Assume 23,283 households and using a conservative number like $12. per month we arrive at about 5 million dollars SPSA was “giving” the city of Suffolk because use of the dump was free to our citizens. And our Suffolk leaders knew the day was coming when the free use of the dump stopped. So why wasn’t an equivalent amount of money budgeted, set aside to grow until the time we would have to pay? We should have had an administration including a Council that was wise enough to set aside the equivalent to the free stuff and pile it up for the day they knew was coming. It was certainly easy to calculate that sinking fund and let it grow toward the day that our long ensconced Council members knew would come and has arrived. But not being competent enough to look down the SPSA road even though they new the day would arrive and it has. But, you will pay, not those that should, content that it was free. Hand it off to those younger folks like you have allowed the National government to pile up trillions for your kids to pay. Thank those, some still in in power, like city managers, council members, like Seward, previous mayors and Councilmen who covered their eyes and ears. Thank professionals like SC Glenn and Davenport, and Seward who surely knew the bill was coming.
7 comments:
Remember, these are the people who thought they had $10 million more in the utilities fund than they really had because they failed to move the figure "from one column to another." For years. If our City leaders had the foresight to set aside money like you're suggesting, we'd just have a larger, emptier Cultural Arts Center.
What right does the Nansemond River Preservation Alliance NRPA have to attach medallions to city storm water drains paid with our tax dollars? Free advertisement for environmental activism and political cronyism shrouded in being Green has no place in our city. We already pay a very heafty stormwater tax and have yet to see where those funds are being used. Someone needs to tell the NRPA to keep their medallions and let them know defacing public property has a consequence. Suffolk Public Works show us where have you been spend our stormwater taxes.
according to the City the $18.50 proposed fee only covers current cost for refuse collection it does NOT cover the cost of disposal which you noted is FREE at SPSA. So under your logic, it sounds like you are recommending the proposed $18.50 fee be increased to cover a future disposal fee.
Are you recommending the $18.50 fee be increased to $30.50 to cover the future anticipated disposal fee?
according to SNH, the $18.50 the city wants to start charging us citizens breaks down this way: $6.50 for trash collection (already paid for from general budget) and as I read it,$12/ month for recycling- city wide.
Well then, now I have to pay a third party for recycling that I don't want? Is that even legal?
Which leads me to the following: If this budget passes, the taxes I pay for my $300k house will go up $400/ year (+-). This is a lot more than the stated .06 mil rate increase.
Has anyone at the Editorial Staff at the SNH notice the Nansemond River is cleaner now than in the past 100 years or more. Perhaps they didn't know about the CBPA and the severe restrictions it places. Nor do they know of the stormwater tax property owners MUST pay but never see where it is spent. They have got it right, the water will instantly become cleaner, the fauna and flora will flourish simply by placing a silly metal medallion on a storm water drain. If we are that stupid to believe this piece of non-polluting public awareness BS, we deserve to become an extinct species.
Anon 7:50 comment please note Rpock Rule #1: "When a comment is rejected there is good reason for doing so. Too often there are unsubstantiated statements of "fact" that could be misunderstood. To indicate that one knows what another person will say or do, or believes, is foolish if based on conjecture. If the person commenting includes an email address we can double check." In your support I do not see how the statement given in the deleted comment applies to the aforementioned rule.
Post a Comment