RESPONSE TO LIBELOUS CLAIMS BEING MADE IN A RECALL EFFORT

February 21, 2007 at 2:26 pm | In barnstable town council, council president janet joakim, janet joakim | 3 Comments

FROM JANET JOAKIM:

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

FACT: DURING THE FEBRUARY 15TH TOWN COUNCIL MEETING I VOTED IN FAVOR OF A 20% RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION THAT MEANS A SAVINGS OF $412 ON THE MEDIAN VALUED HOUSE IN MY PRECINCT-

FACT: I VOTED TO RETURN TO A FACTOR OF ONE RATHER THAN SUPPORT THE CURRENT 1.15 FACTOR THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED PEOPLE IN MY PRECINCT $26 A YEAR - AND COST A RELATIVE BUSINESS $534!

FACT: BEFORE THIS VOTE I HEARD FROM MANY SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS IN MY OWN PRECINCT TELLING ME THAT AS MY CONSTITUENTS THEY FELT THIS TAX BURDEN SHIFT WAS UNFAIR.

FACT: THE BLOGGERS HAVE SPUN THIS STORY USING LIES AND MISLEADING FIGURES TO SAY I HAVE LIED AND NOW HAVE RAISED THE TAXES OF PEOPLE IN MY PRECINCT. THEY ARE NOW USING THOSE LIES AS A BASIS FOR A RECALL AFFIDAVIT.

FACT IN THEIR POSTS AND LITERATURE THE COG GROUP- INCLUDING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING DOOR TO DOOR IN MY PRECINCT GETTING SIGNATURES ON THIS AFFIDAVIT -HAVE MADE LIBELOUS CLAIMS AGAINST ME. THEY KNOW THAT THE COST FOR ME TO HIRE A LAWYER IS MORE THAN I CAN JUSTIFY OR EVEN AFFORD AT THIS TIME- SO THEY CONTINUE TO MAKE LIBELOUS CLAIMS ON THEIR BLOG AND WHILE GATHERING SIGNATURES SAYING AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT I HAVE BEEN *PAID FOR MY VOTE.*

FACT: THESE PEOPLE ARE NOW CIRCULATING AN AFFIDAVIT - CALLING IT A PETITION - THEY ARE COLLECTING 50 SIGNATURES FROM RESIDENTS OF MY PRECINCT, MANY OF WHOM WILL SIGN NOT UNDERSTANDING THEY ARE DOING SO UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.

STATEMENT:

I have recently been made aware that the group known has COG, led by Gary Lopez, has started proceedings to file for a recall petition that would create the need for a recall election for me.

In order to obtain a petition for recall, COG is gathering signatures on an affidavit that charges me with political deceit for voting in favor of a factor of 1 during our tax classification votes last week. Gary Lopez and COG, in their typical fashion, are using misleading statements and figures to claim in this affidavit that I did this at “great cost to my constituents.” This affidavit is circulating as a petition, but signors are actually swearing under penalty of perjury that this is true.

I am an honest, hardworking person who takes my responsibilities to my oath as a councilor very seriously, balancing what is best for my precinct with what is best for the town.

What COG is not discussing is my strong argument during council debate and subsequent vote for the 20% residential exemption that means a significant savings to the people in my precinct, and which was voted in successfully.

I spoke with our assessor today and received updated figures for my precinct.

Using the median cost of a house in my precinct –$339,400- the true figures are as follows:

By voting to retain in the residential exemption at 20% my constituents will see a savings on the average tax bill in my precinct of $412 a year!

To retain the factor of 1.15 we voted in last year, would have saved the residents of my precinct an average of $26 a year – using median again- and to save the $26 the cost to business would be approx. $534!
Continue reading RESPONSE TO LIBELOUS CLAIMS BEING MADE IN A RECALL EFFORT…

Access to water - improve and increase or restrict?

February 1, 2007 at 11:45 am | In barnstable, barnstable town council | No Comments

these signs were brought to the town’s attention by visitors - and are an example of the issues we are addressing at this public roadway to water:
PRIVATE BEACH SIGN - put up on public beach by neighbors Private beach sign- put up by neighbors well within public access these signs were placed on either side of the public access way to the beach and are within the public boundaries

Access vs protection, should really be access within protection -

In a four page letter - copied and pasted below - Dom Gautrau, representing the Long Beach Association. has detailed his attempt, as a representative of the residents of Long Beach Rd , to have a boardwalk erected over the beach grass with a fence along the edges to further protect the grass planted as part of this project.

Town residents who use this access, and the access further west, have expressed concern to Town Councilors that a boardwalk would only further limit use of this public access.

I have, since this discussion began, heard several complaints about the boardwalk over the conservation land, its restrictions and construction.

I sense, after speaking to most of the town councilors who have been exposed to this issue, that councilors support the notion that we establish that the property within the town ways to water should not be restricted to use based on this planted beach grass.

If it is determined that damage to the grass that grows within the access areas as a result of this project is creating a danger of breach, or of the type of erosion that would threaten the entire area, the town can simply re-nourish as necessary, as it does to other public access areas around town.

The tone of Mr. Gautrau’s letter is disappointing and unfortunate, to say the least.

He refers to those who use the beach as “local people,” “beachgoers,” and “short-term visitors with ties to town hall,” who, by using the areas of grass as windbreaks, will “compromise and endanger (the beach) by their capricious whims.”

Continue reading Access to water - improve and increase or restrict?…

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.