This Might be the Last Blog in this Blog

From a commenmt by Anonymous on June 21, 2012 8:29 AM because citations are being delivered to a number of Jefferson City residents who do not have garbage service and/or refuse to pay for it.  In response to Charles who wrote the following:


I just got charged with a misdemeanor for this issue. "Failure to maintain trash service" Bleh. I recycle everything (that can be) already and end up with a small Walmart bag's worth of trash weekly. This is just as illegal as the anti-profanity laws are. The "voters" may have spoken but how many other indignities and abuses have been legal in the past. As I hurt none, I shall do as I will.

I wrote: You need to understand Jefferson City has an official--or perhaps unofficial--policy we like to call "selective enforcement." Check out how many people do not have garbage cans, but have money or influence, and then see if they ever get charged with anything. There are quite a few of these people in this city--and nothing will ever happen to them.
Now we hear from anmother individual who explains why  The Last Blog should not be the last blog at all:
"It is not true that the citizens voted to accept a mandatory trash service purportedly imposed by the current trash ordinances (whether it’s mandatory is itself questionable if the ordinance and contract are read carefully). The ballot language specifically read: “Shall the City Code (Chapter 30, Sections 1 and 2) of the City of Jefferson be amended by retaining the requirement that every residence have trash service but eliminating the requirement that trash only be collected by an authorized collector?”

"The only possible change passage of the proposition could make from the existing law was to “eliminat[e] the requirement that trash only be collected by an authorized collector.” The “requirement that every residence have trash service” would remain unchanged whether or not the proposition passed. First, one does not amend and at the same time retain something. To amend something is to change it. The phrase “Shall the City Code . . . be amended by retaining the requirement that every residence have trash service,” if it has any legitimate use at all, acts only as a qualifier, reassuring that that affect of the ordinance / contract will remain unchanged even if the citizens vote to eliminate “the requirement that trash only be collected by an authorized collector.” Think of it this way: What if the citizens had voted “YES”? What would have changed? ONLY that the “requirement that trash only be collected by an authorized collector” be eliminated. If the City wants to press that the purpose of the ballot language was to inquire whether the Code be “amended by retaining the requirement that every residence have trash service,” then the result was a “NO” vote. The citizens, therefore, voted against “amend[ing] by retaining” that requirement.

"This ballot language was tweaked and approved by former city attorney / current city administrator Nathan Nickolaus. It is very poorly written. If that was the main point of the vote (rather than seeking to eliminate the requirement of collection only by an authorized collector), the phrase concerning the requirement that every residence have trash service should have stood on its own and reworded, because, as I said, you don’t amend to retain something. It was not the point of the vote. Either way the vote had gone – “YES” or “NO” – the requirement that every residence have trash service would remain unchanged."