Pleasure rides?

If you're against the take home vehicles for commuting, that's a reasonable argument.  To categorize them as "pleasure drives" is disingenuous.

RE: vehicles - eventually they need to get replaced.  Ericson argument did not appear to be against purchasing the vehicle as much as he wanted to ensure there were more bids.  He may want to
certain if he is accusing people of shaping bids for specific vendors.

No competitive bids-no problem! This is Schenectady your Miracle City! Problems what problems? McCarthy gots a plan-raise taxes/fees and expand Downtown tax exemptions. Pleasure commutes from Lake Luzerne will no longer be tolerated. If you work for the City and are a manager move to the City bring your own vehicle/cell phone. Erickson always makes the right noises in committee and folds like a cheap suit at Council meetings. Cuts McCarthy don't want no stinkin cuts.

Are you kidding me    IF someone gets bit by a dog, that is between the dog owner and whoever was bit. The city has NOTHING to do with it, it's up to the police and dog warden to handle the situation. (Quarantine dog, any criminal charges etc. )

Quoted Text

The council did support another dog-related proposal: insurance. Polster wants owners of all dogs over 20 pounds to have general liability insurance, which can be obtained through renter’s and homeowner’s insurance.

The city can't force people to buy insurance, oh wait this sounds vaguely familiar  

If people want to purchase insurance that's their decision. If they don't then they should be fully liable for medical bills incurred. If they are working have their pay garnished. If they are on an entitlement a portion of their "entitlement" should be taken away each month and sent to the victim, yeah like that will ever happen lol.

I could understand a landlord requiring renters insurance as part of the lease of an apartment as it is his/her property that is being used.

Keybank will probably start offering Dog insurance.  

Will this be needed once the "universal" healthcare is fully forced upon us?

What is the landlords responsibility?  IF they rent to someone who owns dogs and someone is bitten would the landords homeowners insurance pay?

Because a landlord does not have to allow dogs. If they find the tenant lied and does have dogs, the landlord should give them X amount of days to get rid of them or the tenant faces eviction.

Don't know why even thinking about this, it's the city's way of distracting us from the real issues.

Problem is too many strays.

Problem is the mayor and council.

Um, wrong thread?

Quoted from visitor

Pleasure rides?

If you're against the take home vehicles for commuting, that's a reasonable argument.  To categorize them as "pleasure drives" is disingenuous.

.

It's such a nice scenic drive going north.   How about this   A city employee takes a taxpayer-paid car for the drive home to Saratoga.   But he or she wants to pick up some groceries on sale at Shop-Rite.   You don't think for one minute that the city employee is going to drive all the way to Saratoga, park the taxpayer-paid car in the driveway, get in his/her personal vehicle and drive all the way back down here to shop in order to drive all the way back.   Suppose the city employee has a parent who lives in Rotterdam and has an opthamologist appointment at a location in Nisky, it's a sunny day and eye drops will be used (have you ever gone outside following eye drops?).  The city employee is going to take his/her parent to the doctor.   Do you think for one moment that the city employee is going to drive the taxpayer-paid car all the way home to Clifton Park, Saratoga, Wilton, or other points, park the car in their drive way, get his/her personal vehicle, drive back down here to take parent to the doctor?   Absolutely NOT.   Thus, it is the taxpayers who will be footing the bill for all such trips.    Due to the high cost of gas, we all do errands on our way home to/from work unless the destination is close to our homes.   City employees with cars will be doing these errands on the taxpayer dime.

Same city employee has a child in school, let's say at Shen.   Child plays a sport, Shen is playing at Schdy H.S at 5:30   Employee gets off at 5:00 from work.   You don't think for one minute that the employee is going to drive his/her taxpayer paid car all the way home, park the car in the driveway, and get in his or her personal car to drive back down here to attend the game, which would mean arriving at it late.   THAT is pleasure driving.

Remember the Schenectady cop driving a taxpayer paid vehicle (police car) on the taxpayer dime (while on the clock at work) who took the pleasure drive OUTSIDE of the city to watch his son bowl!   And how about the cop who attended a doctor appointment on the taxpayer dime?


But the bottom line is WHY, tell us WHY are these CITY employees ALLOWED to avoid paying CITY taxes by living far outside the city in the first place?  Police, fire, and department heads are making six figure salaries.   They are the ones who are avoiding paying the taxes, they are the ones who are proposing budgets with such outlandish spending.   They propose such outlandish spending because THEY ARE NOT PAYING THE BILL!!!!!!   And these high paid employees are the ones who CAN MORE THAN AFFORD a $7,000 a year property tax bill.   Instead, they make the outlandish salaries and propose budgets that but the burden of these high tax bills on the families in the city, most of whom have annual household incomes of only about $35,000 a year !!!!!!!!!   The people of the city CANNOT AFFORD to pay for lavish expensive cars for high paid city employees to take taxpayer-paid cars for the pleasure drive home to and from work.



.

The solution is simple, the Feds need to investigate why the City isn't reporting the milage driven by it's employees.  The Feds need to audit the City employees for failure to report the TAXABLE BENEFIT.   FACT: This is tax evasion!  Theft

shhhh

go along with it

Quoted from TakingItBack

The solution is simple, the Feds need to investigate why the City isn't reporting the milage driven by it's employees.  The Feds need to audit the City employees for failure to report the TAXABLE BENEFIT.   FACT: This is tax evasion!  Theft

The FBI and an army of forensic accountants need to go to City Hall and pour over the books of these DEM morons. Nobody knew that the City was losing $100,000 PER WEEK until 6 months after the election? WTF! And now they want to slam property owners with a large dog tax and more City vehicles. Cut NOTHING. Layoff NO ONE. Fix the street and get the h*** out. Everyone except newbies Vince Riggi and Lisa Perazzo needs to be chased out of City Hall. Did you hear about the new City Engineer? lol.

Just give them what they want, or ELSE.


  The police state knows who you are, and they get paid to monitor us here.

For a person who is always assreting that arguments be fact based - it is hypocritical to base on argument on what you think or suggest is happening.

If individuals are using their vehicles to run personal errands that would be an abuse of the policy.  Personally, I do not see a problem if an individual does not go out of their way to run an errand but stops on the way home to pick up an item.  And, they are not supposed to have other people in the vehicle - againa  violation.  If they have done that it should be reported.  IF - not simply you suggesting that it probably happens.  Again -0 you are the one always arguing about the need for arguments to be based on facts - reality.

The employee who stopped at dentist's office did  not do it in a city vehicle and that was addressed.  As was the bowling incident and that was  a few years ago - correct.

Again, the vehicles are for travel to and from work. If  a taxpayer wantsto take that perk away, they pay the bills - so that's their right.  But, your argument is based on what you suggest is happeneing - had someone else based their argument on suggestion, hypothetical, etc. - you would shouting to the heavens for that person to provide proof.

Quoted from visitor

For a person who is always assreting that arguments be fact based - it is hypocritical to base on argument on what you think or suggest is happening.

If individuals are using their vehicles to run personal errands that would be an abuse of the policy.  Personally, I do not see a problem if an individual does not go out of their way to run an errand but stops on the way home to pick up an item. And, they are not supposed to have other people in the vehicle - againa  violation.  If they have done that it should be reported.  IF - not simply you suggesting that it probably happens.  Again -0 you are the one always arguing about the need for arguments to be based on facts - reality.

The employee who stopped at dentist's office did  not do it in a city vehicle and that was addressed.  As was the bowling incident and that was  a few years ago - correct.

Again, the vehicles are for travel to and from work. If  a taxpayer wantsto take that perk away, they pay the bills - so that's their right.  But, your argument is based on what you suggest is happeneing - had someone else based their argument on suggestion, hypothetical, etc. - you would shouting to the heavens for that person to provide proof.

Saving this for posterity.

I don't.  Indicidual has to drive by a CVS on the way home and stops to fill a prescription.  I don't see that as that big of a deal.  But, it's up to the
taxpayers - and soemhting like that sure doesn't qaulify as a "pleasure ride".

Quoted from visitor

I don't.  Indicidual has to drive by a CVS on the way home and stops to fill a prescription.  I don't see that as that big of a deal.  But, it's up to the
taxpayers - and soemhting like that sure doesn't qaulify as a "pleasure ride".

those are the key words..................doesn't matter what you, I or anyone else thinks.................let the people who are footing the bill decide