Tuesday’s Franklin police referendum calls for adding three (3), 3, 3 police officers that would automatically be on the Franklin property taxpayer rolls for the next 18 years.
My family 100% supports law enforcement in town. The people that need to know, know.
And the referendum will pass. Adding police officers to increase public safety is a good thing, right?
Even so, we’ll be voting NO.
This entire episode was botched and flawed from the beginning.
Adding police officers should have been addressed with the appropriate, usual method done by local municipalities each and every year across the entire state…during annual budget deliberations.
Instead, here in Franklin, elected officials abandoned their responsibility they were elected to take on. They ignored making the tough decisions, took the Pontius Pilate approach, and punted their duty to the voters. We couldn’t do it. You make the call. Bail us out. A move loaded with shame. But this is the way we do things in Franklin where the mega-population is fiscally conservative but are nowhere the beneficiary of such from our elected representation.
Franklin officials did what they do best. They foolishly spent money on a useless public survey that asked citizens for permission to hire the moon, including police, fire, and paramedics. They reacted with jaws on the sidewalk when informed by respondents that no, the city was asking for too much. So the city had no choice but to scale down in order to wipe the three-egg omelet off their face and rescue a yes vote on a referendum that they are now sure to achieve, even though they weren’t close to being honest about the entire affair.
In so doing they turned, for example, our police chief into I’m willing to bet an unwilling public lobbyist.
Interesting side notes. I work with two Franklin residents. They’ve lived in Franklin and paid exorbitant property taxes for many years. They never received the public safety surveys.
In addition, they both were unaware of this referendum. When I spoke to them about the upcoming vote, here’s what they told me.
1) He was not surprised as his eyes rolled. Not happy about lack of transparency or being informed. Not happy about 18-year automatic tax increase.
2) She immediately said she was voting NO, and would do so to be consistent with past votes on referendum questions. Her view (God love her) is that a referendum usually calls for a tax/spending increase. So her vote Tuesday would be NO.
But how can you argue against this referendum without being considered anti-police?
Easy. I just did.