… but, it was close. 17 votes.
I voted against this proposal. Why? I didn’t understand the benefit. I read the article in the paper and my reaction was “there is no added value to me for voting this through”. Most of Chelsea lives less than 5 minutes from a fully-staffed firehouse and the services have been outstanding. We have a full-time chief. This Proposal felt like an accounting move, not something that would make us all now live less than 3 minutes from the fire house.
More than anything, I didn’t understand the need. As a business-type person, no one took the time to explain to me what issue was being solved with this proposal, with more of my money.
And then, the kicker; that last line: “A small portion of the revenue collected may be required to be distributed to the City of Chelsea Downtown Development Authority.” Please, someone, tell me what that’s supposed to mean? How did the DDA get a cut of a Fire Authority proposal? What’s that money for? How much of the $1.4 million dollars do they get?
If there’s a compelling reason to give the City more money, that’s one thing. But slapping a ill-defined proposal with “Fire Authority” and trotting out missives like the last line of the Proposal just doesn’t cut it.
Update: I didn’t link to the results page. It’s here.