Andy, I thought we had already settled this population debate. As I explained to you in my last email, I believe your population numbers are inaccurate. My population numbers come from the US Census Bureau, specifically the Annual Community Survey.
Here is the population number from Lincoln, inclusive of Hanscom AFB (6,868) https://censusreporter.org/profiles/06000US2501735425-lincoln-town-middlesex-county-ma/ Here is the population number for Hanscom AFB, (2,119) https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US2528425-hanscom-afb-ma/ All of the Hanscom residents live in Lincoln, with the exception of a small barrack located at 75 Grenier St, Bedford. *I called the Bedford Town Clerk to confirm this. There are 7 Bedford registered residents living in that address.* 6,868 - (2,119 - 7) = 4,756 Lincoln residents exclusive of Hanscom The numbers you quoted in our conversation come from our Town voter registration, and as I have already explained to you, the methodology used is not consistent and probably undercounts Hanscom residents as the Town clerk herself acknowledged to Peter Buchthal when he visited her. I stand by my analysis and believe it provides an accurate picture. David On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 5:32 PM Andrew Payne <[email protected]> wrote: > David, > > You posted: > > *Lincoln has the highest budget expenditure per capita among our group of >> nine peer towns.* > > > As I explained to you very directly when we met in person, and in > my followup emails, your analyses use a non-Hanscom Lincoln population > number that's significantly lower than actual. > > With an assumption that's ~15-20% too low, all of your Lincoln per-capita > data will be ~15-20% artificially high. It's my understanding that > others have given you this direct & specific feedback as well. > > We are all very mindful of our tax burden, and we all know each household > has different financial circumstances. That's why we have open town > meeting, and why the Commonwealth saw fit to implement a super-majority > (2/3rds) requirement for key financial votes (exclusions, etc.). Whatever > our tax burden is (or becomes), it's one that is/was supported by the > (super) majority of residents. > > I hope you continue to share constructive comments and criticisms. BUT, > when you post a fundamentally flawed analysis *after* having your > incorrect assumptions noted, you force private criticism into this public > forum. > > One raising-Lincoln's-per-capita-consumption-of-pork-rinds resident's view, > > -andy > https://payne.org/lt-disclaimer >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
