I have created a Google Sheet so anybody can check the numbers I used in my graphs. All the public source links are also stated to facilitate fact-checking. Let me know if you have any questions please.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12qNG96v24l1OM3Hy898lQovx12805_dX-7W0eR1jMNk/edit?usp=sharing On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 6:07 PM David Cuetos <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
