fact, I strongly favor it" The only way it can have its own voice is to have its own mayor/council just as all the other towns have. Quote: "What those who favor de-consolidation seem to overlook is that the results may actually be worse. Nothing about de-consolidation guarantees we will have a good mayor or council. Nothing guarantees that the board will vote the way we wish. We will continue to have are those who complain just to hear themselves complain without any real answer to fix the problem. We will continue to have council members who have their own views and opinions. Splitting the government back to mayor/council won't split the city and parish. What it will do is the city will now have an even playing field when it comes to competition against the other towns. You want city services? Join the city or else fend for yourselves, as it should be. " How can it get worst? Bankruptcy isn't bad enough for you? What will now have is council members voices being heard from CITY council members instead of parish council members deciding how city tax monies are to be spend in the city. Whats so hard to understand about that? - Southsider Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:07:43 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8070-lafayette-to-decide-deconsolidation#comment-16276 Hey Parish Pal, Before you critize everyone, think about what you just said: "I'd rather stick with what we have than vote yes on either of the two choices we will be given." That statement shows ignorance. Can you figure it out? Or maybe others can help you out. - Compassionate One Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:52:35 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8070-lafayette-to-decide-deconsolidation#comment-16267 Please Don Bacque-- never volunteer again as your agenda is way too personal. And you missed more meetings than anyone expecting everyone to wait for your next words of wisdom!!! Go home! Karen--- you are much to wishy washy to play with the big boys-- you didn't make your gender proud--- GO home! Steve-- Thank goodness there are intelligent people left in the world even if you are an attorney! Come back!!!! Bruce- you tried but too many memories of your District 6 days to get anything going! So sorry! Overall- a huge example of not knowing what you don't know! Louis Kellogg made more sense than most of you! I'd rather stick with what we have than vote yes on either of the two choices we will be given. Mr. Hison has a point on the pay for the council persons--- but I say it will seperate the givers from the takes come election time!!!!! - Parish Pal Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:58:02 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8070-lafayette-to-decide-deconsolidation#comment-16265 Excellent comments, Mike. You've hit all the high...er, low....points. 2 governments will cost more than 1, increase the number of politicians, and the complexity of navigating the regulatory maze to get things done. And I would like to remind everyone that the Chamber of Commerce is the entity that sold consolidation in the first place. Now the Chamber is selling DE-consolidation. I guess they were for it before they were against it. I don't see how the same town will vote to deconsolidate just 15 years after it voted to consolidate. And if they do, I hope it happens quietly, inexpensively, and stays out of the courts. - ragin_cajun Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:47:37 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8070-lafayette-to-decide-deconsolidation#comment-16256 I honestly believe the charter commission did a great disservice to the citizens of the City and the Parish when it failed to add an amended version of the current charter to the proposed ballot. It is simplistic logic to think that the city should go back to its’ own council and mayor for all the good reasons Bruce Conque expresses. What is overlooked is that to accomplish de-consolidation we must throw away so many of the “gains” we’ve enjoyed because of our desire and effort to consolidate. That the current charter missed the mark of total consolidation doesn’t mean we should throw away the gun, but means we should aim again and better. Perhaps a poor analogy, but if the proposition passes I believe we have shot ourselves in the foot. In my thinking it isn’t all about what we will gain with two separate charters, but what we may / will lose. The charter commission has diligently tried to craft a proposal that maintains the current service agreements between the City and the Parish, but the best that it could do is to “encourage” the continuance of those agreements not “require” them. What seems to be overlooked is that for the most part those agreements were crafted and enhanced during the current charter. I’m afraid that splitting into two governments will ultimately place a wedge between the City and Parish; which will take us back to the Police Jury days. Is the good of the City to have its’ own government by a separate charter worth the price? I guess that question will be answered at the polling place. Mr. Conque has also suggested that cutting the salaries of the board members will help reduce the obvious increased cost of two governments. I say that this thinking is just part a smoke screen to support an agenda. I notice that the proposed salary of the Mayor was not reduced and he forgets to mention the acknowledge cost of administrative staff, legal counsel, and the other many “overhead” cost of running a business or government. Anyone who thinks the amount of salary does not matter to those who chose to serve, should ask Bruce; “Remind me again, why you resigned your elected position on the LCG council to take a job with the Chamber of Commerce? Deciding on the pay and worth of anyone is an important and delicate matter that should be impartial as possible, but is ALWAYS tainted by those who have an agenda. Those who have no interest in that job typically suggest less; while those who may be interested always suggest more. By the way, I do not have an issue with Mr. Conque or his agenda, but it seems he has embraced the task of being the voice of the charter commission, and accepted as such by the media; so let the chips fall where they may. It would be easy for me to repeat what I believe the commission should have done, but we are stuck with what it has done. I respect the work of the commissioners, but I must strongly disagree with the commission and others who would take a step back. I strongly suggest the voters reject the charter commission’s proposal and immediately become involved in our government by supporting new ordinances that address those issues we find lacking in the current charter. Frankly, I not only hope the “de-consolidation” proposal fails, but that a new charter commission of some type would be assembled as soon as legally possible to continue to look at the alternatives available to all the citizens of Lafayette Parish; not just the city, not just the unincorporated areas, not just the parish. I am not against the concept of the city having its’ own voice; in fact, I strongly favor it, but I do think there are other ways to achieve that goal without throwing away all we have worked for. What those who favor de-consolidation seem to overlook is that the results may actually be worse. Nothing about de-consolidation guarantees we will have a good mayor or council. Nothing guarantees that the board will vote the way we wish. We will continue to have are those who complain just to hear themselves complain without any real answer to fix the problem. We will continue to have council members who have their own views and opinions. A vote for de-consolidation only ensures that instead of just nine opinions we will have fourteen. Instead of just one leader we will have two. What a deal. Thank you. - Mike Hinson Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:28:30 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8070-lafayette-to-decide-deconsolidation#comment-16254 So far, I not certain what the commission accomplished. - James Melancon Tue, 05 Apr 2011 06:57:05 +0100