NewsRadio 950 KWOS: Here's a clip--
Sep 28, 2010
Transcription of the clip from http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1470916890383&ref=mf:
Caller 1:
There was a complete step skipped in the way this was put on the ballot. And you guys were not given a choice to say “Yes” or “No,” “We will adopt this” or “We will not adopt this.”
Carrie Carroll:
Thank you for the call and I’m going to disagree on that statement because we actually did have a chance if we wanted to enact the ordinance that evening that we brought it forward. Ahm, in fact, I sponsored the bill along with, ah, there were five of us on the council who sponsored the bill to move it forward on the ballot and we had absolutely every opportunity at that moment if we had chosen to go ahead and enact the ordinance at that time. Basically the citizens gathered enough signatures. They were certified, brought before the council and we had two choices: either to enact the ordinance or place it on the ballot, and we made the choice, that in this case, rather than enact it, and, and some cities do, but we felt we would like to see this, ah, brought forward. And in fact, it was unanimously, ah, council to bring it forward to a vote of the people and, and we could have enacted it that evening and some people might say, “Hey, that’s the council’s job. It’s a public health issue. Bring it forward.” But I feel it was brought forward by the citizens and I, I think we need to get it in front of the citizens.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Ray Walker to me
The attachment can go on the blog! It is a matter of public record but obtained after making a second request. a sunshine law complaint has been filed because it was NOT available until after the second request was made. complaint was filed before knowing the document had been sent. Doesn't matter because it wasn't there in the first place as it should have been!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Powell, Phyllis
Date: Wed, Sep 22
Mr. Walker, attached is the record you requested which I have just received. If you need anything else, please let me know.
Phyllis Powell, CMC
City Clerk
320 E. McCarty Street
Jefferson City MO 65101
(573) 634-6311
(573) 634-6329 fax
This is where you should be able to see the document Ray Walker received--but I cannot copy and paste it.
Is this another example of the city not giving information out in a timely manner?
It should be known that the city is now going to give Allied Waste a 320,000 dollar discount--or give back.
If anyone can give me a link where I can copy and paste--I will place the document Ray sent me on a future blog.
The attachment can go on the blog! It is a matter of public record but obtained after making a second request. a sunshine law complaint has been filed because it was NOT available until after the second request was made. complaint was filed before knowing the document had been sent. Doesn't matter because it wasn't there in the first place as it should have been!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Powell, Phyllis
Date: Wed, Sep 22
Mr. Walker, attached is the record you requested which I have just received. If you need anything else, please let me know.
Phyllis Powell, CMC
City Clerk
320 E. McCarty Street
Jefferson City MO 65101
(573) 634-6311
(573) 634-6329 fax
This is where you should be able to see the document Ray Walker received--but I cannot copy and paste it.
Is this another example of the city not giving information out in a timely manner?
It should be known that the city is now going to give Allied Waste a 320,000 dollar discount--or give back.
If anyone can give me a link where I can copy and paste--I will place the document Ray sent me on a future blog.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Bill No. 2010-62
BILL SUMMARY
BILL NO: 2010-62
SPONSOR: Councilman Medin
SUBJECT: An Ordinance Submitting Proposed Ordinance Eliminating the Requirement that Trash Only be Collected by an Authorized Collector, as Submitted by an Initiative Petition from Registered Voters of the City of Jefferson, Missouri and Setting the Date for Such Election.
DATE INTRODUCED: September 7, 2010
Origin of Request: Citizen Petition
Department Responsible: Law Department
Person Responsible: NATHAN NICKOLAUS
Background Information: An initiative petition was received on this issue. The City Clerk has certified the petition. Under the provisions of the Charter the Council must either adopt the ordinance proposed by the initiative or submit it to the voters.
The Council must pass either this ordinance or its sister ordinance, which places the issue on the ballot, but cannot pass both.
Fiscal Information: Staff does not anticipate any direct costs from this ordinance. However, if this proposition is approved by the voters it will effectively terminate the current contract. The cost to the City from such an action will be approximately $30,000 per year. Costs to individuals
are difficult to predict. However, it is estimated that termination of the existing contract will increase individual trash costs from the current $15 per month to between $20 and $25 per month.
Contract/Ordinance Terms:
This ordinance submits the issue to the voters. This ordinance does not enact the proposal, merely sets a date for a public vote. If approved by a simple majority of voters, it will become an ordinance.
If adopted by the voters, anyone would be allowed to provide trash service for themselves or for anyone else, thus ending the current requirement that trash be collected by a vendor approved by the City.
Staff Recommendation: Approve. Approval of this ordinance, or an ordinance adopting the proposal, is required by the Charter.
BILL NO: 2010-62
SPONSOR: Councilman Medin
SUBJECT: An Ordinance Submitting Proposed Ordinance Eliminating the Requirement that Trash Only be Collected by an Authorized Collector, as Submitted by an Initiative Petition from Registered Voters of the City of Jefferson, Missouri and Setting the Date for Such Election.
DATE INTRODUCED: September 7, 2010
Origin of Request: Citizen Petition
Department Responsible: Law Department
Person Responsible: NATHAN NICKOLAUS
Background Information: An initiative petition was received on this issue. The City Clerk has certified the petition. Under the provisions of the Charter the Council must either adopt the ordinance proposed by the initiative or submit it to the voters.
The Council must pass either this ordinance or its sister ordinance, which places the issue on the ballot, but cannot pass both.
Fiscal Information: Staff does not anticipate any direct costs from this ordinance. However, if this proposition is approved by the voters it will effectively terminate the current contract. The cost to the City from such an action will be approximately $30,000 per year. Costs to individuals
are difficult to predict. However, it is estimated that termination of the existing contract will increase individual trash costs from the current $15 per month to between $20 and $25 per month.
Contract/Ordinance Terms:
This ordinance submits the issue to the voters. This ordinance does not enact the proposal, merely sets a date for a public vote. If approved by a simple majority of voters, it will become an ordinance.
If adopted by the voters, anyone would be allowed to provide trash service for themselves or for anyone else, thus ending the current requirement that trash be collected by a vendor approved by the City.
Staff Recommendation: Approve. Approval of this ordinance, or an ordinance adopting the proposal, is required by the Charter.
Bill 2010-67
BILL SUMMARY
BILL NO: 2010-67
SPONSOR: Councilwoman Carroll
SUBJECT: Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute an Amendment to the Solid
Waste and Recyclable Materials Collection and Removal Contract.
DATE INTRODUCED: September 20, 2010
Summary: This ordinance authorizes an amendment to the current trash contract which will reduce fees paid to the City but will preserve the current base rate paid by residents.
Background Information: Following approximately nine months of study and publicdiscussion, including an open bidding process, the City entered into a contract with Republic Waste Services to provide trash service to the residents of the citizens of the city. When the bid process was conducted the City estimated that their were approximately 14,000 single family residences in Jefferson City. After the first ten months of the contract
it appears that there are only 12,600 homes in Jefferson City. This has resulted in aconsiderable loss in revenue to Republic. Republic alleges, though the City denies, thatthis is a breech of the contract. Without either side admitting any wrongdoing, the parties have agreed to resolve this dispute by reducing the fees paid by Republic to the City. This
compromise will preserve the current base rate paid by Jefferson City citizens.
Fiscal Information: The City will relinquish up to $320,000 in fees which otherwise would have been paid. However, but for this agreement, fees to individual customers would have been increased by approximately $2.11 per month, or a total cost to citizens of $319,000.
Origin of Request: Litigation
Department Responsible: Law
Person Responsible: Charles Lansford and Nathan Nickolaus
Staff Recommendation: Approve
BILL NO: 2010-67
SPONSOR: Councilwoman Carroll
SUBJECT: Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute an Amendment to the Solid
Waste and Recyclable Materials Collection and Removal Contract.
DATE INTRODUCED: September 20, 2010
Summary: This ordinance authorizes an amendment to the current trash contract which will reduce fees paid to the City but will preserve the current base rate paid by residents.
Background Information: Following approximately nine months of study and publicdiscussion, including an open bidding process, the City entered into a contract with Republic Waste Services to provide trash service to the residents of the citizens of the city. When the bid process was conducted the City estimated that their were approximately 14,000 single family residences in Jefferson City. After the first ten months of the contract
it appears that there are only 12,600 homes in Jefferson City. This has resulted in aconsiderable loss in revenue to Republic. Republic alleges, though the City denies, thatthis is a breech of the contract. Without either side admitting any wrongdoing, the parties have agreed to resolve this dispute by reducing the fees paid by Republic to the City. This
compromise will preserve the current base rate paid by Jefferson City citizens.
Fiscal Information: The City will relinquish up to $320,000 in fees which otherwise would have been paid. However, but for this agreement, fees to individual customers would have been increased by approximately $2.11 per month, or a total cost to citizens of $319,000.
Origin of Request: Litigation
Department Responsible: Law
Person Responsible: Charles Lansford and Nathan Nickolaus
Staff Recommendation: Approve
Lawsuit Filed Against Mandatory Garbage Pick-Up
Resident files trash lawsuit
Plaintiff aims to remove compulsory service
By Ben Yarnell ben@newstribune.com
Below is a paraphrase of the article:
A lawsuit was filed on Friday, September 17th, against Jefferson City’s trash contract with Allied Waste.
George Massengale, a Jefferson City resident, filed it in the Cole County Circuit Court.
The lawsuit claims that the city violated the 1980 Hancock Amendment to the Missouri Constitution--something I wrote about in a previous blog. (The law does not allow for the levying or increasing of taxes or fees without the approval of voters.)
Neither the city nor Allied Waste had any comments.
Plaintiff aims to remove compulsory service
By Ben Yarnell ben@newstribune.com
Below is a paraphrase of the article:
A lawsuit was filed on Friday, September 17th, against Jefferson City’s trash contract with Allied Waste.
George Massengale, a Jefferson City resident, filed it in the Cole County Circuit Court.
The lawsuit claims that the city violated the 1980 Hancock Amendment to the Missouri Constitution--something I wrote about in a previous blog. (The law does not allow for the levying or increasing of taxes or fees without the approval of voters.)
Neither the city nor Allied Waste had any comments.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Modify the Contract?!?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Michelle Gleba, Communications Manager
(573) 634-6377
Sept. 16, 2010
City Council to consider amendment to trash contract
Jefferson City, Mo. – At the Sept. 20 Jefferson City Council meeting, the council will hear the
introduction of an ordinance that will prevent a potential breach in the city’s trash contract. Such a
breach would have caused an increase in the residential trash base rate.
The proposed ordinance will authorize the city to amend its current contract with Allied Waste
Services to satisfy a discrepancy in the number of single-family and duplex households served.
When the city entered its six-year contract with Allied Waste Services in November 2009, it
estimated the number of single-family and duplex households served would be nearly 14,000. This
number was based on 2000 U.S. Census data. The actual number of single-family and duplex
households served turned out to be approximately 12,600.
The amendment will reduce the road use fee and future planning fee the company pays the city
under the current contract by $320,000 for the first and second year of the contract. For each
subsequent contract year, the amount will be determined based on average Consumer Price Index
increases or decreases. If the total number of households served by Allied Waste falls under
11,000, the city and Allied Waste will renegotiate the agreement.
Nathan Nickolaus, city attorney, said the amendment allows the city to continue operating a
citywide trash and recycling collection service at the lowest possible rate for all residents. He said
if the city were to face a contractual violation with Allied Waste and had no trash service,
residential rates could increase from an average of $15 per month to $25 per month, the average
amount paid by residents who live in unincorporated areas of the county.
Contact: Michelle Gleba, Communications Manager
(573) 634-6377
Sept. 16, 2010
City Council to consider amendment to trash contract
Jefferson City, Mo. – At the Sept. 20 Jefferson City Council meeting, the council will hear the
introduction of an ordinance that will prevent a potential breach in the city’s trash contract. Such a
breach would have caused an increase in the residential trash base rate.
The proposed ordinance will authorize the city to amend its current contract with Allied Waste
Services to satisfy a discrepancy in the number of single-family and duplex households served.
When the city entered its six-year contract with Allied Waste Services in November 2009, it
estimated the number of single-family and duplex households served would be nearly 14,000. This
number was based on 2000 U.S. Census data. The actual number of single-family and duplex
households served turned out to be approximately 12,600.
The amendment will reduce the road use fee and future planning fee the company pays the city
under the current contract by $320,000 for the first and second year of the contract. For each
subsequent contract year, the amount will be determined based on average Consumer Price Index
increases or decreases. If the total number of households served by Allied Waste falls under
11,000, the city and Allied Waste will renegotiate the agreement.
Nathan Nickolaus, city attorney, said the amendment allows the city to continue operating a
citywide trash and recycling collection service at the lowest possible rate for all residents. He said
if the city were to face a contractual violation with Allied Waste and had no trash service,
residential rates could increase from an average of $15 per month to $25 per month, the average
amount paid by residents who live in unincorporated areas of the county.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
What Can I do About the Trash Ordinance?
Paid for by Citizens Action Committee Against Ordinance No. 14487, WilliamR. Towson, Treasurer
Thanks You!
FOR SIGNING AND SUPPORTING THE PETITION TO CORRECT THE TRASH ORDINANCE!
Want to help a little more?
Here’s how:
Phone a Friend about this issue - Today!
Vote when this issue is on the Ballot!
Donate so there can be advertising to educate City Voters about this issue!
Sign up to receive updates about this issue!
Contact the Citizens Committee at:
cacao14487@gmail.com
636.4650 or 635.7207
Thanks You!
FOR SIGNING AND SUPPORTING THE PETITION TO CORRECT THE TRASH ORDINANCE!
Want to help a little more?
Here’s how:
Phone a Friend about this issue - Today!
Vote when this issue is on the Ballot!
Donate so there can be advertising to educate City Voters about this issue!
Sign up to receive updates about this issue!
Contact the Citizens Committee at:
cacao14487@gmail.com
636.4650 or 635.7207
Friday, August 27, 2010
More on Decision to Not Allow Repeal of Mandatory Garbage on the November Ballot
Question from Ray Walker about petition:
"Was Lansford announcing a decision made by city council in regards to the Petition certification of which was completed by city clerk on 23 August, perhaps made in closed session of city council held on 23 August in response to City Charter requirement for prompt notification, consideration per Sections 9.5 and 9.7?
"At the city council meeting of 16 August, there were multiple suspensions of rules to allow prompt adoption of ordinances."
"Was Lansford announcing a decision made by city council in regards to the Petition certification of which was completed by city clerk on 23 August, perhaps made in closed session of city council held on 23 August in response to City Charter requirement for prompt notification, consideration per Sections 9.5 and 9.7?
"At the city council meeting of 16 August, there were multiple suspensions of rules to allow prompt adoption of ordinances."
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Where Can I Sign the Petition?
Charles asks:
"I hadn't heard that a pettion was going around. I want the mandatory recycling/trash service to end. I was recycling before the law became enforced and still have to make my trips out to the recycling center because the trash contract dosn't handle everything that the center does.
Where/when can I sign?"
Two ways to sign the petition--
Call Arthur Brown at 573-635-7207
or
Go to the Eagle Lodge at 1411 Missouri Blvd. this Saturday (June 26th) from 8AM to 5PM and sign the petition.
"I hadn't heard that a pettion was going around. I want the mandatory recycling/trash service to end. I was recycling before the law became enforced and still have to make my trips out to the recycling center because the trash contract dosn't handle everything that the center does.
Where/when can I sign?"
Two ways to sign the petition--
Call Arthur Brown at 573-635-7207
or
Go to the Eagle Lodge at 1411 Missouri Blvd. this Saturday (June 26th) from 8AM to 5PM and sign the petition.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
KMOS and the Initiative Petition
KWOS is running a sound bite from Edie Vogel all day about the Initiative Petition against the Trash Ordinance.
In addition - it also tells the location and time of the signing on Saturday.
Edie says, "I don't wan the government telling me I have to pay for a service I don't want to have."
In addition - it also tells the location and time of the signing on Saturday.
Edie says, "I don't wan the government telling me I have to pay for a service I don't want to have."
Monday, April 26, 2010
Petition
Ray Walker wrote the following for this blog:
"We are rolling!
"Our petition has been approved for circulation and we can begin to collect the required number of signatures in order to get the City Council to enact or take it to the ballot. We have learned that the previous number of required signatures was based on the 2003 Mayoral election and we need to base our effort on the April 3, 2007 election at
"http://www.colecounty.org/clerk/files/04-03-07_Cumulative.txt.
"That election saw a total of 4,118 votes so we need 20% of that for a total of 824 qualified signatures!(Recall that Landwehr was not opposed and received 4,027 votes with 91 write-ins for the 4,118 total votes.)
"We have purchased an advertisement that will be published in the Sunday 4/18/10 paper. Check it out!
"We are NOT garbage cans but we can still ATTACK!"
"We are rolling!
"Our petition has been approved for circulation and we can begin to collect the required number of signatures in order to get the City Council to enact or take it to the ballot. We have learned that the previous number of required signatures was based on the 2003 Mayoral election and we need to base our effort on the April 3, 2007 election at
"http://www.colecounty.org/clerk/files/04-03-07_Cumulative.txt.
"That election saw a total of 4,118 votes so we need 20% of that for a total of 824 qualified signatures!(Recall that Landwehr was not opposed and received 4,027 votes with 91 write-ins for the 4,118 total votes.)
"We have purchased an advertisement that will be published in the Sunday 4/18/10 paper. Check it out!
"We are NOT garbage cans but we can still ATTACK!"
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Public Meeting by the Cituzens Committee
The Committee met privately on Friday and will hold a public meeting on Saturday:
Below is the notice sent to me:
"Public Information Gathering
"Informational meeting for the public to announce plans, strategy, etc, and take suggestions from public.
"We hope City Councilmen will be present.
"When: Sat Apr 10 10am – 12pm Central Time
"Where: Johnny's, Jefferson City, MO"
Below is the notice sent to me:
"Public Information Gathering
"Informational meeting for the public to announce plans, strategy, etc, and take suggestions from public.
"We hope City Councilmen will be present.
"When: Sat Apr 10 10am – 12pm Central Time
"Where: Johnny's, Jefferson City, MO"
The Citizen's Committee Update
From the Citizen's Committee:
"Our original intention was, and remains, to allow the city council to address the matter by enacting the corrections we are seeking. Should they defer to the initiative process; i.e. wait to see what the voters say, we shall oblige by the circulation of the petition."
The right to petition has been approved and the actual petition has been generated.
My question remains: Why must citizens of Jefferson City go through all of these hoops when the right to petition is guaranteed in our United States Constitution?
"Our original intention was, and remains, to allow the city council to address the matter by enacting the corrections we are seeking. Should they defer to the initiative process; i.e. wait to see what the voters say, we shall oblige by the circulation of the petition."
The right to petition has been approved and the actual petition has been generated.
My question remains: Why must citizens of Jefferson City go through all of these hoops when the right to petition is guaranteed in our United States Constitution?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Below is the bill the city council introduced on Monday night's March 15th meeting. I do not know if this was approved because I canot find any information on it in the media. If you were at the meeting, maybe you can tell me something and I'll add it to this blog.
2009-146
Amending Code Pertaining to Trash Service by Clarifying Landlord Responsibility (Carroll)
Staff: Nathan Nickolaus
BILL SUMMARY
BILL NO: 2009-146
SPONSOR: Councilwoman Carroll
SUBJECT: Clarification of Trash Service for Owners of Single-Family Residences and
Duplexes
DATE INTRODUCED: March 15, 2010
Summary: This bill would simply clarify persons who own single family residences and
duplexes may place in their lease an obligation to have a tenant obtain trash service and
thereby relieve their personal obligation to have trash service.
Background Information: City staff and elected officials have received a number of
questions regarding who may place in a lease their obligation have mandatary trash
service and therefore be relieved of their personal obligation to have trash service. Staff
agreed that clarifying the language would assist the public in reading the ordinance.
Fiscal Information: None
Origin of Request: Mayor Landwehr
Department Responsible: Community Development
Person Responsible: Nathan Nickolaus
Staff Recommendation: Approve
2009-146
Amending Code Pertaining to Trash Service by Clarifying Landlord Responsibility (Carroll)
Staff: Nathan Nickolaus
BILL SUMMARY
BILL NO: 2009-146
SPONSOR: Councilwoman Carroll
SUBJECT: Clarification of Trash Service for Owners of Single-Family Residences and
Duplexes
DATE INTRODUCED: March 15, 2010
Summary: This bill would simply clarify persons who own single family residences and
duplexes may place in their lease an obligation to have a tenant obtain trash service and
thereby relieve their personal obligation to have trash service.
Background Information: City staff and elected officials have received a number of
questions regarding who may place in a lease their obligation have mandatary trash
service and therefore be relieved of their personal obligation to have trash service. Staff
agreed that clarifying the language would assist the public in reading the ordinance.
Fiscal Information: None
Origin of Request: Mayor Landwehr
Department Responsible: Community Development
Person Responsible: Nathan Nickolaus
Staff Recommendation: Approve
City Council Meeting Monday the 15th
Unfortunately even though issues on the Allied Waste/Jefferson City garbage issue was discussed last evening, there is no mention of it in the News Tribune online edition.
Why didn't the News Tribune cover these issues, the same issues they wrote about on Sunday, in their online newspaper?
Click Click here to read Sunday's article.
Why didn't the News Tribune cover these issues, the same issues they wrote about on Sunday, in their online newspaper?
Click Click here to read Sunday's article.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Alderwoman Carroll
A letter written by Arthur Brown of the Committee to Change the Mandatory Garbage Pick-up, was printed in the Sunday News Tribune on Alderwoman Carroll.
His main point is how she is still enthusiastic about the entire Allied Waste/Jefferson City garbage issue.
Can she not compromise? Does she not hear the clamor against it?
His main point is how she is still enthusiastic about the entire Allied Waste/Jefferson City garbage issue.
Can she not compromise? Does she not hear the clamor against it?
Kinks in the Allied Waste Project
City Hall will meet tonight to iron out kinks in the mandatory garbage proposal. Click here to read the online article.
What you wil not read in the online article is the part where the city council will allow landlords to place in their leases that the tenants are responsible for garbage pick-up. This will remove the legal obligation from the ;landlord and place it on the tenant.
Furthermore the council will clarify the language for individuals who live in triplexes.
Do you see an additional property tax in the near horizon--like maybe $120 per unit for all property owners? The city is responsible for making sure Allied Waste gets paid--and I can see them discussing additional taxes to get rid of the fee for all tenants and placing the total burden on property owners. I mean the city doesn't seem to understand the First Amendment, may be violating the fifth--so why can't they...will you get the idea.
Taxation without true representation.
What you wil not read in the online article is the part where the city council will allow landlords to place in their leases that the tenants are responsible for garbage pick-up. This will remove the legal obligation from the ;landlord and place it on the tenant.
Furthermore the council will clarify the language for individuals who live in triplexes.
Do you see an additional property tax in the near horizon--like maybe $120 per unit for all property owners? The city is responsible for making sure Allied Waste gets paid--and I can see them discussing additional taxes to get rid of the fee for all tenants and placing the total burden on property owners. I mean the city doesn't seem to understand the First Amendment, may be violating the fifth--so why can't they...will you get the idea.
Taxation without true representation.
Petition
Click here to read the News Tribune Online article about the petition drive to change the contract between Jefferson City and Allied Waste.
And click here to read what the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights states about the right to petition.
It seems to me somebody--a lawyer perhaps--skipped some of his classes on the Constitution.
What's not stated in the online article is the part about Arthur Brown who refuses to pay for the mandatory garbage pick-up and states the issue is a violation of Amendment 5 which you can read by clicking here.
Obviously due process never occurred to our city council members, but what's there excuse about the petition issue?
And click here to read what the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights states about the right to petition.
It seems to me somebody--a lawyer perhaps--skipped some of his classes on the Constitution.
What's not stated in the online article is the part about Arthur Brown who refuses to pay for the mandatory garbage pick-up and states the issue is a violation of Amendment 5 which you can read by clicking here.
Obviously due process never occurred to our city council members, but what's there excuse about the petition issue?
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The Bill of Rights and How Jefferson City is Violating them
The below quote from Ray Walker is from an earlier blog:
"An attempt to stymie our efforts to circulate a petition was placed before our committee by the city counselor. He suggested that for him to approve our notification to circulate a petition, he would require that we accompany the notice of intent to circulate a petition with a fiscal note..."
A fiscal note to circulate a petition?
This is what the US Constitution states on the matter of petitions:
"Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Notice the wording: No law abridging the freedom to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I guess Allied Waste and the City of Jefferson are above the law.
"An attempt to stymie our efforts to circulate a petition was placed before our committee by the city counselor. He suggested that for him to approve our notification to circulate a petition, he would require that we accompany the notice of intent to circulate a petition with a fiscal note..."
A fiscal note to circulate a petition?
This is what the US Constitution states on the matter of petitions:
"Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Notice the wording: No law abridging the freedom to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I guess Allied Waste and the City of Jefferson are above the law.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Summons and the Garbage Issue
Click here to read what the News Tribune wrote about the garbage issue.
I was told by reliable sources 1400 people did not pay. 588 individuals received a summons for nonpayment of garbage services from the city.
I'll follow them as they go through the system.
I was told by reliable sources 1400 people did not pay. 588 individuals received a summons for nonpayment of garbage services from the city.
I'll follow them as they go through the system.
Legal Assistance if You Received Notification of Violation of City Code 30-2(E).
Ray Walker:
"Anyone who has received notification from the Municipal Prosecuting Attorney Daniel R. Green that you are in violation of Jefferson City Code 30-2(E) should be aware that we have an attorney at law who has agreed to represent any citizen who is given a citation for the alleged violation of this city code.
"Please contact the committee at (573) 635-7207 for further details."
I myself have the understanding that one individual with the attorney's assistance had his case dismissed, but two other individuals had to pay a fine. They did not have an attorney present.
Please take advantage of this offer.
In this issue, an attorney can make a difference.
"Anyone who has received notification from the Municipal Prosecuting Attorney Daniel R. Green that you are in violation of Jefferson City Code 30-2(E) should be aware that we have an attorney at law who has agreed to represent any citizen who is given a citation for the alleged violation of this city code.
"Please contact the committee at (573) 635-7207 for further details."
I myself have the understanding that one individual with the attorney's assistance had his case dismissed, but two other individuals had to pay a fine. They did not have an attorney present.
Please take advantage of this offer.
In this issue, an attorney can make a difference.
Update on Mandatory Garbage Pick-Up from Ray Walker
Ray Walker: Mar 11
"What's been the hold up in our proceedings?
"An attempt to stymie our efforts to circulate a petition was placed before our committee by the city counselor. He suggested that for him to approve our notification to circulate a petition, he would require that we accompany the notice of intent to circulate a petition with a fiscal note explaining how voting "Yes" on the ballot question would affect finances of the individual citizen and those of the city. We submitted that question to the attorney representing us and she sought an answer from the city counselor. That was nearly a month ago and he has yet to supply the statutory requirements for such action. We must move ahead, like now or never, and accordingly, we have received a "go ahead" from Georgia Mathers to file our notice of intention to circulate a petition without a fiscal note.
"And then we shall see what happens.
"The procedure now continues with Section 9.3. Filling and Approval of Petitions of the City Charter which states:
"'Prior to circulation, petitions must be submitted for approval as to form by both the clerk and city counselor. They shall approve or disapprove any petition within ten days following its submission. If approved the clerk is responsible for preparing ballot language which must be in question form and approved by the counselor. If disapproved the clerk and counselor shall provide an itemized list of needed corrections at the time of issuance of the disapproval.'"
"What's been the hold up in our proceedings?
"An attempt to stymie our efforts to circulate a petition was placed before our committee by the city counselor. He suggested that for him to approve our notification to circulate a petition, he would require that we accompany the notice of intent to circulate a petition with a fiscal note explaining how voting "Yes" on the ballot question would affect finances of the individual citizen and those of the city. We submitted that question to the attorney representing us and she sought an answer from the city counselor. That was nearly a month ago and he has yet to supply the statutory requirements for such action. We must move ahead, like now or never, and accordingly, we have received a "go ahead" from Georgia Mathers to file our notice of intention to circulate a petition without a fiscal note.
"And then we shall see what happens.
"The procedure now continues with Section 9.3. Filling and Approval of Petitions of the City Charter which states:
"'Prior to circulation, petitions must be submitted for approval as to form by both the clerk and city counselor. They shall approve or disapprove any petition within ten days following its submission. If approved the clerk is responsible for preparing ballot language which must be in question form and approved by the counselor. If disapproved the clerk and counselor shall provide an itemized list of needed corrections at the time of issuance of the disapproval.'"
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Garbage Bags Instead of Containers
The following is sent by Ray Walker who is a member of the committee against mandatory garbage removal. He writes that if the citizens of Jefferson City do vote against the mandatory garbage pick-up, then--
"The plastic bags must be the ones issued by the collector, not just any old plastic bag!"
Ray explains how Columbia, MO does it:
"The reason Columbia uses plastic bags is they train their collectors on how to properly handle them and, then, each morning before collecting the bags, there are specific exercises that are mandated. Exercises and training that prevent a lot of these workman comp issues that Allied is afraid of because they are TOO cheap to provide the exercises."
Thought you might be interested.
"The plastic bags must be the ones issued by the collector, not just any old plastic bag!"
Ray explains how Columbia, MO does it:
"The reason Columbia uses plastic bags is they train their collectors on how to properly handle them and, then, each morning before collecting the bags, there are specific exercises that are mandated. Exercises and training that prevent a lot of these workman comp issues that Allied is afraid of because they are TOO cheap to provide the exercises."
Thought you might be interested.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Rough Draft of Proposed Ballot Referendum on the Garbage Issue
This is the rough draft of the wording that will be on the April ballot if all goes OK:
"Shall Chapter 30 of the Code of the City of Jefferson be amended to:
"1. Eliminate the requirement for use of a sole authorized collector contracted by but not franchised with the city for the collection, removal and disposal of garbage and rubbish; and
"2. allow disposable solid waste containers for any trash collected by a company having a franchise with the city if issued by the franchise holder
"as provided in Ordinance No. 14487 passed and approved by the City Council on March 2, 2009."
The sample ballot for April, 2010, can be found by clicking here,
"Shall Chapter 30 of the Code of the City of Jefferson be amended to:
"1. Eliminate the requirement for use of a sole authorized collector contracted by but not franchised with the city for the collection, removal and disposal of garbage and rubbish; and
"2. allow disposable solid waste containers for any trash collected by a company having a franchise with the city if issued by the franchise holder
"as provided in Ordinance No. 14487 passed and approved by the City Council on March 2, 2009."
The sample ballot for April, 2010, can be found by clicking here,
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A Little Maybe History
According to high sources who wish to remain anonymous, the Allied Waste mandatory garbage pick up issue came to be because so many people were using the business dumpsters without permission. Also people would throw their trash in containers at construction sites. Amazingly, even though a number of these individuals were identified, no action was ever taken against them--even though it is against city ordinance to throw your garbage in a dumpster that does not belong to you.
Unfortunately, this is why Allied Waste pushed the proposal forward--to stop this illegal activity. Businesses and contractors complained--and they had a right to complain.
So the city did not--or could not--enforce one law, so another took its place. Now it has to enforce payment from those who refuse to pay. Can the city enforce this?
Unfortunately, this is why Allied Waste pushed the proposal forward--to stop this illegal activity. Businesses and contractors complained--and they had a right to complain.
So the city did not--or could not--enforce one law, so another took its place. Now it has to enforce payment from those who refuse to pay. Can the city enforce this?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Summons to Court
I understand a few individuals have received summons to appear in court over the garbage can issue.
I'm checking out details as I write.
If you received one of these summons, please let me know--I want to be in the courtroom with you.
More details on the summons as they become available.
I'm checking out details as I write.
If you received one of these summons, please let me know--I want to be in the courtroom with you.
More details on the summons as they become available.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
How Jefferson City Erodes the Bill of Rights
The Jefferson City Council on Monday approved an ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of unsolicited documents.
What does this mean?
Does that mean we cannot distribute information about the garbage issue? That we cannot send unsolicited messages to voters? That we cannot send letters to the editor of a local newspaper or to our council members? That we have to have permission before we can email something to someone?
What does a prohibition of the distribution of unsolicited documents mean?
One answer--click here.
What does this mean?
Does that mean we cannot distribute information about the garbage issue? That we cannot send unsolicited messages to voters? That we cannot send letters to the editor of a local newspaper or to our council members? That we have to have permission before we can email something to someone?
What does a prohibition of the distribution of unsolicited documents mean?
One answer--click here.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
How Many People Did Not Pay Alled Waste?
Even though I hate to do this, I feel I have no choice. I would much rather be able to name names, but my informant wishes to stay anonymous--so I'm keeping him/her anonymous.
It appears one of the councilmen asked R. Graham from Allied Waste to let him know how many people did not pay. It took a week and a few emails, but here is the answer: "A little over 900 residents have not paid, but this number may be lower because some of the residents are actually vacant lots."
Furtehrmore, my informant has let me know that the city has not started prosecuting for nonpayment--remember the contract between Allied Waste and the City of Jefferson has the city enforcing payment--because of the 47 or so families the city had planned to assist with payments. Because they will not receive assistance, they are now included in the list for nonpayment.
Watch for court summons to be issued soon.
It appears one of the councilmen asked R. Graham from Allied Waste to let him know how many people did not pay. It took a week and a few emails, but here is the answer: "A little over 900 residents have not paid, but this number may be lower because some of the residents are actually vacant lots."
Furtehrmore, my informant has let me know that the city has not started prosecuting for nonpayment--remember the contract between Allied Waste and the City of Jefferson has the city enforcing payment--because of the 47 or so families the city had planned to assist with payments. Because they will not receive assistance, they are now included in the list for nonpayment.
Watch for court summons to be issued soon.
Council Meeting thiis Saturday
NOTICE OF MEETING AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Special City Council Meeting
City of Jefferson, Missouri
(Council Retreat)
Saturday, February 6, 2010 - 8:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.
HY-VEE, 3721 W. TRUMAN BLVD. , 2ND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
TENTATIVE AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PARTICIPATORY PLANNING
3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES
4. ADJOURNMENT
Something on the garbage issue with Allied Waste? How to assist those who cannot pay, for example?
Special City Council Meeting
City of Jefferson, Missouri
(Council Retreat)
Saturday, February 6, 2010 - 8:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.
HY-VEE, 3721 W. TRUMAN BLVD. , 2ND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
TENTATIVE AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PARTICIPATORY PLANNING
3. COUNCIL PRIORITIES
4. ADJOURNMENT
Something on the garbage issue with Allied Waste? How to assist those who cannot pay, for example?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
An Open Letter From Ray Walker
From Ray Walker:
"Mr. Medin, as sponsor of the trash bill, fails to understand that there are responsible people in this city who do not need to have a city council mandating a service they do not need. During the presentations to the council and during the open houses, the issue of people using the business and apartment dumpsters to dispose of their trash was brought up several, several times and even addressed by a representative of the apartment owners association. The city staff response was that they don't have the manpower to police those illegal dumping complaints. So, here goes Mr. Medin sponsoring a bill favoring that small vested interest group, and others, to appease them as well as city staff.
"Mr. Medin also appears to have sponsored the trash bill to appease that small vested interest group that wants to inflict their minority principles on the majority of people in this city who were voluntarily doing what that group wants accomplished in the first place. But this goes one step further in that the ordinance makes it convienent for that group. They want to "save the environment" but yet only if convenient. They will not use clothes lines because they are not convenient and that would help cut down on energy demands substantially. There are other substantial ways in which they show their hypocrisy with disdain for the Americas cherished life, liberty and pursuit of happiness principles and tradition.
"This contributor regrets that the City of Jefferson has fallen prey to the big government syndrome. The trash issue, the adrain (of our current and future resources) island issue, the mandatory sidewalk issue, the convention center issue, the prison site issue, the destruction of historical neighborhood with freeway access issue, the greenway issue, the pedestrian bridge across the river issue, the new bus barn issue, the new dog pound and crematorium issueand on and on and on whilst they sit back and watch the infrastructure crumble. City staff and other special interest groups are paid to monitor how much "free" other peoples' money they can get to spend on these really fluff projects that favor special interests yet pee on the infrastructure.
"The time is past due that the city council and mayor recognize that 'Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.' (Albert Einstein.)
"Get down to basics unless there's an underlying effort to build either a legacy for some or pave the way for political futures.
"We need to have common sense in our trash bill.
"Remove mandatory use of "sole authorized collector" and the mandate to pay even if you don't use to allow the people show they really are responsible. Don't make us pay for "crimes" of a very, very few that annoy very, very few.
"There are over 1,200 households with incomes that could have possibly qualified for the indigent trash subsidy yet it would have been offered only to home-owners NOT renters because city staff somehow assumes that all renters receive some sort of government subsidy. City staff also informed the mayor and city council of an interesting definition of "household" where the number of incomes in a residence will determine the number of households are present. Make sense? Revising ordinance 14487 does make sense. Is that what city council and the mayor will attempt at HyVee this Saturday? Public is invited! Let us observe for ourselves rather than rely on second hand reports."
"Mr. Medin, as sponsor of the trash bill, fails to understand that there are responsible people in this city who do not need to have a city council mandating a service they do not need. During the presentations to the council and during the open houses, the issue of people using the business and apartment dumpsters to dispose of their trash was brought up several, several times and even addressed by a representative of the apartment owners association. The city staff response was that they don't have the manpower to police those illegal dumping complaints. So, here goes Mr. Medin sponsoring a bill favoring that small vested interest group, and others, to appease them as well as city staff.
"Mr. Medin also appears to have sponsored the trash bill to appease that small vested interest group that wants to inflict their minority principles on the majority of people in this city who were voluntarily doing what that group wants accomplished in the first place. But this goes one step further in that the ordinance makes it convienent for that group. They want to "save the environment" but yet only if convenient. They will not use clothes lines because they are not convenient and that would help cut down on energy demands substantially. There are other substantial ways in which they show their hypocrisy with disdain for the Americas cherished life, liberty and pursuit of happiness principles and tradition.
"This contributor regrets that the City of Jefferson has fallen prey to the big government syndrome. The trash issue, the adrain (of our current and future resources) island issue, the mandatory sidewalk issue, the convention center issue, the prison site issue, the destruction of historical neighborhood with freeway access issue, the greenway issue, the pedestrian bridge across the river issue, the new bus barn issue, the new dog pound and crematorium issueand on and on and on whilst they sit back and watch the infrastructure crumble. City staff and other special interest groups are paid to monitor how much "free" other peoples' money they can get to spend on these really fluff projects that favor special interests yet pee on the infrastructure.
"The time is past due that the city council and mayor recognize that 'Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.' (Albert Einstein.)
"Get down to basics unless there's an underlying effort to build either a legacy for some or pave the way for political futures.
"We need to have common sense in our trash bill.
"Remove mandatory use of "sole authorized collector" and the mandate to pay even if you don't use to allow the people show they really are responsible. Don't make us pay for "crimes" of a very, very few that annoy very, very few.
"There are over 1,200 households with incomes that could have possibly qualified for the indigent trash subsidy yet it would have been offered only to home-owners NOT renters because city staff somehow assumes that all renters receive some sort of government subsidy. City staff also informed the mayor and city council of an interesting definition of "household" where the number of incomes in a residence will determine the number of households are present. Make sense? Revising ordinance 14487 does make sense. Is that what city council and the mayor will attempt at HyVee this Saturday? Public is invited! Let us observe for ourselves rather than rely on second hand reports."
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
More on Garbage--Indigent Vote
From the city council meeting:
The city council voted against the proposed indigent trash service that would have provided Jefferson City homeowners with a maximum of $7.50 per month to pay their bill. The original vote was 4-6.
From Ray Walker:
"Adrian Island passed; indigent trash service (with a twist) defeated:
"The twist? Samaritan center removed from equation; "seed money" advanced to pay the bills (max of 7.50) but the advance would be repaid with funds from the recycle things sold to New World and other details but....
"Medin's impassioned speech in support was very good, very prepared, and very sincere but failed to deliver.
"
Carrol, Medin, Penfold, Ferguson voted for; the rest, including KOON, voted NO."
The city council voted against the proposed indigent trash service that would have provided Jefferson City homeowners with a maximum of $7.50 per month to pay their bill. The original vote was 4-6.
From Ray Walker:
"Adrian Island passed; indigent trash service (with a twist) defeated:
"The twist? Samaritan center removed from equation; "seed money" advanced to pay the bills (max of 7.50) but the advance would be repaid with funds from the recycle things sold to New World and other details but....
"Medin's impassioned speech in support was very good, very prepared, and very sincere but failed to deliver.
"
Carrol, Medin, Penfold, Ferguson voted for; the rest, including KOON, voted NO."
Monday, February 1, 2010
Facebook Page
The facebook page for the garbage committee:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Committee-FOR-Jefferson-City-MO-INFRASTRUCTURE/307452674947?ref=nf
Sign up and Ray Walker continues the updates for what the committee is doing.
One question, Ray. What if you do not have a facebook page and do not want to get one? Can you send items for public consumption to this blog?
OK, two questions.
Thanks.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Committee-FOR-Jefferson-City-MO-INFRASTRUCTURE/307452674947?ref=nf
Sign up and Ray Walker continues the updates for what the committee is doing.
One question, Ray. What if you do not have a facebook page and do not want to get one? Can you send items for public consumption to this blog?
OK, two questions.
Thanks.
The fight continues...
On the front page of Saturday's News Tribune was more on the garbage issue. The article which I can no longer access (the entire article that is) quotes one individual who now pays for her garbage.
I went to the News Tribune and have the quote that is missing from the online issue:
"Pat Richardson now pays for her own service said 'It's something I have gotten used to, like any other bill. I think I have been recycling more since the switch...They [Allied Waste] have been very helpful."
Before Allied Waste, her landlord paid for garbage service. She pays for the service herself now--an additional fee for living as a renter in Jefferson City.
This just shows me how quickly we become complacent.
I wonder if the changes are actually in writing in her lease.
The article I was able to access demonstrates again the weakness of the Allied Waste contract as opposed to garbage collection in similar towns. These towns have a much better system for collecting garbage--they even collect tree limbs, leaves and glass.
If the online version of Rose Ruiz's article for the News Tribune was trying to show how good our program is, they should have left the quotes in--which I have placed above--from the Jeff City resident.
Click here to read it.
I went to the News Tribune and have the quote that is missing from the online issue:
"Pat Richardson now pays for her own service said 'It's something I have gotten used to, like any other bill. I think I have been recycling more since the switch...They [Allied Waste] have been very helpful."
Before Allied Waste, her landlord paid for garbage service. She pays for the service herself now--an additional fee for living as a renter in Jefferson City.
This just shows me how quickly we become complacent.
I wonder if the changes are actually in writing in her lease.
The article I was able to access demonstrates again the weakness of the Allied Waste contract as opposed to garbage collection in similar towns. These towns have a much better system for collecting garbage--they even collect tree limbs, leaves and glass.
If the online version of Rose Ruiz's article for the News Tribune was trying to show how good our program is, they should have left the quotes in--which I have placed above--from the Jeff City resident.
Click here to read it.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Matthew Luadzers's Complete Transcript from the January 19th Council Meeting
Presentation to the Jefferson City Council on January 19th from Matthew Luadzers:
"Good evening to the members of the council, Mr. Mayor. My name is Matthew R. Luadzers I live at 912 Country Ridge Drive.
"I think of this nation of a land of freedoms and liberties. Recently on all levels of government this has been forgotten by those that have been elected to represent the people of this republic even here in my beloved home of Jefferson City. It appears the members of this body that voted for and passed ordinance number 14487 gave very little consideration to the affects the ordinance would impose on the rights of the citizens endowed to us by our creator as outlined in the United States Constitution and the Missouri State Constitution specifically the Fifth Amendment. The considerations to anti-trust laws that prohibit any entity of creating a monopoly have also been mute to this point. The current ordinance 14487 and 14486 creates such a monopoly. All of these oversights have been summed up by a single quote “The city has the ability to regulate public health and welfare” said Nickolaus. “I have been asked about this imposed tax. This is not a tax and most importantly, people are not paying any money to the city but to a private company therefore not bearing the definition of taxation” Published: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 9:18 AM News Tribune. I am not a lawyer but that sounds like extortion and absence of due process for those who do not use the bins for whatever reason.
"Although this is not a tax no one can dispute this is government intrusion into private lives of the citizens of this city. At what point does this intrusion end? Will at some point the city government decide that it is its responsibility to layout guidelines and penalties that my family’s food must come from a farm that produces only organic food and that all utensils be sanitized in a specific way and cooked only be an approved method? Will the city send a code enforcement official to each residence to collect forms kept to prove that the good citizen is complying too his nanny city governments requirements? Trash service is needed; it is the responsibility of each citizen to dispose of waste in a legal manner. The legal method should be the choice of each citizen.
"It appears neglect was shown in discernment of who should and should not be required or mandated to have a residential account with the current vendor. One concession that should have been considered are for business owners that have the ability to take their waste to their commercial bin if they wish, for those that do not generate as much trash or more trash than another resident, or for the indigent that can not afford the trash service under a single account. Now this body deliberates on the last issue; the indigent. This body wishes to enter into an agreement with a charitable organization by donating tax payer money to resolve an issue this body created by not making those considerations. In the last lengthy discussion regarding Bill 2009-117 it was pointed out that “this does not create a new entitlement program and that City Attorney Nathan Nickolaus reminded the council the city does provide legal protection for all residents under the law, but the city does not have any obligation to provide benefits or assistance to anyone”. (Published: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:13 AM News Tribune) I agree with what the City Counselor said. However, this bill would create the expectation that the city will take care of the indigent for the remainder of this contract. What happens when the city recycling revenue falls below the necessary margin to support such an expectation, or the indigent list grows? This citizen anticipates the city will revisit this matter and decide to use general revenue or to begin “earmarking funds for lack of a better term” by adding a new ordinance to support this new welfare program.
"I must request this council to deliberate on whether adding a new expectation to this obtrusive bill is the best method to solve the problem that exists. In my mind it is not the best method and should be abandoned. Thank you for your time and to everyone on this council and the mayor for all the hard work you do on all the issues that come before you."
"Good evening to the members of the council, Mr. Mayor. My name is Matthew R. Luadzers I live at 912 Country Ridge Drive.
"I think of this nation of a land of freedoms and liberties. Recently on all levels of government this has been forgotten by those that have been elected to represent the people of this republic even here in my beloved home of Jefferson City. It appears the members of this body that voted for and passed ordinance number 14487 gave very little consideration to the affects the ordinance would impose on the rights of the citizens endowed to us by our creator as outlined in the United States Constitution and the Missouri State Constitution specifically the Fifth Amendment. The considerations to anti-trust laws that prohibit any entity of creating a monopoly have also been mute to this point. The current ordinance 14487 and 14486 creates such a monopoly. All of these oversights have been summed up by a single quote “The city has the ability to regulate public health and welfare” said Nickolaus. “I have been asked about this imposed tax. This is not a tax and most importantly, people are not paying any money to the city but to a private company therefore not bearing the definition of taxation” Published: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 9:18 AM News Tribune. I am not a lawyer but that sounds like extortion and absence of due process for those who do not use the bins for whatever reason.
"Although this is not a tax no one can dispute this is government intrusion into private lives of the citizens of this city. At what point does this intrusion end? Will at some point the city government decide that it is its responsibility to layout guidelines and penalties that my family’s food must come from a farm that produces only organic food and that all utensils be sanitized in a specific way and cooked only be an approved method? Will the city send a code enforcement official to each residence to collect forms kept to prove that the good citizen is complying too his nanny city governments requirements? Trash service is needed; it is the responsibility of each citizen to dispose of waste in a legal manner. The legal method should be the choice of each citizen.
"It appears neglect was shown in discernment of who should and should not be required or mandated to have a residential account with the current vendor. One concession that should have been considered are for business owners that have the ability to take their waste to their commercial bin if they wish, for those that do not generate as much trash or more trash than another resident, or for the indigent that can not afford the trash service under a single account. Now this body deliberates on the last issue; the indigent. This body wishes to enter into an agreement with a charitable organization by donating tax payer money to resolve an issue this body created by not making those considerations. In the last lengthy discussion regarding Bill 2009-117 it was pointed out that “this does not create a new entitlement program and that City Attorney Nathan Nickolaus reminded the council the city does provide legal protection for all residents under the law, but the city does not have any obligation to provide benefits or assistance to anyone”. (Published: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:13 AM News Tribune) I agree with what the City Counselor said. However, this bill would create the expectation that the city will take care of the indigent for the remainder of this contract. What happens when the city recycling revenue falls below the necessary margin to support such an expectation, or the indigent list grows? This citizen anticipates the city will revisit this matter and decide to use general revenue or to begin “earmarking funds for lack of a better term” by adding a new ordinance to support this new welfare program.
"I must request this council to deliberate on whether adding a new expectation to this obtrusive bill is the best method to solve the problem that exists. In my mind it is not the best method and should be abandoned. Thank you for your time and to everyone on this council and the mayor for all the hard work you do on all the issues that come before you."
Thursday, January 21, 2010
How Many Jefferson City Residents Received Summons?
Allied Waste claims between one hundred and three hundred subscribers to their service received summons for nonpayment.
Another source--unidentified--claims about ten percent (1400) subscribers have not paid.
There is a group in Jefferson City collecting these names.
If you received a summons, make a comment. Use your name or sign in as anonymous.
I personally would like to see how many summons were issued, attend a few court dates to see how things get worked out, and best of all--I would like very much to discover how much this is costing the city--or how much the city hopes to make.
Remember: According to the contract, if you don't pay Allied Waste, Jefferson City is the collection agency--not Allied Waste.
Another source--unidentified--claims about ten percent (1400) subscribers have not paid.
There is a group in Jefferson City collecting these names.
If you received a summons, make a comment. Use your name or sign in as anonymous.
I personally would like to see how many summons were issued, attend a few court dates to see how things get worked out, and best of all--I would like very much to discover how much this is costing the city--or how much the city hopes to make.
Remember: According to the contract, if you don't pay Allied Waste, Jefferson City is the collection agency--not Allied Waste.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Arthur Brown's Testimony Before the City Council
Mr. Mayor and Council members, my name is Arthur H. Brown and I live at 714 Clark Street.
Hopefully by the time my turn comes to address you tonight, you will already have heard from some of the citizens of Jefferson City about their concerns and dissatisfaction with Allied Waste and their trash service.
Allied Waste is not providing adequate services that the contract states they are to provide justifying the higher rates with less service
>From two pick-ups a week to one pick-up a week
>From one larger container to two smaller containers (one for recyclables and one for trash)
>We do not have the option to not recycle, but we are charged the same price for the service.
>And last, but not least, the entire package is mandatory.
Now you want to add the Samaritan Center project to the bill. Can you not see why we citizens of Jefferson City are upset with both the Council and Allied waste? One size shoe will not fit every citizen of Jefferson City!
Allied Waste representatives will come before the council tonight and paint a pretty picture--talking about how well the trash service is being accepted, how successfully things are going. I beg to differ and a lot of other citizens feel the same as I do. May I make reference to the large number of residents who are being referred to the great system for non-payment of trash services.
Mr. Mayor and Council members--Please listen to these citizens tonight and do what is in our best interest. Allied Waste is not concerned with the citizens of Jefferson City; they are only in this contract for their profit and greed!
The City Council's charge is to represent and listen to the citizens of this city and conduct business that is in their best interest. Make some changes to your ordinance 14487 to promote fairness and honesty in trash/recyclable collection in Jefferson City. Give the citizens a fair shake in this matter. That's all most people want.
Thank you very much.
Arthur H. Brown
Hopefully by the time my turn comes to address you tonight, you will already have heard from some of the citizens of Jefferson City about their concerns and dissatisfaction with Allied Waste and their trash service.
Allied Waste is not providing adequate services that the contract states they are to provide justifying the higher rates with less service
>From two pick-ups a week to one pick-up a week
>From one larger container to two smaller containers (one for recyclables and one for trash)
>We do not have the option to not recycle, but we are charged the same price for the service.
>And last, but not least, the entire package is mandatory.
Now you want to add the Samaritan Center project to the bill. Can you not see why we citizens of Jefferson City are upset with both the Council and Allied waste? One size shoe will not fit every citizen of Jefferson City!
Allied Waste representatives will come before the council tonight and paint a pretty picture--talking about how well the trash service is being accepted, how successfully things are going. I beg to differ and a lot of other citizens feel the same as I do. May I make reference to the large number of residents who are being referred to the great system for non-payment of trash services.
Mr. Mayor and Council members--Please listen to these citizens tonight and do what is in our best interest. Allied Waste is not concerned with the citizens of Jefferson City; they are only in this contract for their profit and greed!
The City Council's charge is to represent and listen to the citizens of this city and conduct business that is in their best interest. Make some changes to your ordinance 14487 to promote fairness and honesty in trash/recyclable collection in Jefferson City. Give the citizens a fair shake in this matter. That's all most people want.
Thank you very much.
Arthur H. Brown
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
City Council Meeting and the Garbage Problem
January 19, 2010: City Council meeting and the room is standing room only--about half are here for the Allied Waste/Jefferson City issue and the other half for the clean air report.
Rich Graham of Allied Waste: "We have recycled 572 tons. This averages to 8.3 pounds per household per week and about 36 pounds per month."
I had to do the math. 8.3 X 4 equals 33.2 pounds--but I guess since months are longer than 28 days (except for February), maybe that's where the extra weight came from.
"Of the 1665 pounds of solid waste, 472 pounds are recyclable."
Notice how the numbers have changed.
"Thirty-seven percent of the trash is recycled. We have the highest percent of recycled trash."
During the question and answer period, he explained how the volume of calls were greater at the beginning of the program, but that is down now. Furthermore, the phone company has given the company more capacity and Allied Waste has hired another individual to man the phones.
Klimpt asked about the billing. "Maybe between 100 and 500 are not paying," Graham answered, "but I'll have a good number later this week." (According to this blogger, the number is more like 1400.)
"we still have 200 large containers left. Between 200 and 300. We'll be finished by the end of February."
Ferguson asked about residents getting bigger containers. "Residents can request 95 gallon barrels for $1.95 a month extra," Graham explained.
Mr. Tolson testified that the program was not well thought out. He did not like being considered the "current resident." His main problem is how the cans are left out on the street the entire time.
Ms. Symes said that the garbage issue is a "horrible misunderstanding." The part about it being mandatory caused her the most trouble. She complained about Allied Waste using the landfill, but the mayor explained that the city never owned the landfill and that Allied Waste had purchased it from private individuals.
She felt Jefferson City citizens were not offered a choice and the "once a week pick-up is an inconvenience for most people."
Mr. Parnell stated that we should have a choice if we want to recycle. He stated that he is threatened by the city placing a lien on his house if he doesn't comply with the ordinance.
Mr. Stellar was the only one to testify in favor of the program: "I like the system. That doesn't mean it's perfect. but we're a community and communities share costs."
He offered a few examples. "I pay the school tax even though I have never had a child in Jeff City public schools and even though I do not ride a bike, I still contribute to the greenways."
Mr. Farr complained that other communities are using the Jeff City landfill. "One of the reasons I supported the program was to give the landfill a longer life. With other Allied Waste communities like Fulton using our landfill, it has a shorter lifespan."
"
Mr. Steinman claimed the landfill the city owns needs to be cleaned up. "The rats are so big it's not even target practice."
"Allied Waste raised the price of the landfill. Now a three ton load is the same price as a half ton load."
He stated he would not contribute anymore money to the Samaritan Center if they accepted the city's money to pay for those who cannot afford the additional cost of garbage pick-up.
Ms. Robben explained how her family of seven needed more capacity. She was proud of the way her neighborhood looked, but now she is embarrassed because of the garbage bags that do not fit in her can and have to be placed next to it.
Ninety percent of her trash at her business is glass, but Allied Waste does not recycle glass. In order to solve her garbage problem, she is paying double for double the pick-up.
Ms. Mason explained how the garbage issue is embarrassing her. "Over the Christmas holidays, I took my guest on a tour of the Christmas lights and I was embarrassed by all of the garbage everywhere.
"The drivers do not get out of the truck and they miss their bins. I'm embarrassed to see trash everywhere."
She concluded with: "Is Allied Waste green for the people or for their pockets?"
Scrivner asked her about the garbage and she told him, "If the lid closes, there is not too much garbage. They spill out the contents and do not pick it up. Garbage is everywhere. I have pictures on my phone."
I left out two of the individuals who testified because I have their written testimony and I will present it in a later blog.
Rich Graham of Allied Waste: "We have recycled 572 tons. This averages to 8.3 pounds per household per week and about 36 pounds per month."
I had to do the math. 8.3 X 4 equals 33.2 pounds--but I guess since months are longer than 28 days (except for February), maybe that's where the extra weight came from.
"Of the 1665 pounds of solid waste, 472 pounds are recyclable."
Notice how the numbers have changed.
"Thirty-seven percent of the trash is recycled. We have the highest percent of recycled trash."
During the question and answer period, he explained how the volume of calls were greater at the beginning of the program, but that is down now. Furthermore, the phone company has given the company more capacity and Allied Waste has hired another individual to man the phones.
Klimpt asked about the billing. "Maybe between 100 and 500 are not paying," Graham answered, "but I'll have a good number later this week." (According to this blogger, the number is more like 1400.)
"we still have 200 large containers left. Between 200 and 300. We'll be finished by the end of February."
Ferguson asked about residents getting bigger containers. "Residents can request 95 gallon barrels for $1.95 a month extra," Graham explained.
Mr. Tolson testified that the program was not well thought out. He did not like being considered the "current resident." His main problem is how the cans are left out on the street the entire time.
Ms. Symes said that the garbage issue is a "horrible misunderstanding." The part about it being mandatory caused her the most trouble. She complained about Allied Waste using the landfill, but the mayor explained that the city never owned the landfill and that Allied Waste had purchased it from private individuals.
She felt Jefferson City citizens were not offered a choice and the "once a week pick-up is an inconvenience for most people."
Mr. Parnell stated that we should have a choice if we want to recycle. He stated that he is threatened by the city placing a lien on his house if he doesn't comply with the ordinance.
Mr. Stellar was the only one to testify in favor of the program: "I like the system. That doesn't mean it's perfect. but we're a community and communities share costs."
He offered a few examples. "I pay the school tax even though I have never had a child in Jeff City public schools and even though I do not ride a bike, I still contribute to the greenways."
Mr. Farr complained that other communities are using the Jeff City landfill. "One of the reasons I supported the program was to give the landfill a longer life. With other Allied Waste communities like Fulton using our landfill, it has a shorter lifespan."
"
Mr. Steinman claimed the landfill the city owns needs to be cleaned up. "The rats are so big it's not even target practice."
"Allied Waste raised the price of the landfill. Now a three ton load is the same price as a half ton load."
He stated he would not contribute anymore money to the Samaritan Center if they accepted the city's money to pay for those who cannot afford the additional cost of garbage pick-up.
Ms. Robben explained how her family of seven needed more capacity. She was proud of the way her neighborhood looked, but now she is embarrassed because of the garbage bags that do not fit in her can and have to be placed next to it.
Ninety percent of her trash at her business is glass, but Allied Waste does not recycle glass. In order to solve her garbage problem, she is paying double for double the pick-up.
Ms. Mason explained how the garbage issue is embarrassing her. "Over the Christmas holidays, I took my guest on a tour of the Christmas lights and I was embarrassed by all of the garbage everywhere.
"The drivers do not get out of the truck and they miss their bins. I'm embarrassed to see trash everywhere."
She concluded with: "Is Allied Waste green for the people or for their pockets?"
Scrivner asked her about the garbage and she told him, "If the lid closes, there is not too much garbage. They spill out the contents and do not pick it up. Garbage is everywhere. I have pictures on my phone."
I left out two of the individuals who testified because I have their written testimony and I will present it in a later blog.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Letter to the editor--News Tribune
Sorry, I can't access the letter to the editor from the Internet, nor do I know who wrote it, but here are two points I'd like to bring out:
1.) Allied Waste will be speaking on its contract at the City Council meeting held this Tuesday night at City Hall.
2.) The letter said the meeting would be held on Monday night. Monday is a holiday. Tuesday is the actual meeting.
3.) Everyone opposed to the Allied Waste/Jefferson City garbage contract should show up to express their anger at mandated garbage pick-up for every unit for more money and less capacity.
OK, three points.
1.) Allied Waste will be speaking on its contract at the City Council meeting held this Tuesday night at City Hall.
2.) The letter said the meeting would be held on Monday night. Monday is a holiday. Tuesday is the actual meeting.
3.) Everyone opposed to the Allied Waste/Jefferson City garbage contract should show up to express their anger at mandated garbage pick-up for every unit for more money and less capacity.
OK, three points.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
At The AmerenUE Meeting
The first individual to give testimony against the proposed fare increase AmerenUE wants, did not speak on the increase at all. Instead she blasted Jefferson City because the garbage disposal increase--more money for less capacity (though she did not mention the smaller capacity)--and explained in detail how hard it is for her to live on a fixed income.
The city claims only forty-four families need assistance.
I guess she isn't one of them.
And I still don't get how each unit has to have its own garbage can.
But then Jefferson City does have a lot of vacant housing and storefronts. Can this be because of nickel and dime increases to benefit the few instead of assisting and helping the many?
The city claims only forty-four families need assistance.
I guess she isn't one of them.
And I still don't get how each unit has to have its own garbage can.
But then Jefferson City does have a lot of vacant housing and storefronts. Can this be because of nickel and dime increases to benefit the few instead of assisting and helping the many?
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Today's Garbage Pick-Up
So I go outside to do something else and I find myself picking up the litter the recycling garbage truck left behind--three plastic bottles, a gallon container, and enough junk mail envelopes to fill a plastic grocery bag.
OK--I'll just place the items back in the recycling can--but guess what? Three large pieces of cardboard are still in the can and a few other items. Now I know they came to collect it this morning because it was stuffed fairly well, but this is too much playing.
So I take everything out and put it in the regular garbage can and now it's overflowing with garbage because even though we pay more money for the garbage service, we have less capacity--a lot less capacity.
This is not the first time I had to pick up litter and it probably won't be the last, but I don't think my service agreement includes me spending time collecting my garbage after the garbage truck empties it.
So now what? We need Jefferson City to include a street cleaning service and an anti-litter brigade because I not only collected my garbage, but garbage from a few other cans too.
No problem, though. Keep in mind always that Jefferson City went into this contract with Allied Waste because Allied Waste actually pays the city $7.50 for each collected metric ton.
I guess the city will do whatever it can to make more money.
Tattoos anyone?
OK--I'll just place the items back in the recycling can--but guess what? Three large pieces of cardboard are still in the can and a few other items. Now I know they came to collect it this morning because it was stuffed fairly well, but this is too much playing.
So I take everything out and put it in the regular garbage can and now it's overflowing with garbage because even though we pay more money for the garbage service, we have less capacity--a lot less capacity.
This is not the first time I had to pick up litter and it probably won't be the last, but I don't think my service agreement includes me spending time collecting my garbage after the garbage truck empties it.
So now what? We need Jefferson City to include a street cleaning service and an anti-litter brigade because I not only collected my garbage, but garbage from a few other cans too.
No problem, though. Keep in mind always that Jefferson City went into this contract with Allied Waste because Allied Waste actually pays the city $7.50 for each collected metric ton.
I guess the city will do whatever it can to make more money.
Tattoos anyone?
What You Can Do--Notify the FCC at 1-877-382-4357
The Federal Trade Commission has been made aware of irregularities in the mandatory garbage program with Allied Waste and Jefferson City. The main concern is the provision making Allied Waste tjhe only garbage company on record. Is this considered to be a monopoly?
If you feel the contract with Allied waste and the city is indeed unfair (in violation of the Clayton Act) then please contact the Federal Trade Commision at 1-877-382-4357.
The more individuals who contact them, the faster they will act.
If you feel the contract with Allied waste and the city is indeed unfair (in violation of the Clayton Act) then please contact the Federal Trade Commision at 1-877-382-4357.
The more individuals who contact them, the faster they will act.
Is the Contract between Allied Waste and Jefferson City a Violation of the Clayton Act?
Is there a violation in the anti-trust laws as stated in the Clayton Act between Allied waste and the City of Jefferson?
Read the below paragraph taken directly from the Clayton Act. Is the contract between Allied Waste and Jefferson City in violation of this act?
If so please leave your comments. (All comments will be published--pro and con.)
"It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered: Provided, however, That the Federal Trade Commission may, after due investigation and hearing to all interested parties, fix and establish quantity limits, and revise the same as it finds necessary, as to particular commodities or classes of commodities, where it finds that available purchasers in greater quantities are so few as to render differentials on account thereof unjustly discriminatory or promotive of monopoly in any line of commerce; and the foregoing shall then not be construed to permit differentials based on differences in quantities greater than those so fixed and established: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent price changes from time to time where in response to changing conditions affecting the market for or the marketability of the goods concerned, such as but not limited to actual or imminent deterioration of perishable goods, obsolescence of seasonal goods, distress sales under court process, or sales in good faith in discontinuance of business in the goods concerned."
Read the below paragraph taken directly from the Clayton Act. Is the contract between Allied Waste and Jefferson City in violation of this act?
If so please leave your comments. (All comments will be published--pro and con.)
"It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered: Provided, however, That the Federal Trade Commission may, after due investigation and hearing to all interested parties, fix and establish quantity limits, and revise the same as it finds necessary, as to particular commodities or classes of commodities, where it finds that available purchasers in greater quantities are so few as to render differentials on account thereof unjustly discriminatory or promotive of monopoly in any line of commerce; and the foregoing shall then not be construed to permit differentials based on differences in quantities greater than those so fixed and established: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent price changes from time to time where in response to changing conditions affecting the market for or the marketability of the goods concerned, such as but not limited to actual or imminent deterioration of perishable goods, obsolescence of seasonal goods, distress sales under court process, or sales in good faith in discontinuance of business in the goods concerned."
Buttons for Sale
The Citizen Action Committee Against Mandatory Garbage Pick-up has a new button for sale. The button has a garbage can with a lid and an X through the entire image.
It only costs a dollar.
What a bargain.
Contact Arthur Brown at 353-3039 for more details.
It only costs a dollar.
What a bargain.
Contact Arthur Brown at 353-3039 for more details.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
read what the News Tribune has to say about the mandatory garbage can situation and those who canot afford to pay by clicking here.
Now I will paste an email I received from Ray Walker:
Rosa,
In your story: Resident: Indigent trash program 'arbitrary, capricious' Published: Tuesday, January 5, 2010 1:30 AM CST
I noted the following inaccurate quotes:
First
" believes there are more than 40 persons" Perhaps I did say this but I immediately, deliberately and distinctly corrected any references from "persons" to "households"
"presented city staff with data from the U.S. Census Bureau" The data is NOT from the U.S. Census Bureau but is from Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce brochure attached and is repeated at this link (click here).
This link corroborates the Chamber's data:
(Perhaps it may be found interesting that the Chamber's data was prepared at some expense to the Chamber by Decision Data Resources and exactly matches that obtained by me from City Data at no cost)
Secondly:
The quote attributed to Ms. Fast "the census data defines households differently" is incorrect in that she distinctly said "the government defines households differently" with NO reference to "census" and this data is NOT from the U.S. Census bureau.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Ray Walker
Now I will paste an email I received from Ray Walker:
Rosa,
In your story: Resident: Indigent trash program 'arbitrary, capricious' Published: Tuesday, January 5, 2010 1:30 AM CST
I noted the following inaccurate quotes:
First
" believes there are more than 40 persons" Perhaps I did say this but I immediately, deliberately and distinctly corrected any references from "persons" to "households"
"presented city staff with data from the U.S. Census Bureau" The data is NOT from the U.S. Census Bureau but is from Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce brochure attached and is repeated at this link (click here).
This link corroborates the Chamber's data:
(Perhaps it may be found interesting that the Chamber's data was prepared at some expense to the Chamber by Decision Data Resources and exactly matches that obtained by me from City Data at no cost)
Secondly:
The quote attributed to Ms. Fast "the census data defines households differently" is incorrect in that she distinctly said "the government defines households differently" with NO reference to "census" and this data is NOT from the U.S. Census bureau.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Ray Walker
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Mid Mo Samaritan Center
From their web page which you can see if you click here and then scroll down comes this interesting piece of information:
"We receive no government funding, but rely on donations from churches and the community."
So how do they now begin to take government money? I guess they better get their board of directors together and make the needed changes in their articles or in their charter to take government money.
Of course, the City of Jefferson can add new employees to assist with the payments for those who cannot afford to pay. I'm sure they already are interviewing--though I really don't know--for the positions that will be needed to enforce the payments of those who did not pay Allied Waste. Remember--the city is responsible for collecting and punishing those individuals who refuse or just do not pay.
"We receive no government funding, but rely on donations from churches and the community."
So how do they now begin to take government money? I guess they better get their board of directors together and make the needed changes in their articles or in their charter to take government money.
Of course, the City of Jefferson can add new employees to assist with the payments for those who cannot afford to pay. I'm sure they already are interviewing--though I really don't know--for the positions that will be needed to enforce the payments of those who did not pay Allied Waste. Remember--the city is responsible for collecting and punishing those individuals who refuse or just do not pay.
Comments on the Mandatory Garbage Can Issue
Click here and scroll down to comments.
Selected comments below:
cherchante wrote on Dec 27, 2009 8:31 AM:
" Let's see. Infrastructure is in shambles according to some. Streets falling apart. Curbs are in dismal shape busted to pieces and falling apart. Got to have sidewalks even though there was no need for them in the 1960 and earlier and moratoriums can be granted for Giant Companies to be allowed to escape the cost.
Streets are snow covered today when in the past one would never see that.
But the city officials can force the home owner to pay for side walks, repair curbs, and the elderly to drive to church on unsafe streets while thousands spent are on providing a solution to a problem they created. Now is this an example of tyranny or what? "
boscoe wrote on Dec 24, 2009 1:31 PM:
" 1519, you find it very interesting that different households can have different needs? That is crazy, man!
Every household should be exactly like every other household. They should have the same number of kids, same incomes, same make of cars, same religion, etc. I guess diversity is not what Jefferson City Council wants to support?
Treat every household the same.
Give every household the same # of pickups and same sized containers.
Charge every household the same amount.
Diversity is bad.
Compliance is king.
Assimulate or die. "
Tyler Woods wrote on Dec 22, 2009 10:14 PM:
" The best thing to do right now is call your current council person and express your concern with what is happening on the new trash service. Call them day or night as that is what they were elected to do, is serve you the people. If you are against or support the trash issue, every voice counts. I am also welcoming calls and emails as I am running for the city council position in Ward 1. Please call 573-230-3072 or email tyler.m.woods@gmail.com with any questions, comments or concerns as I would like the opportunity to discuss and assist you anyway I can. "
cherchante wrote on Dec 22, 2009 7:15 PM:
" Interesting! No report on how many hundreds of thousands that the city revenues are down! Would the News Tribune like to justify the omission of that perhaps salient detail? And nor is there the first bit of evidence of investigative reporting that would show how many thousands of households there are in the City of Jefferson who fall below the federal poverty guidelines but yet city employees can justify that there are only 40 or so households in line for receiving how many thousands of dollars of trash bill coverage from taxpayers via a "respected" charitable, 501(c)(3) organization who will change their standards to now funnel government money? Go here, page down to "Quick Facts" http://www.midmosamaritan.org/info/stats.htm "
And now we will create a blog just to look at Quick Facts" http://www.midmosamaritan.org/info/stats.htm
Selected comments below:
cherchante wrote on Dec 27, 2009 8:31 AM:
" Let's see. Infrastructure is in shambles according to some. Streets falling apart. Curbs are in dismal shape busted to pieces and falling apart. Got to have sidewalks even though there was no need for them in the 1960 and earlier and moratoriums can be granted for Giant Companies to be allowed to escape the cost.
Streets are snow covered today when in the past one would never see that.
But the city officials can force the home owner to pay for side walks, repair curbs, and the elderly to drive to church on unsafe streets while thousands spent are on providing a solution to a problem they created. Now is this an example of tyranny or what? "
boscoe wrote on Dec 24, 2009 1:31 PM:
" 1519, you find it very interesting that different households can have different needs? That is crazy, man!
Every household should be exactly like every other household. They should have the same number of kids, same incomes, same make of cars, same religion, etc. I guess diversity is not what Jefferson City Council wants to support?
Treat every household the same.
Give every household the same # of pickups and same sized containers.
Charge every household the same amount.
Diversity is bad.
Compliance is king.
Assimulate or die. "
Tyler Woods wrote on Dec 22, 2009 10:14 PM:
" The best thing to do right now is call your current council person and express your concern with what is happening on the new trash service. Call them day or night as that is what they were elected to do, is serve you the people. If you are against or support the trash issue, every voice counts. I am also welcoming calls and emails as I am running for the city council position in Ward 1. Please call 573-230-3072 or email tyler.m.woods@gmail.com with any questions, comments or concerns as I would like the opportunity to discuss and assist you anyway I can. "
cherchante wrote on Dec 22, 2009 7:15 PM:
" Interesting! No report on how many hundreds of thousands that the city revenues are down! Would the News Tribune like to justify the omission of that perhaps salient detail? And nor is there the first bit of evidence of investigative reporting that would show how many thousands of households there are in the City of Jefferson who fall below the federal poverty guidelines but yet city employees can justify that there are only 40 or so households in line for receiving how many thousands of dollars of trash bill coverage from taxpayers via a "respected" charitable, 501(c)(3) organization who will change their standards to now funnel government money? Go here, page down to "Quick Facts" http://www.midmosamaritan.org/info/stats.htm "
And now we will create a blog just to look at Quick Facts" http://www.midmosamaritan.org/info/stats.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)