New Albany, the municipality, receives about $18 million each year in revenues (maybe more, maybe less) in property tax receipts and income tax receipts.
By all logical interpretation, the current regime (administrative or legislative) desires to use at least a portion of those revenues to prop up the sewer utility.
Why not, then, go all the way?
Let's divert 100% of taxes to keeping sewer rates artificially low. Let's abandon 100% of city services. Building inspection? Zero it out. Police protection? Zero it out? Fire protection? Forget about it.
By the logic of the Coffey-Price-Benedetti coalition, we should expend ALL of our tax monies on sewers. After all, we can't ask people of limited incomes (especially when we are doing everything in our power to keep those incomes limited) to pay a rational rate for sewer services.
Now, if you were to ask ANY resident if he/she/they would like to have free sewer service, he/she/they would undoubtedly say "Yes."
But what if the "cost" of such an election were the diminution of ALL city services?
Our current situation is no different except in degree. ANY attempt to divert tax revenues to prop up the checking accounts of sewer users is only a difference of degree.
The principle is the same. Should we use city tax revenues to subsidize any sewer rates for any ratepayers?
No. And any city council member who believes so should be removed. Immediately. That not being possible, then he or she should be removed no later than 2011.
Can we survive until then?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Remember, NA has been on survival mode setting for going on a century, so it'll probably be able to delay the inevitable sewer rate hikes (assuming we intend to maintain the infrastructure) in favor of pretending they have "visionated" yet another scheme to avoid reality.
Post a Comment