Ken . . .
Correct me if I'm wrong, but consolidation should pay for itself.
Interest find on township consolidations
Moderator: Gillespie
-
Nancy Levant
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:41 am
John,
You are right that the proposition bears the burden of proof to demonstrate why a consolidation vote was placed on the ballot as a best-interest issue. However, and assuming the opposition will take issue with at least some of the facts when presented, the opposition also bears the burden of proof to demonstrate a fact-based rebuttal.
By the very nature of the vote itself, to consolidate or not to consolidate is a debate, and a debate cannot be won by not wanting the debate. It can only be won by voters perceiving or being convinced that one argument or the other is best. It should also be considered that voters, as a rule, vote what they perceive to be in their best interest vs. an interest in â??the greater good.â? Everyone knows they are co-dependent for survival on the island, but each islander is also solely responsible for their individual/familyâ??s survival, which is his/her immediate and pressing responsibility.
For me, and not knowing the primary players, my biggest concern regards lowering the number of elected representatives on the island. Perhaps having only five representatives is fine right now, but what about in the future? What if people are voted into office who have other ideas or plans for Beaver Island? My other concern and what concerns me in every level of government is that the wealthiest people always become â??leadersâ? over the less well to do -- a historic pattern and one that cultivates/perpetuates classism. I am not saying this exists on the island, but fewer representatives could be risky, in my opinion, and particularly so in the unknown future. As such, an argument that island cohesion would automatically result from consolidation is somewhat of a fallacy, because we cannot know the goals or intentions of future boards of trustees which could also cause division(s). Is the cohesion argument based on actual evidence, or is it simply a hope for cohesion? In my opinion and to date, this argument has not been made. Another consideration, however, is â??nothing ventured, nothing gained.â? Change can and should be productive, but should the change become problematic, can it be undone?
You are right that the proposition bears the burden of proof to demonstrate why a consolidation vote was placed on the ballot as a best-interest issue. However, and assuming the opposition will take issue with at least some of the facts when presented, the opposition also bears the burden of proof to demonstrate a fact-based rebuttal.
By the very nature of the vote itself, to consolidate or not to consolidate is a debate, and a debate cannot be won by not wanting the debate. It can only be won by voters perceiving or being convinced that one argument or the other is best. It should also be considered that voters, as a rule, vote what they perceive to be in their best interest vs. an interest in â??the greater good.â? Everyone knows they are co-dependent for survival on the island, but each islander is also solely responsible for their individual/familyâ??s survival, which is his/her immediate and pressing responsibility.
For me, and not knowing the primary players, my biggest concern regards lowering the number of elected representatives on the island. Perhaps having only five representatives is fine right now, but what about in the future? What if people are voted into office who have other ideas or plans for Beaver Island? My other concern and what concerns me in every level of government is that the wealthiest people always become â??leadersâ? over the less well to do -- a historic pattern and one that cultivates/perpetuates classism. I am not saying this exists on the island, but fewer representatives could be risky, in my opinion, and particularly so in the unknown future. As such, an argument that island cohesion would automatically result from consolidation is somewhat of a fallacy, because we cannot know the goals or intentions of future boards of trustees which could also cause division(s). Is the cohesion argument based on actual evidence, or is it simply a hope for cohesion? In my opinion and to date, this argument has not been made. Another consideration, however, is â??nothing ventured, nothing gained.â? Change can and should be productive, but should the change become problematic, can it be undone?
Nancy
-
islandliving
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 9:10 am
- Location: Beaver Island, Michigan
Bob. I disagree with you. If I had put something on the ballot to be voted on I would be expected to provide facts and any answers to support it especially if it will greatly affect the community. Until someone shows me why consolidation will fix the future of Beaver Island or save money to the taxpayers I will make a hard campaign against it. I have started over and over why I thought this was put into play. I canâ??t believe you could request the non-supporter have to provide facts why it is a bad idea. Let the supporters give us something as to why it is a good idea. All speculation to date. I do agree about the getting along. That should have been worked on first. This was a bad move to try to fix the Island.
John McCafferty
John McCafferty
-
Nancy Levant
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:41 am
-
islandliving
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 9:10 am
- Location: Beaver Island, Michigan
-
Mojave Bob
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:55 am
Bill -- I think you missed that what I said is that BOTH sides need to make their best case, because this IS going to a vote. Whether or not this got onto the ballot in the best way or at the best time is water under the bridge now. Learn from it, and do the best with what we have. In no way do I think the pro group has adequately presented their case. Neither has the anti group. And calling me a brainwashed cultist with the koolaid comment really isn't advancing your cause very effectively.
John, why would you be rabidly against anything just because it hasn't been proven to be true? Once it is proven to be false, have at it. But, your stated position is against any and all change, EVER, because all new ideas start out unproven. That is a scary position, and I don't believe that is what you truly think.
I am one of the many who have no vote, but the decision of the few will affect me, possibly significantly. I am hoping for the best decision, and the best possible outcome of that decision. And don't forget that making the best of a bad situation will work out better than making the worst of a good one.
John, why would you be rabidly against anything just because it hasn't been proven to be true? Once it is proven to be false, have at it. But, your stated position is against any and all change, EVER, because all new ideas start out unproven. That is a scary position, and I don't believe that is what you truly think.
I am one of the many who have no vote, but the decision of the few will affect me, possibly significantly. I am hoping for the best decision, and the best possible outcome of that decision. And don't forget that making the best of a bad situation will work out better than making the worst of a good one.
Mr. Mojave . . .
It seemed pretty clear . . . John -- The anti-consolidation group should bring facts forward, because, like it or not, this thing is going to a vote.
Ken . . .
Proponents claim that consolidation will be good for the Island, but you seem to be suggesting some sort of zero-sum game. How does the entire Island benefit if we are merely shifting assets between two sets of taxpayers? Note that if there are other ways to achieve the same result, it cannot be fairly described as a benefit of consolidation.
It seems to me that consolidation should enable the township(s) to provide more or better services at a lower cost. Why bother if it doesn't?
It seemed pretty clear . . . John -- The anti-consolidation group should bring facts forward, because, like it or not, this thing is going to a vote.
Ken . . .
Proponents claim that consolidation will be good for the Island, but you seem to be suggesting some sort of zero-sum game. How does the entire Island benefit if we are merely shifting assets between two sets of taxpayers? Note that if there are other ways to achieve the same result, it cannot be fairly described as a benefit of consolidation.
It seems to me that consolidation should enable the township(s) to provide more or better services at a lower cost. Why bother if it doesn't?
-
Mojave Bob
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:55 am
Bill --
What I said in the previous post was "There has been a lot of (valid) complaint that the pro-consolidation group has not adequately supported their position with facts. I need to also point out that the anti-consolidation crowd has also not given any real facts as to how multiple townships serve the people in a way that a single township cannot, nor what essential services will be lost if consolidation occurs."
Your quote was my subsequent reply to John, who questioned why the anti group has any responsibility to the voters, as do the pro group.
What I said in the previous post was "There has been a lot of (valid) complaint that the pro-consolidation group has not adequately supported their position with facts. I need to also point out that the anti-consolidation crowd has also not given any real facts as to how multiple townships serve the people in a way that a single township cannot, nor what essential services will be lost if consolidation occurs."
Your quote was my subsequent reply to John, who questioned why the anti group has any responsibility to the voters, as do the pro group.
-
Mojave Bob
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:55 am
Also, Bill, I agree with you fully in this -- if we cannot improve on what we have, why change it? That is why I want to hear how two townships is so fantastic. What can it do for us that one township cannot? In what ways does it enable taxpayer dollars to be used more effectively? How does it speed aid and services to the needy in ways that one township will struggle to achieve? How will it give Peaine Township more voice in the critical discussion of transportation to and from the island?
I want to hear these things, and more. If all you can present to us is "I don't think we will gain anything", then just one small advantage offered from the pro camp will win the day. Don't lose by failing to articulate what two townships can do. You feel strongly about your position. Is it because you feel yours is better, or do you just feel threatened by the changes proposed? If you feel your position is better, tell us why.
Pro people, the above goes for you, too. Earn the votes!
I really don't wish to disparage either point of view. I have my opinion, but I hold it loosely. I think it is a valuable discussion, and hopefully, whichever way the vote goes, things will come out of it that make the island better.
I want to hear these things, and more. If all you can present to us is "I don't think we will gain anything", then just one small advantage offered from the pro camp will win the day. Don't lose by failing to articulate what two townships can do. You feel strongly about your position. Is it because you feel yours is better, or do you just feel threatened by the changes proposed? If you feel your position is better, tell us why.
Pro people, the above goes for you, too. Earn the votes!
I really don't wish to disparage either point of view. I have my opinion, but I hold it loosely. I think it is a valuable discussion, and hopefully, whichever way the vote goes, things will come out of it that make the island better.
Ken, Ya bet I have a few things to say about Whiskey Island, it's my home but more so it is the epitome of the whole township consolidation issue. The value of Whiskey Island was at least a million dollars. Rum has dulled and fuzzied a few of my brain cells but as I remember it when St. James was granted Whiskey Island by the state, it was stipulated that they could not sell it for more than $130,000 for some dumb arse reason. In private conversation with then supervisor Don Vyse, I offered full price for the island, cash. My offer was rejected, not even being considered by the township board. The reason given was that the decision had been made to swap the DNR, Whiskey Island for the DNR building on Beaver plus the water front property. I didn't argue because I was going live on Whiskey Island no matter who owned it. Plus, it gave me cash to upgrade my rum still with copper piping and a new boiler. But I digress.
When St. James Township did the deal, the DNR lot on the water split two parcels owned by Buddy Martin where he docked his barges. I went back to Don, rest his soul, and told him it made no sense for the township to own a lot that splits the Martin barge operation lots. I suggested that a swap be done with Buddy so he had two conjoined lots and the township lot would be closer to the Marine Museum. Don told me off the record that there were a couple of township board members who opposed that logical recommendation because they and a couple of families did not want to see Buddy come out with any windfall from this deal. The township cut off its nose to spite its face.
Back to my beginning statement that Whiskey Island is the epitome of the township consolidation issue. People want everyone to think the decision on consolidation is a money issue. It is not a money issue, it goes far deeper than that, it goes to blood and bone. Until people realize that fact, debate will go on forever and families will fall on their swords over accepting a logical decision.
EDITED 2/13: I'VE RECEIVED A FEW PM'S ON THIS POST, MOSTLY POSITIVE BUT A COUPLE REQUESTING WHAT MY POINT ABOVE WAS INTENDED TO MEAN.
A - TOWNSHIPS WITH ALL GOOD INTENTIONS CAN SOMETIMES MAKE DUMB DECISIONS, SPITTING BUDDY'S LOTS.
B - TOWNSHIP BOARDS AND OTHER GROUPS CAN SOMETIMES BE INFLUENCED BY THE VOCAL FEW WHOSE HIDDEN AGENDA IS POWER, INFLUENCE, INSECURITY, TRUFF PROTECTION OR JUST NOT WANTING TO SEE OTHERS RECEIVE GAIN AS IN NOT WANTING BUDDY TO RECEIVE A WINDFALL WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN AT NO COST,LOSS OR EXPENSE TO ANYONE.
C - BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER WHICH SOMETIMES CAUSES SOME TO TAKE A FAMILY POSITION OVER A LOGICAL DECISION.
D - A THOUGHT PRECESS ON THE ISLAND HAS IN THE PAST BEEN WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING CHOICES, THE THINKING HAS BEEN IF "THEY" WIN, "I" LOSE WHICH CAUSES TAKING SIDES AS OPPOSED TO SEARCHING FOR WIN/WIN OUTCOMES.
E - MONEY IS NOT AT THE HEART OF THE CONSOLIDATION ISSUE BECAUSE IF IT WAS A MONEY CONCERN THE DEBATE WOULD CENTER MORE ON KEEPING THE ISLAND ALIVE AND THE LOSS OF TOURISM.
F - TAXES ARE AN ISSUE HURTING THE ISLAND BUT ONE TOWNSHIP OR TWO TOWNSHIPS THERE WILL STILL BE TAXES WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED SEPERATELY REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE.
G - LAST BUT NOT LEAST, 90% OF THE PEOPLE DEBATING CONSOLIDATION HAVE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MINDS WHICH WILL NOT BE CHANGED REGARDLESS OF ANY IRREFUTABLE FACTS PRESENTED.
When St. James Township did the deal, the DNR lot on the water split two parcels owned by Buddy Martin where he docked his barges. I went back to Don, rest his soul, and told him it made no sense for the township to own a lot that splits the Martin barge operation lots. I suggested that a swap be done with Buddy so he had two conjoined lots and the township lot would be closer to the Marine Museum. Don told me off the record that there were a couple of township board members who opposed that logical recommendation because they and a couple of families did not want to see Buddy come out with any windfall from this deal. The township cut off its nose to spite its face.
Back to my beginning statement that Whiskey Island is the epitome of the township consolidation issue. People want everyone to think the decision on consolidation is a money issue. It is not a money issue, it goes far deeper than that, it goes to blood and bone. Until people realize that fact, debate will go on forever and families will fall on their swords over accepting a logical decision.
EDITED 2/13: I'VE RECEIVED A FEW PM'S ON THIS POST, MOSTLY POSITIVE BUT A COUPLE REQUESTING WHAT MY POINT ABOVE WAS INTENDED TO MEAN.
A - TOWNSHIPS WITH ALL GOOD INTENTIONS CAN SOMETIMES MAKE DUMB DECISIONS, SPITTING BUDDY'S LOTS.
B - TOWNSHIP BOARDS AND OTHER GROUPS CAN SOMETIMES BE INFLUENCED BY THE VOCAL FEW WHOSE HIDDEN AGENDA IS POWER, INFLUENCE, INSECURITY, TRUFF PROTECTION OR JUST NOT WANTING TO SEE OTHERS RECEIVE GAIN AS IN NOT WANTING BUDDY TO RECEIVE A WINDFALL WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN AT NO COST,LOSS OR EXPENSE TO ANYONE.
C - BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER WHICH SOMETIMES CAUSES SOME TO TAKE A FAMILY POSITION OVER A LOGICAL DECISION.
D - A THOUGHT PRECESS ON THE ISLAND HAS IN THE PAST BEEN WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING CHOICES, THE THINKING HAS BEEN IF "THEY" WIN, "I" LOSE WHICH CAUSES TAKING SIDES AS OPPOSED TO SEARCHING FOR WIN/WIN OUTCOMES.
E - MONEY IS NOT AT THE HEART OF THE CONSOLIDATION ISSUE BECAUSE IF IT WAS A MONEY CONCERN THE DEBATE WOULD CENTER MORE ON KEEPING THE ISLAND ALIVE AND THE LOSS OF TOURISM.
F - TAXES ARE AN ISSUE HURTING THE ISLAND BUT ONE TOWNSHIP OR TWO TOWNSHIPS THERE WILL STILL BE TAXES WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED SEPERATELY REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE.
G - LAST BUT NOT LEAST, 90% OF THE PEOPLE DEBATING CONSOLIDATION HAVE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MINDS WHICH WILL NOT BE CHANGED REGARDLESS OF ANY IRREFUTABLE FACTS PRESENTED.
Last edited by BI Pirate on Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:39 am, edited 3 times in total.
Skull&CrossBones
-
meadefamily
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Mojave Bob,
There are many that are not for or against, just trying to process through the facts and lack of facts. When someone embelishing numbers or facts to try and make a point they should be called out and held accountable.
A group set forth a proposal, rallied for signatures and then has quietly sat by watching as the mayhem has unfolded. When I read the logic of "just be positive and hopefully your taxes won't go up" or "the townships now pay well over six figures for attorney and audit fees" it causes me to stop and really question if people have a full understanding of how things work. Clearly the statements above are false and misleading.
Yes, I agree the pros and cons of consolidation need to be looked at closely and there should be pros and cons published. When this first started I suggested a disinterested third party do a study. I went as far as to reach out to a non-profit in Michigan that had done this for other townships. I gave them Angels information and Carol Burton's. My understanding is the "opinion" was it was not needed.
I am like you, I own property and pay significant taxes here. I currently do not have a vote (that will be changing) and I also have alot to lose if the wrong choices are made.
From my perspective the group that wants the consolidation needs to be forthright and transparent. They need to provide facts now, not after the vote. We now learn studies were not done, they are "working" on facts and giving out information that is simple not true and documented. It is unfortunate that the few on the forum that choose to continue to stir the pot are not confident in their voice that they have to hide behind false identities. They create another level of distrust.
The group that is against consolidation has had to spent thier efforts shielding against the misinformation presented on the forum and in the public. People are afraid to ask questions.
I understand your point that eventually the side against is going to have to speak and be heard, as it is going for a vote. I have confidence that they will present factual information. Keep in mind....they did not have the luxury of extra time as the group hoping to consolidate has had.
Some have labeled me and would like to think I am anti-consolidation. The truth is I truly don't know where I stand. I do however know that the burden of proof is with the ones wanting it. They stirred the pot, created the noise and asked for a change. If they can't come together and be more prepared then they have been so far they will only hurt themselves.
The township is a business. I have started and sold many businesses and work with banks and investors. If I went to a bank and said I want to merge my businesses and change my direction. The bank would ask for financials, a business plan and solid facts as to why they should back this. This group has walked into the townships business, disrupted business, employees and systems. Voters have a right to demand this group solidify thier business plan and bring forth facts. The burden falls with them and the voters should demand that. If they can not bring forth that then the voters don't need to hear the against consolidation group...the discussion ends.
You can't debate against speculations.
Kathe
There are many that are not for or against, just trying to process through the facts and lack of facts. When someone embelishing numbers or facts to try and make a point they should be called out and held accountable.
A group set forth a proposal, rallied for signatures and then has quietly sat by watching as the mayhem has unfolded. When I read the logic of "just be positive and hopefully your taxes won't go up" or "the townships now pay well over six figures for attorney and audit fees" it causes me to stop and really question if people have a full understanding of how things work. Clearly the statements above are false and misleading.
Yes, I agree the pros and cons of consolidation need to be looked at closely and there should be pros and cons published. When this first started I suggested a disinterested third party do a study. I went as far as to reach out to a non-profit in Michigan that had done this for other townships. I gave them Angels information and Carol Burton's. My understanding is the "opinion" was it was not needed.
I am like you, I own property and pay significant taxes here. I currently do not have a vote (that will be changing) and I also have alot to lose if the wrong choices are made.
From my perspective the group that wants the consolidation needs to be forthright and transparent. They need to provide facts now, not after the vote. We now learn studies were not done, they are "working" on facts and giving out information that is simple not true and documented. It is unfortunate that the few on the forum that choose to continue to stir the pot are not confident in their voice that they have to hide behind false identities. They create another level of distrust.
The group that is against consolidation has had to spent thier efforts shielding against the misinformation presented on the forum and in the public. People are afraid to ask questions.
I understand your point that eventually the side against is going to have to speak and be heard, as it is going for a vote. I have confidence that they will present factual information. Keep in mind....they did not have the luxury of extra time as the group hoping to consolidate has had.
Some have labeled me and would like to think I am anti-consolidation. The truth is I truly don't know where I stand. I do however know that the burden of proof is with the ones wanting it. They stirred the pot, created the noise and asked for a change. If they can't come together and be more prepared then they have been so far they will only hurt themselves.
The township is a business. I have started and sold many businesses and work with banks and investors. If I went to a bank and said I want to merge my businesses and change my direction. The bank would ask for financials, a business plan and solid facts as to why they should back this. This group has walked into the townships business, disrupted business, employees and systems. Voters have a right to demand this group solidify thier business plan and bring forth facts. The burden falls with them and the voters should demand that. If they can not bring forth that then the voters don't need to hear the against consolidation group...the discussion ends.
You can't debate against speculations.
Kathe
-
carolburton
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:27 am
- Contact:
Kathe
I hate to call you out but you seem to do it so frequently to others. Case in point... Your statement that "My understanding is the "opinion" was it was not needed." is totally false and misleading. You were actually thanked for the information and it was passed along to those working on the project. Anyone could have contacted them from your post so why didn't they? or do you not know if they did? Maybe someone did but didn't feel the need to share that on the forum. Were you just speculating?
Clearly you cannot know what we think or do and are speaking on others behalf. Quite speculation on your end. I also believe that people do not need to be called out. What does it do? Nothing but "stir the pot"! You should really know the people that you speak about, anyone who posts, before you make "false and misleading" statements about them. Even some of the biggest post makers have made less personal attacks on specific individuals. I have asked that they not be negative (meaning attacking) but give fact based questions and answers. A debate. I would call most all of the people posting my friends and neighbors no matter how they post nor judge them or hold those opinions against them. Let them vent however they want.
Both townships and independent groups are working diligently to inform us about the pro's and con's. Give them half a chance. They will all decide when to release it to the public. I am sure they have educated and real reasons for not rushing to put their facts out on both sides of the consolidation. You sound as if you have a lot of good information and I would like to see more of your facts about the consolidation. Maybe you can sway the vote and make a difference.
You also act as if "this group" hid in secret. They didn't and if they did who cares anymore. It was posted on the forum and shared. It is also public knowledge. As voters and taxpayers we have the right to have people against the consolidation give logical and solid reasons why this would not be a good idea as much as from those for consolidation. I would hope that every one of our elected officials was considering what this might mean and doing their job to serve the taxpayer by showing their fiduciary duty to the taxpayer. The truth is that the burden falls to everyone pro and con. If it wasn't wanted by a portion of the voters/taxpayers and things were amazingly perfect it wouldn't have gotten to the ballot. Now it is in motion and our choice in checking the box will be moved by what information moves us.
To date I have seen a lot more valid reasons to consolidate than against. I am more than happy to be proven wrong but make an actual fact statement to the contrary.
I am going to apologize in advance for my response to you if it was not your intent to take a low blow strike at me personally for the second time.
Carol
I hate to call you out but you seem to do it so frequently to others. Case in point... Your statement that "My understanding is the "opinion" was it was not needed." is totally false and misleading. You were actually thanked for the information and it was passed along to those working on the project. Anyone could have contacted them from your post so why didn't they? or do you not know if they did? Maybe someone did but didn't feel the need to share that on the forum. Were you just speculating?
Clearly you cannot know what we think or do and are speaking on others behalf. Quite speculation on your end. I also believe that people do not need to be called out. What does it do? Nothing but "stir the pot"! You should really know the people that you speak about, anyone who posts, before you make "false and misleading" statements about them. Even some of the biggest post makers have made less personal attacks on specific individuals. I have asked that they not be negative (meaning attacking) but give fact based questions and answers. A debate. I would call most all of the people posting my friends and neighbors no matter how they post nor judge them or hold those opinions against them. Let them vent however they want.
Both townships and independent groups are working diligently to inform us about the pro's and con's. Give them half a chance. They will all decide when to release it to the public. I am sure they have educated and real reasons for not rushing to put their facts out on both sides of the consolidation. You sound as if you have a lot of good information and I would like to see more of your facts about the consolidation. Maybe you can sway the vote and make a difference.
You also act as if "this group" hid in secret. They didn't and if they did who cares anymore. It was posted on the forum and shared. It is also public knowledge. As voters and taxpayers we have the right to have people against the consolidation give logical and solid reasons why this would not be a good idea as much as from those for consolidation. I would hope that every one of our elected officials was considering what this might mean and doing their job to serve the taxpayer by showing their fiduciary duty to the taxpayer. The truth is that the burden falls to everyone pro and con. If it wasn't wanted by a portion of the voters/taxpayers and things were amazingly perfect it wouldn't have gotten to the ballot. Now it is in motion and our choice in checking the box will be moved by what information moves us.
To date I have seen a lot more valid reasons to consolidate than against. I am more than happy to be proven wrong but make an actual fact statement to the contrary.
I am going to apologize in advance for my response to you if it was not your intent to take a low blow strike at me personally for the second time.
Carol
burton
-
islandliving
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 9:10 am
- Location: Beaver Island, Michigan
So it has come to this. A couple of people circulate a petition to a few registered voters. Let's consolidate our 2 townships into one. Why? Well we don't know why lets just do it. Don't inform the townships of the idea or if so St. James Township remains silent. Don't have any good facts or reasons we just think it will help our Island. Maybe?? Should have sold lottery tickets, at least people woul know if they would win or lose. This is the most crooked political moves I have ever seen on Beaver Island. Now we have supporters to embarrassed to sign their real names telling us who are against the whole scam to get our facts together and support our stand. Welcome to paridise people. What an awesome plan to make Beaver Island a better place to live.
John McCafferty
John McCafferty
-
islandliving
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 9:10 am
- Location: Beaver Island, Michigan