One can also compare not only the address side, but also the back side of the John Rossi for re-election post card with the back of the folded piece from Linda Moore.
Both pieces arrived at some homes Thursday in support of their respective candidacies for Grafton Township Supervisor.
I have done an extensive analysis of the Rossi’s card stock, black and white piece below. You can find the article here.
By looking at the two, you can see Rossi has a photo, while Moore doesn’t.
Rossi uses bigger type to urge people to vote. The left hand side is more eye-catching, I think. (You can click to enlarge both pieces.) The small type on both candidate’s pieces is large enough to read easily, but Rossi’s has less white space and white space makes whatever advertising you see easier to read.
Moore’s is on glossy paper and has splashes of red ink in headlines.
Moore continues her attack on Rossi’s having borrowed $3.5 million to build a new township hall on Haligus Road in Lake in the Hills.
your home…without asking your permission?
the slanted red headline reads.
This is a reprise of an earlier pale yellow post card.
But the question gets more emphasis with its larger headlines.
Under the question is the following:
Your Grafton Township Supervisor and his township board have done something very close to that.
They have borrowed—in your name—$3.5 million to build a new township hall..in the middle of a recession…while spending $17,000 last year helping people in need with General Assistance.
You will have to pay back that $3.5 million—PLUS interest—with your property taxes.
If you want an elected official who will ask you opinion before you are put in debt…
Then in bigger print is the vote for Linda Moore pitch.
Something about the inside of the four-page 8½ by 11 piece later.
What a comical attempt at smearing a reputable man. How ironic that Mrs Moore keeps talking about a second mortgage, yet cannot provide tangible proof that she has one herself because she’s living tax-free and rent-free on school district property. Nothing like supporting tax-dodgers and scofflaws?
Election time is a period when we see a lot of comments and opinions. While some of these may be true, many are simply jockeying by the candidates to try to better their position in the race. The race for the Grafton Township Supervisor is no different. So let’s take a few minutes and look at some facts:
1. The Grafton Township budget has increased with the incumbent. A couple of examples on record in the township minutes are:
a. Attorney fees incurred due to the township supervisor and road commissioner have difficulty working together and therefore each rely on an attorney to handle their differences
b. A staff member who was constantly praised for doing a good job was suddenly dismissed under very questionable circumstances. She was replaced with two new employees thereby increasing the overall salary expense to the taxpayers by over $17,000 per year
c. Expenses incurred for some employees to work from a home office.
d. The Supervisor’s salary has increased to the where he currently receives $42, 070 per year with plans for further increases. (The incumbent is in a full-time employee of the state. The days he is in the office, he arrives at the township offices around 2:30 in the afternoon. As the township office closing at 4:30, his equivalent hourly pay rate is around $82 per hour).
2. Most of Grafton township falls within and the boundaries of Huntley and Crystal Lake, and, as such, the residents receive most of their services from these cities, not from the township.
3. Arguments offered for the need of a new building just don’t add up.
a. As we have not seen “lines at the food pantry” we believe this is grossly overstated. However, if this is the case, has a comprehensive study and cost-benefit analysis of all the alternatives for providing additional space has not been done and/or has not been shared with the taxpayers. Therefore, how can the Grafton Township Board make a “build verses rent” decision?
b. Why does the senior transportation service need additional space within the township office building? There is a dispatcher and the drivers whom are out on the road. We don’t understand how this would change in a new building.
c. We have actually seen that some are trying to have us believe the new building needed in part to have a polling place? Come on; think we would agree to build a new $3.5 million building for voting. Really?? Why not use schools for a polling place like most communities?
d. How can a $3.5 million structure be built without having a tax impact? Mr. Rossi said, “We were able to secure funding without raising taxes and without needing a referendum,” Rossi said. “We were able to do enough belt-tightening.”
We believe it is misleading to tell the taxpayers there would not be a tax increase. The money has to come from somewhere. As their source of income is from taxes, it is only logically to assume this money will come from the taxes we pay and additional taxes will be required.
However, if Mr. Rossi is able to do enough “belt-tightening” to find $3.5 million, it seems to follow the township either has a surplus and has over levied in the past, and if the building is not built, we should see some tax relief as the surplus is used to cover existing expenses.
In addition, it logical to assume the cities within Grafton Township will continue to grow and annex more of the rural areas of the township. With this, Grafton Township responsibilities will diminish over time further questioning the need for a $3.5 million building.
The bottom line, if additional space is truly needed for the township offices and a comprehensive study was done regarding the alternatives and this was shared with the public, we would not see all the email and letters to the newspapers. Therefore, it not only seams as good business but also fairness to the taxpayers that this project be suspended until some hard questions are asked and good business practices prevail.