Vote for those that truly serve residents

Yesterday’s Daily Herald reported that West Dundee was looking to ensure there was room in their budget to support the “Ride In Kane” program.

The township earlier this year asked village boards in Carpentersville, East Dundee, West Dundee and Sleepy Hollow to contribute a total of $58,000 to help the township match a $90,000 federal transportation grant. A $32,000 subsidy through the Regional Transportation Authority helped offset part of the match.

So far, East Dundee and Sleepy Hollow have agreed to contribute to the program. Meanwhile, a slim majority of the Carpentersville village board denied a request for $13,412…

Based on the report that West Dundee had already included their share in the 2009-10 budget, which they will look at in their March 21st budget meeting, Carpentersville will likely be the only Dundee Township member not contributing to the plan, letting at least $13,412 of federal funds that could have served Carpentersville be reallocated to some other community.

I believe the following discussion about this matter may be helpful to residents in understanding this issue, and being knowledgeable about the ideas represented by some running for Village Board in the April election; namely Ed Ritter, Kay Teeter, Pat Schultz and Brad McFeggan, who are aligned with Trustee Judy Sigwalt.  (Ritter, Teeter, Sigwalt and Humpfer voted against funding “Ride In Kane”, thus rejecting federal tax dollars that would benefit Carpentersville residents.)

A person using the alias, woningkammer, (who is likely a Village board member or has close ties to a certain bloc of the Board) made complaints about the cost of such services.

I had this to say:

So Ritter, Teeter, Sigwalt and Humpfer voted AGAINST nearly $27,000 ($13,412 + 13,412 in matching funds = $26,824) to help fund a program that serves seniors, disabled and needy residents … ?!

woningkammer (and the group he/she supports) SAYS they SERVE, but then condemns programs intended to SERVE. “Seniors? the disabled? the needy? Find your own way!” (They chose to build about 150 yards of sidewalk instead.)

“Seniors, low-income and disabled residents benefit from this program,” [West Dundee] Village Manager Joe Cavallaro said before the meeting. “In these tough economic times, these are the types of programs that we need to maintain.”

Absolutely! With tight budgets everywhere, who in their right mind would vote to NOT accept money for services in their community?

[Amazing that] even with a current campaign slogan, they show they DON’T CARE. No wonder residents don’t believe these people.

woningkammer responded, claiming that I was for “wasteful spending” by supporting such programs, and that “Ride In Kane” was a redundant program which could be handled by NETSPAP and taxis.

I followed up with the following information and comments:

It is sad that you consider services provided to seniors, disabled and low-income residents to be “waste”.  Further, it is obvious that you don’t understand how multi-agency funding helps make important social programs affordable.  And you think I am the one in need of education…?!

NETSPAP serves one particular segment of the community [those who qualify that need a ride to a doctor appointment].  “Ride in Kane”, and other transportation services under the same umbrella, extend services to persons for reasons that would not be covered by NETSPAP [such as transportation to work or local grocery and retail stores for those who are disabled, senior or low-income citizens that also may not be accessible by means such as regular PACE bus routes].

Funding of this sort is a waterfall, with portions coming from several levels of government.  The funding that was voted against by such short-sighted nincompoops was also a rejection of MATCHING FEDERAL FUNDS — federal tax dollars being returned to the local community.  It gets returned through those ” multiple … budget line items”.

“One elected to office” SERVES EFFECTIVELY by also doing what is necessary to get, keep and use tax dollars in their community.  To let them go elsewhere is WASTEFUL; waste that will ultimately increase our tax liability, not to mention put strains on other agencies, both public and private. (Yes, you are saying it should be eliminated by calling it “wasteful”. Do you expect us to believe you want to keep a service you think “wasteful”?)

Make your stand against waste somewhere else, instead of against senior, disabled and low-income citizens.