Report Inappropriate Comments

This is getting so tiresome, yet I find myself in the position to once again demonstrate, how little knowledge of virtually any subject matter the fake mayor has to rely upon.

For the record, with exception to beach fees at the polluted City Park, I disagree with you on every point of speculation you have ever put forth. For the record, I have performed exhaustive analysis of the city budget and departmental spending, have spent enormous amount of money on access to public records, and I speak only with documentation on hand to support anything I speak of. Unlike yourself.

For the record again, my 21st request, can you identify the line item that you will utilize to implement your "buy a house, get a check" program from.

Now to your points:

1. New rescue vehicles have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with sick pay, but I am glad to hear you support the idea of having more of them.

Response - New rescues have everything to do with "unused sick pay bonuses". The cost of this scam last year was $1,092,421 split between 114 men. This cost will continue to increase. It is abusive, it is so loosely controlled that it is staggering. Every management person has been part of this scheme for years, and there is no end in sight. It is a line item that has been negotiated by the mayor and the union without the input of the taxpayers, with no forethought as to the balloon effect, and implemented into an already bloated budget that has never been controlled. People should not be paid extra for coming to work and not calling out sick. The numbers clearly show that it is a mathematical impossibility that virtually every man on the list is paid the maximum unused sick pay when the department accounted for 1915 sick days, from July 1 to March 22. It is a point in the contract that must be changed and that line item of dollars can be used for better purposes such as purchasing rescues. We cant continue to buy vehicles on the city credit card which is what we are, and have been doing.

Further, I DO NOT agree with you that more rescues will make more money. Where is your data to substantiate that? Just because the rescues that we have currently brought in X amount of dollars, does not mean that doubling the rescues will double the dollars. You are suggesting that doubling the rescues will double the amount of rescue calls. I highly doubt that the illnesses and maladies in the community will double just because the fake mayor throws out more speculation.

2. If we make "large" money with each new taxpayer added to the roles, only a fool would be unable to find the "small" money to fund it.

Response - You must then be the fool as you still have not answered from what line item in the budget you intend to fund this speculative program. You have no data to suggest possible revenue, average revenue, income, etc... Another BS plan without merit. Oh, did I forget to ask from what line item you will be cutting the check? Would it be 35-100? Oh no, that's the fire department sick leave line item that is in direct violation of the city ordinance. I forgot , my mistake.

3. The projected "loss of revenue" would be the up-front revenue lost from the permit fee. (usually between $1,000 and $1,500).

Please substantiate the "fee cost" by producing how many permits have been pulled in the past 1, 3, and 5 years historically. Please substantiate from what line item in the building dept. budget would be effected, and please substantiate the estimated amount of new or existing homes that would be effected, their tax base, and the revenue that would be generated. I am assuming that you are speaking off new construction homes, because if you are speaking of buying an existing house, you have a net zero revenue program as that existing house is already on the tax roles. In fact, in that scenario, "your buy a house get a check" program will have a net negative impact to the tax roles as you will be giving away revenue. If you are speaking of new construction, which is the only way this charlatan plan could produce revenue, how many lots are now available for constructing subdivisions? And for the record, you are wrong AGAIN, and I DO NOT agree with you. Oh, did I ask you from what line item you intend to cut the checks from?

4. Thanks for agreeing with me on this one. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Response - Agreed, the crap hole of a beach called City Park, should have a fee for non-residents. I think the implementation of this idea alone will certainly solve our unfunded pension liabilities that are currently in excess of $800 million.

5. You and I BOTH asked that question. "How?" Vella-Wilkinson answered it.

Response - Vella Wilkinson is a total fiscal failure for the City of Warwick and worse for the state. Her proposal failed. Do you not understand that? Let me remind you that Vella Wilkinson was the primary mechanism that removed the city council's litigation against the FAA and RIAC. Vella Wilkinson was the signatory of the MOU of the new ball fields that were constructed 100 yards away from an active runway. She signed the document on behalf of the taxpayers. Have you read the document?? Of course you haven't. The document states that at any time with 180 days notice, RIAC can cancel the lease to the city and the city must pay for all expenses to return the land back to RIAC in the same condition that it was in previous to the construction. Bet ya didnt know that did ya? She is a disaster. Her ideas border on communistic principals, and she is your idol. My God. Read a book ! Tell us of how you will renegotiate a contract with the federal government. A construction contract no less, where the construction has been completed? You think more sound proofing will make the families whole that have lost their homes and been displaced over theories of speculation? More evidence that you know nothing about the history of this airport expansion. Do you know anything about the mathematical formula of thrust vs weight of a Boeing 737-300? Probably not. Look into it and see how it was an integral part of the mechanism that brought to fruition the airport expansion as I just don't have the time or patience to educate you.

6. How can you possibly say that. They don't even have a contract!!

I guess you have yet too understand that the quality of education in the City of Warwick does not justify 1 penny more in salary. By the way, have you read the legislation about perpetual contracts. I bet you think that is a good idea as well. A contract has a beginning date and an end date. Perpetual contracts are nothing more than a noose around the neck of the management. Lets say that as an example, you entered into a perpetual contract with your mortgage company. That would mean that even though you have been forcibly evicted from the premises at 177 Grand View, you would still have to honor all of the stipulations in the contract. How's that sound Rick??

7. Great! You agree with me! However, shouldn't we start with the biggest budget?

Response - I stated that the City needs to audit every department. Are you aware that by charter the city has no financial management interest in the school department? Maybe you'll change that too. For the record, I disagree with virtually everything that you have ever said. Even when it comes to fishing and boating.

8.Why no comment?

No comment means no comment. The issue is not relevant enough to justify my time.

9. You're right. "This does nothing to SOLVE" today's problems, but have you ever heard of the phrase "take care of tomorrow and today will take care of itself"?

Response - Your logic is so utterly stupid that any attempt to educate you would be a waste of time and text.

Summation:

1. I am not a "self-proclaimed fake mayor". I'm a self-proclaimed "The Taxpayers Mayor"

You represent no-one (other than yourself of course, pro-se), in numerous civil lawsuits that were instituted for failure to pay bills. Just as you failed to pay your taxes and mortgage. You do not represent people who live up to the obligations that they sign on to. You should be ashamed of yourself as a mortgage broker whose excuse for foreclosure and tax sale is that you entered into a predatory loan.

I bought my house in 2004 when the market was at its highest. The house was not worth what I paid for it but you buy a house when you need a house. Instead of defaulting on the mortgage when the market crashed, you know what I did? I walked into the bank and paid off the mortgage thereby eliminating any loss due to interest on a mortgage. That's right, paid it off in 5 years. By the way, I still continue to pay my property taxes, unlike yourself. You should be ashamed.

Now I need to go boating.