A sad day for Wareham seniors

May 02, 2018

To the Editor:

Yes, a very sad day for seniors living in Wareham from results of the Town Meeting on April 23, where once again town leaders failed to recognize and fund what seniors have been asking for the past few years, a full-time director for the Council on Aging, which is sorely needed.

The Town of Wareham remains today as the only municipality in Massachusetts that does not fund such a position. It seems apparent that many folks don’t feel our seniors living in this town deserve anything.

Seniors make up one-third of the population of residents and pay property taxes and sales taxes thru local businesses that support the town. Yet you hear not one word in regards to half their taxes paid supporting local schools, something they will never use. Of the more than $63 million town budget for this year, Selectmen said they could only justify $20,000 for one-third of its residents, its seniors. This is not a lack of funds, it’s a lack of leadership! And it doesn’t end with the Selectmen, members of the Finance Committee are equally complicit.

Seniors aren’t asking for that much, a position within the town to help guide them thru the many decisions and places of finding help with daily life. Yes, it’s a sad day for seniors, but it’s also a sad day for the entire Town of Wareham!

 

Al Latini

West Wareham

Comments (17)
Posted by: bob | May 02, 2018 12:30

Al,you sure are right,it even higher like the T.A.,and they keep blaming all the problems this town on prop 2 1/2..It funny other town get by ,and have the services that this town doesn't give any of it residents and taxpayers who live here or just own real estate here..but they sure have a sweet working  week at the town hall..Welcome to Wareham..



Posted by: Curiouscat | May 02, 2018 15:19

Al, I agree wholeheartedly with you.  When you are asked in the fall to vote for a new school, get all your friends and neighbors and ban together and vote NO.  That might be one way to get your point across.  It's a shame the way our seniors are treated.



Posted by: WWreader | May 02, 2018 15:51

Al, you make it sound like the elected leaders actually did you and the seniors wrong. The voters at town meeting, which had plenty of seniors in it, voted this DOWN by a 2-1 margin. Not even close. Blaming them is a cheap shot. I challenge you to look at the town budget we all received at town meeting, or on the town website and find one extra dollar that isn't accounted for. And please understand that just because one third of the town is made up of seniors, not all of them have ever, or will ever use the COA services. On the other hand, the library is the most used building and serves residents of all ages. And the skeleton crew in Municipal Maintenance can barely keep the buildings we already have clean and our roads in repair. The Police Department is still not up to full employment, but we expect the same level of service. I could go on. No one hates the seniors. It's a matter of good fiscal management and the town meeting voters clearly agreed. And Curiouscat, taking revenge on our children is just plain uncalled for. Oh and Bob, if I hated Wareham as much as you do, I'd get the hell out. So much negativity isn't good for the soul.



Posted by: Curiouscat | May 02, 2018 19:37

In my opinion, this town does not care about the kids or the seniors.  We're ignoring the seniors and putting the kids in boxes to learn.  As long as the higher ups collect their fat pay checks nothing will change and not to worry WW, I will probably get the hell out in the next few years.  This is not the same town I was born and raised in.  Oh sure the grass isn't always greener on the other side but I'm willing to take that chance.



Posted by: sadie | May 03, 2018 07:13

The people who attended Town Meeting voted this down, as wwreader said, there were a lot of seniors at the meeting. A lot of seniors did not vote for the article and I am one of those seniors. I also know many many seniors who voted against the override.



Posted by: cranky pants | May 03, 2018 07:18

" Police department not up to full employment..."

Buys two motorcycles...

Logic.



Posted by: WWreader | May 03, 2018 08:01

Cranky I'm sure you fully understand the town government and budgeting process. Therefore you understand the difference between capital funding and salary lines. Logic? Duh.



Posted by: cranky pants | May 03, 2018 12:35

I do understand, it was a facetious post. Thanks again forum police.

We got failing roads, a crumbling school system, outrageous water bills, we neglect our seniors and the children... Yet we get shiny trucks and new bikes.

I don't care where the money is derived from, it still looks ugly and has a slight sting.



Posted by: WWreader | May 03, 2018 14:44

Better that the cops can't get to your house when you need it because the car breaks down? Lots of mileage on the cars even if they don't look old which is why they get replaced regularly. And being informed really makes a difference. Knowing where the money comes from is important and helps people to understand where their tax dollars go. Too bad if it looks "ugly" to some people. Safety for the all citizens, young and old, should always be a priority.

By the way, if no one can tell the post is facetious, then it isn't. And yours wasn't. Look it up.



Posted by: rhbinma | May 03, 2018 21:50

I say have the police give out more tickets that will bring in revenue. Just look at all the cars that turn on red lights at the Lowes plaza cops sitting there dont pull them over.Walmart the exit where they want you to go right only people always taking lefts. If the police want new stuff help out instead of sitting parked behind or the side of the West Wareham fire station or better yet hanging out inside.



Posted by: cranky pants | May 04, 2018 07:47

Kudos to WWReader for your continued trials of correction but no. It's one thing to try and correct someone, but it's entirely a different thing when you try to convince the writer and the audience of readers that the words written aren't what was in the true meaning. Go follow up another post and quit trying to further skew my original post to suit your wants.

Let me clarify again in case you got lost along the way. Yes I understand the differences between capitol and operational spending. Yes I believe in safety. Yes I understand the depreciation of abused equipment over time. Yes I appreciate the value of our police department. No we didn't need two motorcycles as much as we could have used a few more seasonal officers. No we can't just shuffle money around and rob Peter to pay Paul. I know that's not how it works.

I don't care if the money is coming from the front pocket or the back pocket of taxpayers... It's still being collected and spent and that's basically all I was saying before we both got dramatic.

Thanks and have a better day.

 

 

 



Posted by: WWreader | May 04, 2018 08:18

Ooh. Looks like I hit a nerve. LOL Since I'm not cranky, all my days are good, but thanks anyway.



Posted by: WeweANTICS | May 04, 2018 09:27

Who do you think voted down the override measures (was it 2013 or 2014??) that would have funded the library, schools, and council on aging? I happen to remember the hoards of seniors saying they couldn't possibly pay one more dollar in taxes. Everrrryone thought there would be a bag of money found somewhere that would keep the status quo. All the town leaders said that wouldnt happen and SURPRISE IT DIDN'T!!

You made your bed and the beds of the children of this town, like it or not.



Posted by: Andrea Smith | May 04, 2018 11:50

Weweantics - Regarding your innuendo about who voted down the 2014 override proposal, is that based upon age related voting statistics provided by the Clerk's office? Maybe you think seniors were the ones who somehow hung anti-override signs so high on utility polls that no one else could take them down? Do you think seniors were the only people who said they couldn't afford the property tax increase that would have resulted from a $4.5 million override? Do you think the only reason that people voted down the override was a personal financial concern? Have you forgotten that the override proposal was preceded by several years of concerning Financial Management Letters, which left at least some voters wondering why they should give the Town an additional $4.5 million in tax revenues a year when it was already having problems accounting for revenues received?



Posted by: WeweANTICS | May 04, 2018 19:04

Andrea -- I will admit that this was my own personal observation throughout town... but I do find it ironic that you bring up the years of financial issues that happened within a time that you worked for a newspaper that loved arguing that everyone in charge was wonderful and then even brought down not only the elected officials but the private citizens who dared to publicly question the situation or dared to say otherwise!!

 

So now you agree that things were not alright???



Posted by: WeweANTICS | May 04, 2018 19:08

Also would the town clerks office even have those statistics because unless somebody took an exit poll how would they know? If somebody did I will happily go get them!!!



Posted by: bruce gannon | May 10, 2018 13:00

Wewe .. no the clerk would not have the stats as voting is a secret ballot so barring the existence of an outside poll there is no way to know what the demographic break down was



If you wish to comment, please login.