I have served as a Harmar Township supervisor for a little over two years. At every meeting, Supervisor Linda Slomer engages in personal attacks against me.
Her Jan. 19 letter, “Harmar: No trouble,” was no different. Slomer wrote that I missed six meetings in 2013.
What she knew — and did not say — was that I had a very serious illness. After recovering from this illness, I underwent knee surgery in November.
I had a difficult recovery so my wife faithfully picked up my mail at the township building. Supervisor Slomer had made it appear as if I just didn't want to attend meetings.
The township is holding an astronomical surplus of taxpayers' money. This is not good government, just a sign of severe overtaxing.
Supervisor Slomer doubled property taxes and now tries to take credit for not raising them.
Our tax rate in 2006 was 2.26 mills. With Slomer on the board in 2008, taxes went to 3.26 mills and 5 mills in 2009. So when Slomer wrote Harmar “hasn't raised taxes in six years,” she was wrong.
It is time to do what is in the best interest of the taxpayers. That's why I'll propose a substantial reduction in real estate taxes in the 2015 budget.
The public is tired of double-talking politicians like Linda Slomer.
She recently attacked well-qualified appointees to our various boards, crying nepotism. How ironic, since Supervisor Slomer voted to hire her nephew for the police department.
Slomer also had her husband appointed to the Harmar Construction Appeals Board and appointed her neighbors to various boards.
Slomer is not just a hypocrite; she's being dishonest and misleading to the public.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.