http://www.centergroveinc.org/2009/11/29/questions-that-need-answers/ Following the future of White River Township Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:57:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 http://www.centergroveinc.org/2009/11/29/questions-that-need-answers/comment-page-1/#comment-1000 MARK DEVOE Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:35:50 +0000 http://www.centergroveinc.org/?p=2939#comment-1000 The goal of the Reorg Committee was to present an objective picture of what the result of a merger might be. Then let the public vote on whether they liked that picture. I believe that the perception now may be that the Reorg Comm is promoting a merger rather than remaining neutral. People are looking for a TANGIBLE upside to offset the TANGIBLE downside of a tax increase. Is there one? The goal of the Reorg Committee was to present an objective picture of what the result of a merger might be. Then let the public vote on whether they liked that picture. I believe that the perception now may be that the Reorg Comm is promoting a merger rather than remaining neutral. People are looking for a TANGIBLE upside to offset the TANGIBLE downside of a tax increase. Is there one?

]]> http://www.centergroveinc.org/2009/11/29/questions-that-need-answers/comment-page-1/#comment-998 Dann Veldkamp Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:51:35 +0000 http://www.centergroveinc.org/?p=2939#comment-998 While you have a point, Mark, I think one of the major failings of the Reorganization Committee has been in it's apparent inability to create a compelling story on why the reorganization is good for both WRT and GW. While personally I think that public/private partnerships should be part of that story, it is not a manditory feature. First they just need to provide us with a vision of a vibrant community that benefits all the residents, something that I think they have yet to do. While you have a point, Mark, I think one of the major failings of the Reorganization Committee has been in it’s apparent inability to create a compelling story on why the reorganization is good for both WRT and GW. While personally I think that public/private partnerships should be part of that story, it is not a manditory feature. First they just need to provide us with a vision of a vibrant community that benefits all the residents, something that I think they have yet to do.

]]> http://www.centergroveinc.org/2009/11/29/questions-that-need-answers/comment-page-1/#comment-996 MARK DEVOE Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:28:24 +0000 http://www.centergroveinc.org/?p=2939#comment-996 Regarding the plan not being innovative: To me proposing the merger under the new statute 36-1.5 is innovative in itself. If "innovative" means changing to a city manager plan or making significant changes in how city services are obtained, I would offer that just selling the merger idea alone is a big chunk for residents to swallow. The added confusion created by including a major change in form of government or services would be a deal breaker. Take one step at a time. Regarding the plan not being innovative: To me proposing the merger under the new statute 36-1.5 is innovative in itself. If “innovative” means changing to a city manager plan or making significant changes in how city services are obtained, I would offer that just selling the merger idea alone is a big chunk for residents to swallow. The added confusion created by including a major change in form of government or services would be a deal breaker. Take one step at a time.

]]>