Unintended(?) Consequenses

A corollary to the previous post deals with the specific issue of the personal use of town vehicles.

The Democrat and Chronicle story on this topic was mainly intended as part of its metro government agenda. But inasmuch as I am a cynic when it comes to these things, I can't help but wonder if there wasn't something more to it.

First, the story only really dealt with cars used by Supervisors in three towns, Gates, Greece, and Webster. Why not throw in Brighton and Irondequoit? Both of those towns, like the three mentioned in the story, have police departments. The supervisors of those towns both have town vehicles for personal use. Is is possible that they were not mentioned because those towns have Democrat supervisors?

UPDATE: 4/26/07
I owe the D&C an apology on this point. I learned that the Supervisors in Brighton and Irondequoit gave up their cars. Ms. Frankel apparently made refusing the car a campaign promise; Ms. Heyman gave hers up after a few months in office. So there was no mystery. Mea Culpa.

Further, the Democrats in Gates have tried to exploit the fact that Supervisor Esposito has a town vehicle, for political purposes. Up to now, the issue hasn't had much traction, being seen by most for what it is, a cheap political ploy intended to create ill will against Esposito in the public. Now, however, in light of this article, personal use of a town vehicle is being viewed as an unnecessary "perk".

I happen to view this as an unfortunate development. Rather than looking at an elected official's car as part of his or her overall compensation, we are led to look at the car in a vacuum and think of it as an inappropriate "benny". Has anyone looked at the Supervisor's overall compensation relative to other Supervisors of large towns in Monroe County? Is Ralph's salary and non-monetary compensation (health insurance, disability, town vehicle cost, etc.) excessive relative to those others or to public officials in the county generally? G-C School Superintendent Stein gets a car as part of his compensation, as do most school superintendents (to go along with their six-figure salaries). Will we ask them all to give up their cars, too?

The Democrats in Gates have tried to get voters to focus on a number of bogus issues so that they don't get the true picture. They have focused on tax rates rather than average taxes, in an effort to suggest that Gates' government is inefficient. Democrat Treasurer Ross likes to say that a taxpayer in Brighton pays less taxes on a $100,000 house than a Gates taxpayer does because our tax rate is higher. He never explains how this is possible given the fact that the Town of Brighton spends millions more than the Town of Gates and raises millions more from its tax levy. His example ignores the fact that in Brighton the taxes paid by owners of much more valuable real estate subsidize the $100,000 homeowner, while Gates must make do with much lower assessed valuation.

The car issue is the same; a red herring intended to rile people up so they won't notice that Ralph Esposito is one of the lowest paid full-time Supervisors in the county, despite his years of experience in government. Rather than looking at the car cost in a vacuum, the people of Gates should consider it as part of Ralph's total compensation, and then compare total compensation for Supervisors, before chastising him for having a town vehicle. In fact, a close look at municipal salaries will reveal that the employees of the Town of Gates are modestly compensated relative to their counterparts in other Towns. This is information that I hope will be brought to the voters to counter the D&C's anti-town agenda and the Democrats' political opportunism.

That brings me back to my original point. I don't want to go "tin-foil hat" here, but it almost seems like there is coordination between the D&C and our Democrat opponents. The Gates Blogger had stories on tax rates and town vehicles within 24 hours of each story appearing in the print D&C. His take on both stories is very sympathetic to the Gates Dems positions. Hmmm...... I wonder...... nah, it can't be. Or can it?