Friday, April 5, 2013
The Court of Appeals and Our Attorney Made Us Proud
On Wednesday, the Court of Appeals heard from a soft spoken, extremely literate and intelligent attorney who stated her case against high powered, high salaried individuals.
And the court bent to listen--she was that good.
I haven't read her brief--but I know it's even better.
Friday, March 8, 2013
The Appeal Against the Attack of the Garbage Cans
The case of the Attack of the Garbage Cans continues...
The trash case is now set for oral arguments on April third in front of three appellate court judges of the Western District Court of Appeals.
If you want more info, click here.
The trash case is now set for oral arguments on April third in front of three appellate court judges of the Western District Court of Appeals.
If you want more info, click here.
Friday, March 1, 2013
You Don't Have to Pay to get Garbage Picked Up
Under the mandatory garbage pick-up rule, Allied Waste has to collect your garbage if you pay or do not pay.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
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."
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."
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The last blog in this Blog
The vote is in--and the no's won.
Jefferson City Prop. A (trash issue)
Yes 1,961; No 5,669.
Because I am a strong supporter of democracy, there will be no sour grapes here. We tried, we lost, and the voters spoke--so I will go along with their decision.
I want to thank everyone who supported this blog. This will be my final blog. That's all.
Thank you.
Jefferson City Prop. A (trash issue)
Yes 1,961; No 5,669.
Because I am a strong supporter of democracy, there will be no sour grapes here. We tried, we lost, and the voters spoke--so I will go along with their decision.
I want to thank everyone who supported this blog. This will be my final blog. That's all.
Thank you.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Vote April 5th
Vote YES on Prop A April 5th.
Vote for choice.
Vote YES because before we had this contract the streets were cleaner--garbage was picked up twice a week; we had larger capacity; we had choice and for many users with little to no garbage, garbage collection was much cheaper.
A vote for YES would be a vote against taxation without representation--and that's what mandatory unit by unit for houses and two unit apartment buildings are forced to contend with.
Vote for choice.
Vote YES because before we had this contract the streets were cleaner--garbage was picked up twice a week; we had larger capacity; we had choice and for many users with little to no garbage, garbage collection was much cheaper.
A vote for YES would be a vote against taxation without representation--and that's what mandatory unit by unit for houses and two unit apartment buildings are forced to contend with.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
WHY I AM VOTING YES ON PROP A
I decided to start this blog four days after the city council meeting (November 2nd maybe a bit more than a year ago). So let me begin with a brief summary: The Jefferson City Council signed a contract with Allied Waste to pick up the garbage. Before the contract, residents had a choice in their garbage delivery: they could opt out, use a bag system, or subscribe to the service. The service included twice a week pickup with two ninety-five gallon garbage cans. The new contracted service no longer allows any resident to opt out, delivery is now only once a week, the cans are sixty-five gallons (so we lose fifty gallons of volume) and one of the cans is designated for recycling only--but no glass—so really our actual capacity is much smaller. The new service is also more expensive,
I did not even know about this issue.(Perhaps one reason why is because public comments are always at the end of long council meetings—but that’s another issue.) Nonetheless, I do not like the new system. Mandatory does not go well with me, the way the garbage cans are stacked up and down the streets (hence the blog's title--Attack of the Garbage Cans)does not go well with me, the way some cans are already overflowing because of the once a week delivery schedule does not go well with me, the hardship for many residents who cannot afford a mandatory pickup (and I need to let you know every unit in every duplex apartment unit and every home has to have a garbage can for the residents living there--you are not allowed to share garbage cans) does not go well with me.
I've asked around and I understand that even though this process has been ongoing for the last two years, few residents even knew anything about it.
I understand why. At the council meeting I spoke twice--once about the garbage can problem and again about a moratorium on new sidewalk construction. I would never have known about the sidewalk issue--what town does not want sidewalks?-- if I hadn't attended the meeting. Obviously the word did not get out.
VOTE YES ON PROP A.
I did not even know about this issue.(Perhaps one reason why is because public comments are always at the end of long council meetings—but that’s another issue.) Nonetheless, I do not like the new system. Mandatory does not go well with me, the way the garbage cans are stacked up and down the streets (hence the blog's title--Attack of the Garbage Cans)does not go well with me, the way some cans are already overflowing because of the once a week delivery schedule does not go well with me, the hardship for many residents who cannot afford a mandatory pickup (and I need to let you know every unit in every duplex apartment unit and every home has to have a garbage can for the residents living there--you are not allowed to share garbage cans) does not go well with me.
I've asked around and I understand that even though this process has been ongoing for the last two years, few residents even knew anything about it.
I understand why. At the council meeting I spoke twice--once about the garbage can problem and again about a moratorium on new sidewalk construction. I would never have known about the sidewalk issue--what town does not want sidewalks?-- if I hadn't attended the meeting. Obviously the word did not get out.
VOTE YES ON PROP A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)