The New ILNY commercial

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Ron Goodrich

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 5:03:55 PM10/27/00
to
The subway series has given George Pataki another chance to spend money
on NYC. There is a new commercial that aired around the World Series
talking about the Yankees and Mets, then cutting to other NYC
attractions. Apparently there are still people in this country that
still have never heard of New York City, even with the subway series.
Why not spend the money where it is more needed, the various areas of
Upstate? They only have one commercial out that lumps the whole state
in together to help NYS tourism. Most people aren't going to travel all
over the state in one week, unless of course they are campaigning for
the Senate. No area Upstate has a substantial national image, and this
hurts tourism. If the state would have a series of commercial, each one
focusing on a different region of Upstate and all the things to do
there, tourism could flourish. But they won't, because they need to
remind the world about the city that never shuts up. Isn't NYC big
enough to sell itself? Can't Guiliani star in his own commercials in
his city, and send Incurious George north for a cameo or two? Niagara
Falls decays, and still George stays away. Will he wait until Whiteface
Mt. turns pale? Or 'til the Fingerlakes fall off? You could easily
spend a week in any region of Upstate and not see and do everything. We
need to spend the money where it is needed, Upstate. When the tax
dollars start coming in from increased tourism, then spend some
downstate. Upstate needs some attention. Maybe we'll just have to do
it ourselves!

Jerry

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 5:14:12 PM10/28/00
to

Ron Goodrich <rongo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:39F9EDBA...@charter.net...


Ron, you keep missing the whole point. The voters are downstate. It
doesn't make any difference that it doesn't make sense to promote NYC.
Pataki, like all the other politicians has to cater to the voters and the
masses are downstate.

They've never been concerned with Upstate, except when it comes to building
the largest toll road system in the country. This gives them a chance to
create 100's of political jobs at no cost to the downstate voters. We in
Upstate, of course, have to pay the bill.

Ron, you are correct, we could do it much, much better ourselves. Let NY
keep Pataki, Lazio, Schumer, and Hillary. None of them are of any value to
us.


--
Regards,
Jerry

For more info on a FREE and Independent Upstate New York
please visit our (decidedly poor) web site (no cookies, no Java, no X) at:

http://www.frontiernet.net/~onplane


Jerry

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 5:15:37 PM10/28/00
to

Ron Goodrich <rongo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:39F9EDBA...@charter.net...

Henrietta K. Thomas

unread,
Oct 30, 2000, 4:28:38 AM10/30/00
to
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 17:15:37 -0400, "Jerry" <onp...@frontiernet.net>
wrote, in us.issues.statehood.upstate-ny:

I heard a news report that Upstaters are leaning toward Lazio
for Senate rather than Clinton. Know of any figures which
would substantiate or disprove?

But I guess you'd say it doesn't make any difference which
of them is elected, right?

Henrietta K. Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h...@wwa.com

Leonard Pulver

unread,
Oct 30, 2000, 1:19:30 PM10/30/00
to

Ron Goodrich wrote:
>
> The subway series has given George Pataki another chance to spend money
> on NYC. There is a new commercial that aired around the World Series
> talking about the Yankees and Mets, then cutting to other NYC
> attractions. Apparently there are still people in this country that
> still have never heard of New York City, even with the subway series.
> Why not spend the money where it is more needed, the various areas of
> Upstate?

Taki is only fishing for sales tax dollars
from tourists
and other visitors to the city. You know
him.
Its_the_bottom_line_stupid ! :-)

Jerry

unread,
Oct 31, 2000, 10:42:03 PM10/31/00
to

Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote in message
news:9dbqvsgih3jo64ceu...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 17:15:37 -0400, "Jerry" <onp...@frontiernet.net>
> wrote, in us.issues.statehood.upstate-ny:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Ron, you keep missing the whole point. The voters are downstate. It
> >doesn't make any difference that it doesn't make sense to promote NYC.
> >Pataki, like all the other politicians has to cater to the voters and the
> >masses are downstate.
> >
> >They've never been concerned with Upstate, except when it comes to
building
> >the largest toll road system in the country. This gives them a chance to
> >create 100's of political jobs at no cost to the downstate voters. We in
> >Upstate, of course, have to pay the bill.
> >
> >Ron, you are correct, we could do it much, much better ourselves. Let NY
> >keep Pataki, Lazio, Schumer, and Hillary. None of them are of any value
to
> >us.
>
> I heard a news report that Upstaters are leaning toward Lazio
> for Senate rather than Clinton. Know of any figures which
> would substantiate or disprove?
>
> But I guess you'd say it doesn't make any difference which
> of them is elected, right?
>
> Henrietta K. Thomas
> Chicago, Illinois
> h...@wwa.com


Absolutely correct, Henrietta!

Tweddle Dee or Tweddle Dum .... makes no difference to us. We'll be
forgotten about 10 seconds after the election.

If Lazio's elected he'll continue to work for the masses in Lawn Guyland.

If Hillary's elected she'll work for the children of the world. Makes no
difference that we can't afford to pay for it.

Henrietta K. Thomas

unread,
Nov 2, 2000, 3:01:48 PM11/2/00
to
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:42:03 -0500, "Jerry" <onp...@frontiernet.net>
wrote, in us.issues.statehood.upstate-ny:

>


>Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote in message
>news:9dbqvsgih3jo64ceu...@4ax.com...

[snip]

>> I heard a news report that Upstaters are leaning toward Lazio
>> for Senate rather than Clinton. Know of any figures which
>> would substantiate or disprove?
>>
>> But I guess you'd say it doesn't make any difference which
>> of them is elected, right?

[snip]


>Absolutely correct, Henrietta!
>
>Tweddle Dee or Tweddle Dum .... makes no difference to us. We'll be
>forgotten about 10 seconds after the election.
>
>If Lazio's elected he'll continue to work for the masses in Lawn Guyland.
>
>If Hillary's elected she'll work for the children of the world. Makes no
>difference that we can't afford to pay for it.

OK, so let me ask you a couple of questions.

If Upstate became a state, you'd have two Senators
of your own who might be more tuned in to your needs.
How many seats would you get in the US House of
Representatives, and how many electoral votes would
you have?

Henrietta

Tom Hand

unread,
Nov 2, 2000, 3:19:43 PM11/2/00
to
"Henrietta K. Thomas" <usa...@wwa.com> wrote in message
news:aph30t8hueo99rkp9...@4ax.com...

Probably 12 Representatives for now (existing districts 20 through 31) -
which would be 14 electoral college votes. But it is anticipated that New
York State will lose 3 or 4 representatives once the new census comes out
and all of those would be from upstate because that is where the population
is going down - it is going up in the New York metropolitan area.


Jerry

unread,
Nov 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/3/00
to

Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote in message
news:c4q40t43bfdnh4bq7...@4ax.com...
> Starting a new thread in the hope of getting more people
> involved in this......Also crossposting to ny.politics.
>
>
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 20:19:43 GMT, "Tom Hand" <tro...@altavista.com>

> wrote, in us.issues.statehood.upstate-ny:
>
> >"Henrietta K. Thomas" <usa...@wwa.com> wrote in message
> >news:aph30t8hueo99rkp9...@4ax.com...
>
> [snip]

>
> >> If Upstate became a state, you'd have two Senators
> >> of your own who might be more tuned in to your needs.
> >> How many seats would you get in the US House of
> >> Representatives, and how many electoral votes would
> >> you have?
> >>
> >
> >Probably 12 Representatives for now (existing districts 20 through 31) -
> >which would be 14 electoral college votes. But it is anticipated that
New
> >York State will lose 3 or 4 representatives once the new census comes out
> >and all of those would be from upstate because that is where the
population
> >is going down - it is going up in the New York metropolitan area.
>
> So they will have to do a re-districting for the entire State, and
> the lines will probably be drawn to favor the Democrats. That
> would not be so good for Upstate if Upstate tends to vote
> Republican. Has there been any discussion of this in the
> local press?
>
> Henrietta


One of the strong tenets of the new state would be to empower county
governments. It would be my strong recommendation to build some guidelines
into the state constitution that would require redistricting to follow
county lines.

This notion of drawing up districts to insure that the party in power
remains in power is total nonsense regardless of which party is in power.
The districts ought to aggregations of people with common and similar
interests. What better common interest is there than the well being of your
county?

Ron Goodrich

unread,
Nov 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/3/00
to

Jerry wrote:

> Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote in message

> news:c4q40t43bfdnh4bq7...@4ax.com...
> > Starting a new thread in the hope of getting more people
> > involved in this......Also crossposting to ny.politics.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 20:19:43 GMT, "Tom Hand" <tro...@altavista.com>

> > wrote, in us.issues.statehood.upstate-ny:
> >
> > >"Henrietta K. Thomas" <usa...@wwa.com> wrote in message

> > >news:aph30t8hueo99rkp9...@4ax.com...
> >
> > [snip]


> >
> > >> If Upstate became a state, you'd have two Senators
> > >> of your own who might be more tuned in to your needs.
> > >> How many seats would you get in the US House of
> > >> Representatives, and how many electoral votes would
> > >> you have?
> > >>
> > >

> > >Probably 12 Representatives for now (existing districts 20 through 31) -
> > >which would be 14 electoral college votes. But it is anticipated that
> New
> > >York State will lose 3 or 4 representatives once the new census comes out
> > >and all of those would be from upstate because that is where the
> population
> > >is going down - it is going up in the New York metropolitan area.
> >

> > So they will have to do a re-districting for the entire State, and
> > the lines will probably be drawn to favor the Democrats. That
> > would not be so good for Upstate if Upstate tends to vote
> > Republican. Has there been any discussion of this in the
> > local press?
> >
> > Henrietta
>
> One of the strong tenets of the new state would be to empower county
> governments. It would be my strong recommendation to build some guidelines
> into the state constitution that would require redistricting to follow
> county lines.
>
> This notion of drawing up districts to insure that the party in power
> remains in power is total nonsense regardless of which party is in power.
> The districts ought to aggregations of people with common and similar
> interests. What better common interest is there than the well being of your
> county?
>
>

I don't know an awful lot about how the districts are drawn, but I thought both
legislative houses and the governor determined the redistricting. I could be
wrong, but if I'm not, the Republicans will have a lot of say. Something that
no one really thinks about is the electoral college. Right now, under the
winner-takes-all electoral system, all of New York's electoral votes go to the
winner of the popular vote in the state. Because the the population imbalance,
if Upstate favors one candidate and downstate favors the other, downstate's
candidate will almost always win. This essentially means that no matter who
the Upstate residents vote for, all of the electoral vote go to represent
downstate. However, if we have our own state, we get the full force of our
votes, and all of our electoral votes go to the candidate we elect. Right now,
New York State has 33 electoral vote, all of which go to the downstate victor,
leaving Upstate with, in essence, 0. Give us our own state, and Upstate gets
about 14 votes, depending on how the new border gets drawn, and Old New York
gets 21. Upstate deserves to have a say in the presidential elections.

You are right that politics should not influence the congressional districts.
However, since population does shift, in our own region and across the country,
that districts have to be redrawn somehow, and unfortunately, the states'
governments and their politicians have to do it. Removing the politics from
the equation should be most important, but I don't know how that can really be
done. At the very least, members of Congress have to be responsible to their
districts, or they risk losing their seat in the next election. Our Senators,
however, only need to be responsible to a majority of the population of the
state. This majority is downstate. The Senators, and the Governor and other
statewide officials, have to focus their efforts downstate. So even if they
wanted to help Upstate, they risk a downstate backlash.

The only way to allow Upstate to have any real voice in its own affairs is to
have its own state. I realize for the most part that I'm preaching to the
choir, but it is important to fully realize what is at stake, and also to get
the message out.


Jim Riley

unread,
Nov 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/3/00
to
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 20:19:43 GMT, "Tom Hand" <tro...@altavista.com>
wrote:

>"Henrietta K. Thomas" <usa...@wwa.com> wrote in message
>news:aph30t8hueo99rkp9...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:42:03 -0500, "Jerry" <onp...@frontiernet.net>
>> wrote, in us.issues.statehood.upstate-ny:
>>
>> >
>> >Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote in message
>> >news:9dbqvsgih3jo64ceu...@4ax.com...
>>
>> [snip]

>> If Upstate became a state, you'd have two Senators


>> of your own who might be more tuned in to your needs.
>> How many seats would you get in the US House of
>> Representatives, and how many electoral votes would
>> you have?

>Probably 12 Representatives for now (existing districts 20 through 31) -


>which would be 14 electoral college votes. But it is anticipated that New
>York State will lose 3 or 4 representatives once the new census comes out
>and all of those would be from upstate because that is where the population
>is going down - it is going up in the New York metropolitan area.

Based on 1999 US Census estimates, New York state would have 29
representatives. If downstate were the 3 southmost mainland counties
plus Long, Staten, and Manhattan islands if would be a 18:11 split.

If the next five counties were downstate (roughly extending the
Massachusetts-Connecticut border ascross to Binghamton, there would a
shift of another 1-1/2 representatives, resulting in 19-20:9-10 split.


--
Jim Riley

Henrietta K. Thomas

unread,
Nov 3, 2000, 5:57:13 AM11/3/00
to
Starting a new thread in the hope of getting more people
involved in this......Also crossposting to ny.politics.

On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 20:19:43 GMT, "Tom Hand" <tro...@altavista.com>

wrote, in us.issues.statehood.upstate-ny:

>"Henrietta K. Thomas" <usa...@wwa.com> wrote in message

>news:aph30t8hueo99rkp9...@4ax.com...

[snip]

>> If Upstate became a state, you'd have two Senators
>> of your own who might be more tuned in to your needs.
>> How many seats would you get in the US House of
>> Representatives, and how many electoral votes would
>> you have?
>>
>

>Probably 12 Representatives for now (existing districts 20 through 31) -
>which would be 14 electoral college votes. But it is anticipated that New
>York State will lose 3 or 4 representatives once the new census comes out
>and all of those would be from upstate because that is where the population
>is going down - it is going up in the New York metropolitan area.

So they will have to do a re-districting for the entire State, and

BJ Carr

unread,
Nov 3, 2000, 7:02:58 AM11/3/00
to

"Henrietta K. Thomas" <usa...@wwa.com> wrote in message
news:c4q40t43bfdnh4bq7...@4ax.com...

> So they will have to do a re-districting for the entire State, and
> the lines will probably be drawn to favor the Democrats. That
> would not be so good for Upstate if Upstate tends to vote
> Republican. Has there been any discussion of this in the
> local press?
>
> Henrietta
>

Redistricting is always in the news. In the upcoming election the Democrats
have a good chance of gaining control of the State Senate. If they do then
the Democrats will have complete control of the redistricting process,
unlike today where the Senate Republicans have to negotiate with the
Assembly Democrats. I have seen numerous newspaper articles that have
discussed this.

It is also being discussed on a national level. Recently the New York Times
printed a map showing the possible outcomes for all 50 state legislatures.
Democrats have a chance of taking over many of them this year. If they do
the redistricting that would likely result could throw the House of
Representatives strongly into the Democratic side for the next ten years.


Jerry

unread,
Nov 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/4/00
to

Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:8tvm7r$gaf$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...

> On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 20:19:43 GMT, "Tom Hand" <tro...@altavista.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Henrietta K. Thomas" <usa...@wwa.com> wrote in message
> >news:aph30t8hueo99rkp9...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:42:03 -0500, "Jerry" <onp...@frontiernet.net>
> >> wrote, in us.issues.statehood.upstate-ny:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:9dbqvsgih3jo64ceu...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> If Upstate became a state, you'd have two Senators
> >> of your own who might be more tuned in to your needs.
> >> How many seats would you get in the US House of
> >> Representatives, and how many electoral votes would
> >> you have?
>
> >Probably 12 Representatives for now (existing districts 20 through 31) -
> >which would be 14 electoral college votes. But it is anticipated that
New
> >York State will lose 3 or 4 representatives once the new census comes out
> >and all of those would be from upstate because that is where the
population
> >is going down - it is going up in the New York metropolitan area.
>
> Based on 1999 US Census estimates, New York state would have 29
> representatives. If downstate were the 3 southmost mainland counties
> plus Long, Staten, and Manhattan islands if would be a 18:11 split.
>
> If the next five counties were downstate (roughly extending the
> Massachusetts-Connecticut border ascross to Binghamton, there would a
> shift of another 1-1/2 representatives, resulting in 19-20:9-10 split.
>
>
> --
> Jim Riley

Jim, your numbers sound pretty good to me. My "rule of thumb" has always
been the new state will get approx. 1/3 of the representatives of the
existing state and two senators of our own.

Today, of course we, get to choose between two downstate politicos, Hillary
and Lazio. Neither of which we'll see after the election.

Jerry

unread,
Nov 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/5/00
to

BJ Carr <BJ_...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:zYOM5.3758$a5.18...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
>
> "Bill" <bill...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20001103124510...@ng-fz1.aol.com...

> > >
> > >So they will have to do a re-districting for the entire State, and
> > >the lines will probably be drawn to favor the Democrats. That
> > >would not be so good for Upstate if Upstate tends to vote
> > >Republican. Has there been any discussion of this in the
> > >local press?
> >
> > The lines are redrawn by the legislature. The Republicans still hold
the
> > Senate and depend on upstate seats to continue to hold it. Frankly, I'm
> not
> > certain who makes the final decision on congressional districts, but I
> think
> > the Senate and Assembly draw their own lines. This is probably why the
> > Democrats are doing such a big push in state Senate races this year.
> >
> > Anybody who thinks NYC runs the state need only look at the state
senate,
> in
> > which NYC has very little influence.
> >
> >
> > "The person who designs something to be completely foolproof
> underestimates the
> > ingenuity of complete fools."
>
> I don't know what the rule is for state senate and assembly districts but
> for congressional districts it is solely the state legislatures that make
> the decision, the governors have no input.
>
> Jerry's proposal to center them around counties would be difficult because
> all congressional districts in the country (except those from very small
> states s like Vermont that only have one congressman) must have virtually
> the same population (allowing for small deviations in rounding because of
> variations in total population within each of the states)..


BJ, it's my fault for not being clear. My recommendation is that in the
evaluation stage, the districting plan which divides the fewest number of
counties would be the winner.

Frankly, with the advent of computer modeling, 1,000,000's of plans could be
evaluated and ranked based upon the number of counties that are divided.

Does this help?

Frank M

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to
Jerry wrote:
>
...

>
> One of the strong tenets of the new state would be to empower county
> governments. It would be my strong recommendation to build some guidelines
> into the state constitution that would require redistricting to follow
> county lines.
>

What is this fascination with strong county gov't? A county wide school
distric would be one of my worst nightmares! How would a county wide
volunteer fire dept work? We have a county wide library system in Monroe
, i think it stinks. Road maint., amd courts might work, but otherwise,
local control.

Jerry

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 12:00:37 AM11/10/00
to

Frank M <speci...@honalee.puff> wrote in message
news:3A0B6B...@honalee.puff...


Local control is extremely expensive and when our economy is terrible we
need to start living within our means. By centralizing, we elimination the
overlap, duplication and jurisdiction fights. Top on my list would be a
metro police force.

I agree that a county wide school district may be too overwhelming for
Monroe, but not necessarily for some of the smaller counties.

BTW, what is wrong with the library system? I think it's just great! It's
not really "county wide", though. Each town independently funds it's own
library. Then the libraries are all linked together to share resources. My
sense is this system of county cooperation, yet local control over spending
is actually a pretty neat design.

Don't forget, there are numerous county wide agencies, like welfare, health,
parks, etc.

Frank M

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/10/00
to
Jerry wrote:
>
> .....

> >
> > What is this fascination with strong county gov't? A county wide school
> > distric would be one of my worst nightmares! How would a county wide
> > volunteer fire dept work? We have a county wide library system in Monroe
> > , i think it stinks. Road maint., amd courts might work, but otherwise,
> > local control.
>
> Local control is extremely expensive and when our economy is terrible we
> need to start living within our means. By centralizing, we elimination the
> overlap, duplication and jurisdiction fights. Top on my list would be a
> metro police force.

The expensive or not depends on what service is being delivered. We
already have a county wide police force, the sherif.

>
> I agree that a county wide school district may be too overwhelming for
> Monroe, but not necessarily for some of the smaller counties.
>
> BTW, what is wrong with the library system? I think it's just great! It's
> not really "county wide", though. Each town independently funds it's own
> library. Then the libraries are all linked together to share resources. My
> sense is this system of county cooperation, yet local control over spending
> is actually a pretty neat design.
>

I think too much is going into the linking and not enough into a diverse
collection of books. I used to live in NJ (Little Falls, about 20 mi
from Times Square), the town was 3 sq mi, had about 12,000 people, the
library had a much better collection than Pittsford or Fairport. Also
there is no large suburban library. I used to go the Clifton or Wayne,
either one would put any library around here to shame, excluding of
course the central city and university libraries. Every time i go to a
library here, i cannot find the info i'm looking for, always found it in
NJ.

As far as local control, that is tradition in NJ, and the taxes seem to
be lower there.

Jerry

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/10/00
to

Frank M <speci...@honalee.puff> wrote in message
news:3A0C6F...@honalee.puff...
> Jerry wrote:
> >
> > .....

> > >
> > > What is this fascination with strong county gov't? A county wide
school
> > > distric would be one of my worst nightmares! How would a county wide
> > > volunteer fire dept work? We have a county wide library system in
Monroe
> > > , i think it stinks. Road maint., amd courts might work, but
otherwise,
> > > local control.
> >
> > Local control is extremely expensive and when our economy is terrible we
> > need to start living within our means. By centralizing, we elimination
the
> > overlap, duplication and jurisdiction fights. Top on my list would be a
> > metro police force.
>
> The expensive or not depends on what service is being delivered. We
> already have a county wide police force, the sherif.


Yes, we have a county wide police force, but in ADDITION we have a bunch of
smaller, less efficient police forces, Gates, Greece, Spencerport, Fairport,
etc This is exactly the type of duplication and overlap, we need to
eliminate.


> >
> > I agree that a county wide school district may be too overwhelming for
> > Monroe, but not necessarily for some of the smaller counties.
> >
> > BTW, what is wrong with the library system? I think it's just great!
It's
> > not really "county wide", though. Each town independently funds it's
own
> > library. Then the libraries are all linked together to share resources.
My
> > sense is this system of county cooperation, yet local control over
spending
> > is actually a pretty neat design.
> >
>

> I think too much is going into the linking and not enough into a diverse
> collection of books. I used to live in NJ (Little Falls, about 20 mi
> from Times Square), the town was 3 sq mi, had about 12,000 people, the
> library had a much better collection than Pittsford or Fairport. Also
> there is no large suburban library. I used to go the Clifton or Wayne,
> either one would put any library around here to shame, excluding of
> course the central city and university libraries. Every time i go to a
> library here, i cannot find the info i'm looking for, always found it in
> NJ.


Have you tried using CARL? I believe you can even tap into CARL from home
(via the internet) to get access to the status of all the books in the
Monore county library system. Further, if you find the book you want in a
library on the other side of Monroe county, you can order it at your local
library and they'll ship it over free of charge.

I have no complaints. I mean, I get access to all the books in Rundell,
without having to venture downtown.

Ron Goodrich

unread,
Dec 15, 2000, 12:02:50 AM12/15/00
to

Frank M wrote:

>
>
> As far as local control, that is tradition in NJ, and the taxes seem to
> be lower there.

Are you sure? I thought, and I'll admit I could be wrong on this, but isn't NJ
one of the only place with taxes about as high as NY?

Jerry

unread,
Dec 16, 2000, 6:35:06 PM12/16/00
to

Bill <bill...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001215174644...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
> I believe that state taxes are lower in NJ, but property taxes are much,
much
> higher. And jumped up considerably when Gov. Whitman cut state income
taxes by
> 25%.

>
>
> "The person who designs something to be completely foolproof
underestimates the
> ingenuity of complete fools."


For the record, in 2000 only two states surpassed NY in total taxes,
Connecticut and Wyoming.

NJ was right after NY. See:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages