Your host here at NA Shadow Council will admit to having a deep sense of foreboding about impending public policy decisions in New Albany. By the time you read this, you will undoubtedly have heard about how the "English Restoration" is in full retreat with the barbarians hot on their heels. Nothing less than the future solvency of the city is at stake this month. This city's ability to grab onto the tow-rope of progress now appears to be thwarted by naked appeals to ignorance.
The council members who will tonight sound the death knell for New Albany's near-term future would not prevail if the residents of New Albany could pause long enough to think about the consequences. It is not unreasonable to believe that even this council might, if they would just pause, recognize the insanity of their actions.
The England administration does not escape blame here, either. Faced with resistance and sabotage, the mayor and his minions have elected to hoard their political capital. We are sure they will claim that discretion is the better part of valor or wisdom or some other such self-serving nonsense. Instead of marshaling support and fighting for what is right, the England administration caved. Instead of taking their message to the people, they cowered. Instead of expending their political capital on an issue it was banked for, they huddle and count their coin.
Those who hail the virtues of "comity" and "cooperation" only abdicate when they let a desire for "comity" prevent them from using their best judgment on behalf of their constituents. Leadership is not the result of elections. It is the result of actions. The character of leaders is revealed by their actions, not their positions.
A correspondent sent us a missive alerting us to an October book titled Becoming Good Ancestors. We won't tell you about the book. But the title motivated us to take keyboard in hand with this last-minute plea.
Remember June 19, 2008. Tell your friends, your family, and your neighbors. Witness the carnage yourself at tonight's city council meeting, if you will.
As a matter of fact, by stripping New Albany's income tax revenues to "save" ratepayers from a sewer rate increase, a council majority is handing your tax dollars to businesses and outsiders who don't even pay taxes. Why, we ask, should that be treated as some type of "salvation?"
In a rational world, that would be labeled as corruption of the most heinous degree. For a council member to, without explanation, vote to hand over city tax revenues to pay the operating expenses (not even the investment, but the operating expenses) of the city's largest industrial concerns, to pay the household expenses of Floyd Countians who don't live in or pay taxes to New Albany, provokes only two possible explanations - absolute drooling imbecility, or felony solicitation of bribery.
Absolute drooling imbecility is not a bar to retaining (or attaining, apparently) public office in this city. But conviction of a felony is grounds for removal and incarceration. If Republican prosecutor Keith Henderson won't convene a grand jury to gather evidence (and he won't), would someone please tell me what number to call to motivate a political corruption investigation?
The citizens of the Iroquois Confederacy, among other Native American tribes, aspired to conduct all their public policy with an eye to the seventh generation; that would be their sons' sons' sons' sons' sons' sons and likewise so on down the matrilineal line of daughters.
The tribe of New Albanians (at least their elected representatives) seems to have trouble looking as far forward as the seventh generation of a fruit fly. And the responsibility, ultimately, lies on the tribe, not the representatives. Unless and until the tribe renounces the short-sightedness of the people they elect, then it will be their legacy that is besmirched and their memories cursed by future generations.
At root, then, this is our goal...to become better ancestors.
Showing posts with label sewer rates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sewer rates. Show all posts
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Logical Conclusions
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?
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?
Dump It in the Sewers!
There is a rational solution to making our sewer utility permanently viable.
But demagoguery is blocking it. By appealing to the least common denominator in the populace, the regrettably naive and ignorant (ignorant=unknowledgeable, which is not to say that they are stupid, just gullible and susceptible to the machinations of politicians who prosper at their expense), the entrenched regressive majority of the council is both pandering and insulting the constituency it purports to represent.
Mrs. Shirley Baird today took keyboard in hand to praise Mr. Coffey and Mrs. Benedetti in their attempt to stifle a homeownership study, evidencing her support in the pages of The Tribune. I, for one, believe that Mrs. Baird would be a much better representative for the former 1st District than the incumbent, but we cannot help but be deterred in supporting her ambitions when we see her lending her own support to these two.
Claiming to be in support of the downtrodden, the proverbial "fixed income" minority, these two are prepared to squander the city's resources on behalf of our municipalitiy's most profligate users of water, and accordingly, sewer services.
If, in fact, they (Coffey, Benedetti, Price, and unnamed other members of council) desire to protect the interests of those of limited income, they should be honest enough to propose direct subsidies to those deserving residents of our fair city.
Instead, they propose to boost the checking accounts of industrial and commercial users of our sewer system by depleting the limited resources of the EDIT tax fund. With admitted, imprecision, the EDIT funds available each year to the city measure about $2 million. Of that sum, the Coffey-Benedetti Cotillion propose to subsidize the Wal-Marts, the SamTecs, the Pillsburys, even the Destinations Booksellerses with EDIT tax funds so as to make their sewer bills lower.
In addition, they propose to deplete the city's EDIT fund resources by artificially lowering the sewer bills of non-residents, those whose EDIT taxes, if they pay them, are paid into another jurisdiction's coffers.
Why not, shadowna5 asks, make the sewer utility self-sustaining? If, as the Coffey-Benedetti Cotillion claims, they want to "keep sewer rates low" so as to "protect" the least among us, they would propose direct subsidies to those "least among us."
Our sewer utility should be self-sustaining and self-supporting. If, as a policy, our representatives wish to "protect" the most vulnerable, they should appropriate funds directly from EDIT funds to subsidize those ratepayers.
Instead, with transparent pandering objectives, they propose to deplete critical municipal resources (EDIT funds) to give handouts to corporate and commercial entities, the ratepayers who are exerting the greatest pressure on our sewer treatment resources, all in the name of "protecting" an indefinable class of amorphous residents.
Why, we ask, should the most profligate users of our water/sewer resources be rewarded at the expense of the city as a whole?
Worth much further examination, and as yet unexamined in public discourse, is the fact that non-residents, who do not pay EDIT taxes to the city, would be rewarded from the resources of the EDIT fund and would see their sewer rates kept artificially low at the expense of New Albany taxpayers.
We choose to believe, for the moment, that our representatives just don't understand the consequences of diverting EDIT funds to sewer subidies. Any other interpretation requires a belief in either abject corruption or in irredeemable stupidity.
And yet, as this is written, it seems a foregone conclusion that the Coffey-Benedetti coalition intend to divert precious city resources to the most intensive users of the sewer utilty. By keeping sewer rates low by using tax resources, they are saying that it is a city priority to strip voters of dollars in order to give them to business interests.
Who's crazy? Us or them?
But demagoguery is blocking it. By appealing to the least common denominator in the populace, the regrettably naive and ignorant (ignorant=unknowledgeable, which is not to say that they are stupid, just gullible and susceptible to the machinations of politicians who prosper at their expense), the entrenched regressive majority of the council is both pandering and insulting the constituency it purports to represent.
Mrs. Shirley Baird today took keyboard in hand to praise Mr. Coffey and Mrs. Benedetti in their attempt to stifle a homeownership study, evidencing her support in the pages of The Tribune. I, for one, believe that Mrs. Baird would be a much better representative for the former 1st District than the incumbent, but we cannot help but be deterred in supporting her ambitions when we see her lending her own support to these two.
Claiming to be in support of the downtrodden, the proverbial "fixed income" minority, these two are prepared to squander the city's resources on behalf of our municipalitiy's most profligate users of water, and accordingly, sewer services.
If, in fact, they (Coffey, Benedetti, Price, and unnamed other members of council) desire to protect the interests of those of limited income, they should be honest enough to propose direct subsidies to those deserving residents of our fair city.
Instead, they propose to boost the checking accounts of industrial and commercial users of our sewer system by depleting the limited resources of the EDIT tax fund. With admitted, imprecision, the EDIT funds available each year to the city measure about $2 million. Of that sum, the Coffey-Benedetti Cotillion propose to subsidize the Wal-Marts, the SamTecs, the Pillsburys, even the Destinations Booksellerses with EDIT tax funds so as to make their sewer bills lower.
In addition, they propose to deplete the city's EDIT fund resources by artificially lowering the sewer bills of non-residents, those whose EDIT taxes, if they pay them, are paid into another jurisdiction's coffers.
Why not, shadowna5 asks, make the sewer utility self-sustaining? If, as the Coffey-Benedetti Cotillion claims, they want to "keep sewer rates low" so as to "protect" the least among us, they would propose direct subsidies to those "least among us."
Our sewer utility should be self-sustaining and self-supporting. If, as a policy, our representatives wish to "protect" the most vulnerable, they should appropriate funds directly from EDIT funds to subsidize those ratepayers.
Instead, with transparent pandering objectives, they propose to deplete critical municipal resources (EDIT funds) to give handouts to corporate and commercial entities, the ratepayers who are exerting the greatest pressure on our sewer treatment resources, all in the name of "protecting" an indefinable class of amorphous residents.
Why, we ask, should the most profligate users of our water/sewer resources be rewarded at the expense of the city as a whole?
Worth much further examination, and as yet unexamined in public discourse, is the fact that non-residents, who do not pay EDIT taxes to the city, would be rewarded from the resources of the EDIT fund and would see their sewer rates kept artificially low at the expense of New Albany taxpayers.
We choose to believe, for the moment, that our representatives just don't understand the consequences of diverting EDIT funds to sewer subidies. Any other interpretation requires a belief in either abject corruption or in irredeemable stupidity.
And yet, as this is written, it seems a foregone conclusion that the Coffey-Benedetti coalition intend to divert precious city resources to the most intensive users of the sewer utilty. By keeping sewer rates low by using tax resources, they are saying that it is a city priority to strip voters of dollars in order to give them to business interests.
Who's crazy? Us or them?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Triskadekaphobia: We're For It
One local blogger coined the appelation of "Open Air Museum of Superstition and Ignorance" for our fair city. It couldn't be more appropriate, then, that Friday the 13th approaches, a day when triskadekaphobia (fear of the number 13) reaches its pinnacle.
For once, the progressive movement in New Albany needs to cultivate, foster, and nurture a fear of the number 13. But unlike the forces of regress, we aren't trying to grow an unreasoned fear.
For 13 is how many times more expensive it is to the taxpayers of this city to use edit funds to subsidize sewer rates. It takes more than $13 in EDIT money to knock $1 off the sewer rate. That's right.
The council members plotting to arrest a coming sewer rate increase talk loudly and often about how they are looking out for nickels and dimes, how they are watching the corporate purse, but their plan is exactly the opposite of financial prudence.
Instead of investing our tax money into projects that will save us money (New Albany's atrocious roads cost the average driver $800 a year more than residents of the average American city - $800 in lower mileage from misaligned wheels, damaged tires, and wholesale destruction of the working and resale value of our cars), they want to spend it on recurring individual rate-payer expenses. To some extent, sewer rates can be elastic. Yes, there is a minimum charge. We've often spoken in favor of keeping the minimum charge low (thus giving a boost to those who use the least water) and making up the difference in higher rates.
But no, that would actually accomplish something. That would actually protect the proverbial "fixed-income" resident from unwelcome added expenses.
However, it's worse than that. While robbing the city coffers to try to fool the voters, while robbing New Albany of any hope of having its sewer utility operate on its own without tax subsidies, and while stripping the city of any ability to invest in infrastructure, this crazy plan will take money from New Albany taxpayers and transfer it directly to the biggest users of the system.
That's right. This plan removes incentives to conserve water, especially for businesses (who don't pay EDIT taxes), since the taxpayer will pick up part of the bill.
It's ironic that when anyone proposes actual targeted investments to give incentives to business practices, types of businesses, or specific locations, the hidebound council members howl "corporate welfare." And yet, their plan is an enormous piece of corporate and business pork.
If we had more respect for their ability to ratiocinate, we'd suspect they are in the pocket of big businesses. But we presume that they just don't see it, and since the only people speaking up about it are THEM people, they feel certain they can proceed with this foolish plan.
They've done it before and it looks like they're going to try to do it again.
There's another set of sewer ratepayers who will be sharing in this subsidy, too. The several thousand ratepayers who live outside the city (and who do not pay EDIT taxes into the city) who will receive 150% of the subsidy city residents would "receive."
Now one can argue that they shouldn't be paying 150% of what we do. But if this plan goes through, they'll be getting 150% of the discount, too.
We'd estimate that when it comes to comparing the typical residence in New Albany versus those in the fringe and those in Georgetown, 40% of the subsidy to residences will be going to people who don't pay EDIT taxes.
Drop the subsidy now. Stop diverting our investable tax money (originally designed for economic development purposes) to prop up the checking accounts of businesses and ratepayers outside the city.
Stop trying to fool the people that you are looking out for their best interests. Just stop.
If you truly want to help the poorest among us to deal with rising costs of living, propose a subsidy directly to those taxpayers. Craft a solution and gather the support for direct subsidies to specific ratepayers. At least then the debate will be honest.
For once, the progressive movement in New Albany needs to cultivate, foster, and nurture a fear of the number 13. But unlike the forces of regress, we aren't trying to grow an unreasoned fear.
For 13 is how many times more expensive it is to the taxpayers of this city to use edit funds to subsidize sewer rates. It takes more than $13 in EDIT money to knock $1 off the sewer rate. That's right.
The council members plotting to arrest a coming sewer rate increase talk loudly and often about how they are looking out for nickels and dimes, how they are watching the corporate purse, but their plan is exactly the opposite of financial prudence.
Instead of investing our tax money into projects that will save us money (New Albany's atrocious roads cost the average driver $800 a year more than residents of the average American city - $800 in lower mileage from misaligned wheels, damaged tires, and wholesale destruction of the working and resale value of our cars), they want to spend it on recurring individual rate-payer expenses. To some extent, sewer rates can be elastic. Yes, there is a minimum charge. We've often spoken in favor of keeping the minimum charge low (thus giving a boost to those who use the least water) and making up the difference in higher rates.
But no, that would actually accomplish something. That would actually protect the proverbial "fixed-income" resident from unwelcome added expenses.
However, it's worse than that. While robbing the city coffers to try to fool the voters, while robbing New Albany of any hope of having its sewer utility operate on its own without tax subsidies, and while stripping the city of any ability to invest in infrastructure, this crazy plan will take money from New Albany taxpayers and transfer it directly to the biggest users of the system.
That's right. This plan removes incentives to conserve water, especially for businesses (who don't pay EDIT taxes), since the taxpayer will pick up part of the bill.
It's ironic that when anyone proposes actual targeted investments to give incentives to business practices, types of businesses, or specific locations, the hidebound council members howl "corporate welfare." And yet, their plan is an enormous piece of corporate and business pork.
If we had more respect for their ability to ratiocinate, we'd suspect they are in the pocket of big businesses. But we presume that they just don't see it, and since the only people speaking up about it are THEM people, they feel certain they can proceed with this foolish plan.
They've done it before and it looks like they're going to try to do it again.
There's another set of sewer ratepayers who will be sharing in this subsidy, too. The several thousand ratepayers who live outside the city (and who do not pay EDIT taxes into the city) who will receive 150% of the subsidy city residents would "receive."
Now one can argue that they shouldn't be paying 150% of what we do. But if this plan goes through, they'll be getting 150% of the discount, too.
We'd estimate that when it comes to comparing the typical residence in New Albany versus those in the fringe and those in Georgetown, 40% of the subsidy to residences will be going to people who don't pay EDIT taxes.
Drop the subsidy now. Stop diverting our investable tax money (originally designed for economic development purposes) to prop up the checking accounts of businesses and ratepayers outside the city.
Stop trying to fool the people that you are looking out for their best interests. Just stop.
If you truly want to help the poorest among us to deal with rising costs of living, propose a subsidy directly to those taxpayers. Craft a solution and gather the support for direct subsidies to specific ratepayers. At least then the debate will be honest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)