Water fees show who are elected officials really represent
Although we refer to it as a water bill, it really is an infrastructure bill, one that should truly be covered by TOT funds, capitol improvement funds, infrastructure funds and/or general funds. I was out of town from June through Sept. 14. My water usage from 7/24 through 9/21 accounted for $6.37. My bill was $70.75. The remaining $64.38 are as follow: $19.26 for water base fee (?); $43.25 for sewer [$17.54 of sewer base fee (?)+ $25.68 for sewer (sewer usage for $6 worth of water?)]; and $1.90 storm drain. Aside from the $6.37, which was used for watering the yard as opposed to using the sewer system, everything else accounts for infrastructure fees. From May 23 through July 24, my "water bill" was $67.40 of which only $8.91 was for water usage and the remaining $58.41 was, again, for infrastructure fees. To be charged a waterbase fee 3x what I use is excessive. To be charged $43.25 for sewer services when the sewer pipes were never used is abusive.
It's high time for a fresh look at the City's exorbitant, displaced fees. A re-assessment of actual water and sewer system use as opposed to the presumed water and sewer use is a beginning, hopefully resulting with fees that are more equitable and practical solutions for effective levying systems. New development is creating additional sewer and water use burden. Developer fees are one possible solution. Another is using the fines that the City collects from those who abuse the water usage to defray the cost for the rest of the hard-working fee-payers or for installing sewer gauges to truly monitor the use of the sewer. As bureaucratic as these may sound, it is better than to be tied to the unconscionable sewer rates that presently subject all of us.
It is not the masses that are abusive here but rather poor councilmanic decisions which are made to benefit those reveling in political clout and acumen .the proposed downtown ballpark is one example. We pay fees and taxes to improve our communities not to subsidize for-profit private development corporations. Transferring our infrastructure funds to private developers shows who our elected representatives truly represent.
Must say that last edition of La Prensa (Oct. 12) deliciously put forth some of his best ink on the net, am very glad over his role as a major leader of the Chicano/a raza community ese!
Another twist to this surreal event of the 11th of that desastrous September is how much our gente has grown in the political frey that mars our daily existence. 'Twas not long ago that our loyalty to the stars and stripes would be questioned by dirty bastard pigs posing as reprensentes de la raza. In the aftermath of that infamous day our gente are no longer questioned cause history now backs us and to even dare ask wether we are to stand with the red and blue banner is almost an ofense! Pero aquí estamos y no nos rajamos !!
We've come a long way gente, lastima that the 11th of Sept. had to happen so that many a güero an eye had to relaize it ... o seran los numbers de la raza?
Keep the good work and say hi to the Tlatoani ( Tezzy ) for me will'ya?
Julio César Martínez
When is a threat credible?
It is the opinon of this citizen that the D.A.'s office and investigativng team did a disservice to the Board members (de Beck and Zimmerman) and the public by declaring Mrs. Braun's "E" mail message a non-credible threat.
Mrs. Braun and her two allies on the Board apparently believe that one may use double standards when investigating matters dealing with friends of the superintendent until the gun has been pointed.
It is my humble opinion that the investigating team may not have been focused on the task. Was it their task to decide on the severity of the threat, or, whether a threat was made?
If I am reading the contents of the message correctly, not only was there a threat but it seems o have been pre-meditiated.
When does a threat by a mature, intelligent, and sane person become credible?
August L. Castille, Sr.