The following came from Carrie Carroll. Please refer to my blog,
"Carrie Carroll's Fact Sheet and My Rebuttals."
“My name is listed on the fact sheet which is information from the city's website and although I am not the author and cannot take the credit you has given me on your blog I agree with the facts that are stated and that I support our current plan. I am glad I was able to assist you in come corrections such as this does not apply to triplexes (and fourplexes and larger apartments) and it is a great example that people should be sure they are getting facts from verifiable sources.
"Thank you!
"Carrie
"Carrie Carroll
4th Ward City Council"
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Why I'm Voting For Tyler Woods
Tyler Woods is definitely the best candidate for the First Ward. When I met with him recently he expressed amazement that city council members were paid monthly. He was prepared to volunteer. Already I was all ears.
It's very seldom to meet selfless individuals who care more about their community than they do themselves. He is one of them--willing to actually serve our community and work for the people, not the status quo.
I am not a one issue voter, but he is voting "yes" on Prop A (which this blog is all about). He also understands the community and is willing to go out of his way and meet everyone. He understands how the sound ordinance works, for example, and how the powers to be ignore it. He understands parking issues and how they impact on handicapped drivers.
I like that in a candidate--an open honesty and a willingness to do the best he can do.
What else impressed me--he gave out his contact info to everyone, he actually asked what issues concerned me, and he listened--and not the way a politician listens (what's in it for me), but how a human being should listen--with concern, empathy and understanding.
The present First Ward candidate has to give up his seat in two years due to procedural rules. Then the mayor can appoint someone he wants. Tyler Woods will be eligible for the entire eight years.
I'm voting for him.
If you need more reasons please read the following quote: “If I am elected, I promise to maintain a policy of open communication. This is one of the cornerstones of public service. (Please feel free to contact me: 573-230-3072 or tyler.m.woods@gmail.com.) I also promise to research all issues before taking action and to represent the First Ward to the best of my ability, but I cannot do this without you. Please vote for me—and better city government—April 5th.”
It's very seldom to meet selfless individuals who care more about their community than they do themselves. He is one of them--willing to actually serve our community and work for the people, not the status quo.
I am not a one issue voter, but he is voting "yes" on Prop A (which this blog is all about). He also understands the community and is willing to go out of his way and meet everyone. He understands how the sound ordinance works, for example, and how the powers to be ignore it. He understands parking issues and how they impact on handicapped drivers.
I like that in a candidate--an open honesty and a willingness to do the best he can do.
What else impressed me--he gave out his contact info to everyone, he actually asked what issues concerned me, and he listened--and not the way a politician listens (what's in it for me), but how a human being should listen--with concern, empathy and understanding.
The present First Ward candidate has to give up his seat in two years due to procedural rules. Then the mayor can appoint someone he wants. Tyler Woods will be eligible for the entire eight years.
I'm voting for him.
If you need more reasons please read the following quote: “If I am elected, I promise to maintain a policy of open communication. This is one of the cornerstones of public service. (Please feel free to contact me: 573-230-3072 or tyler.m.woods@gmail.com.) I also promise to research all issues before taking action and to represent the First Ward to the best of my ability, but I cannot do this without you. Please vote for me—and better city government—April 5th.”
Friday, March 11, 2011
Town Hall Meeting Tomorrow
The Citizen's Action Committee Against Ordinance Number 14487--the trash ordinance on the ballot as Prop. A--will hold an informational meeting about the proposition Saturday, March 12th, from 10:00AM to 12:00PM at Johnny's Buthcher Shop, 2314 Lorenzo Green Road in Jeff City.
Vote yes for Prop A.
Vote yes for Prop A.
Contact Info
I would like to contact someone in reference to Prop. A prior to the election. Apparently the city is not willing to clarify exactlty what is meant and involved here and I am grossly unhappy about this. Please post info for the general public on how to contact! How can I contact the troops AGAINST this "forcing residents to take trash service"? THANK YOU.
Contact Arthur Brown at 353-3039 or 635-7207.
Contact Arthur Brown at 353-3039 or 635-7207.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Corrections for Carrie Carroll's Fact Sheet and My Rebuttals Carrie Carroll's Fact Sheet and My Rebuttals
Another correction: The mandatory garbage collection only applies to single and duplex residents. So I am right about one thing--it will cost thirty dollars per month for each duplex. This is still more money than in the county.
Jefferson City Mayor John Landwehr said, "We included duplexes because I own a few."
Jefferson City Mayor John Landwehr said, "We included duplexes because I own a few."
Monday, March 7, 2011
You have been invited to join Citizens Action Committee Against 14487
You have been invited to join Citizens Action Committee Against 14487
_____________________________________________
The GLOVES are off and this site supports a YES vote on PROP A, April 5, 2011! Please visit, join and contribute!
Click this link to join: http://talkingtrash14487.webs.com/apps/auth/confirm?inviteID=99655822&hash=28a6137918373952825a554282656916&action=accept
_____________________________________________
The GLOVES are off and this site supports a YES vote on PROP A, April 5, 2011! Please visit, join and contribute!
Click this link to join: http://talkingtrash14487.webs.com/apps/auth/confirm?inviteID=99655822&hash=28a6137918373952825a554282656916&action=accept
Corrections and Updates for Carrie Carroll's Fact Sheet and My Rebuttals Carrie Carroll's Fact Sheet and My Rebuttals
This from Ray Walker:
(My original comments are in parenthesis.)
Michael,
Good job!
And thanks for asking about some of the content at
http://attackofthegarbagecans.blogspot.com/2011/03/carrie-carrolls-fact-sheet-and-my.html
Per the section containing:
Since the city began its current trash and recycling collection, more than 2 million pounds of solid waste has been kept out of the city landfill, extending its life and postponing a very costly replacement.
(We are leasing the city's landfill to Allied Waste. The city, according to the contract, still shares responsiblities for its upkeep.)
Per the deed file at the County Recorder's office, The City of Jefferson does NOT own, nor never has owned, the land fill. The title that appears can lead one to believe the city does or did, but the fact is that Allied, now Republic, owns the landfill by way of owning the actual shell company that owns the landfill. We have those documents. They are public documents at the Recorder's office so I obtained them and Arthur has filed them.
Per the section containing:
If PROPOSITION A passes, the city will be in violation of its current trash contract with Allied Waste Services (Republic Services) and could face costly legal action. Termination of the trash agreement would mean city residents and businesses would also have no price control over trash service. It is estimated the residential rates will increase. It is unlikely that any new competitors will enter the market. Residents in the unincorporated areas of the county where there are no limits pay 75 percent more than city residents. There would also be no curbside recycling service.
(According to the contract, there is no real price control now. Before we could dump items on Dix Road for as low as twenty dollars a truck load. The current price is sixty-five dollars and up. I understand this price is going up in April.)
What is being overlooked by ALL concerned with defeating Prop A is that this effort is NOT, never has been, about ending the mandatory pick up of garbage. That was included in the ordinance at the same time as the "authorized collector" phrase which we are seeking to remove.
AND also wholesomely being overlooked is that the contract contains the clause that requires Allied to submit a request to the city council for a rate increase. SO THEREFORE: If the rates increase, the city council will have voted to increase them!
AND further overlooked, and egregiously so, is the section 37.1 Force Majeure (see page 23 of the contract, if you have a copy from the start up days) in that the passage of Prop A will be caused by a contingency beyond a party's reasonable control, to wit, compliance with applicable laws or government orders! This is the clause that brings scorn from the city attorney in that, in my opinion, he seems to feel any government controls the people rather than the other way around!
AND also overlooked is the fact that many sections of the contract are NOT being enforced or are being ignored or are in breach! In breach would be section 2.2 Exclusivity of Yard Waste, page 7, where there was NOT a single action by city council to remove this section. And according to the modification clause, section 34, page23, the only way parts of the agreement can be considered modified, altered, change, assigned, or amended in any respect unless in writing and signed by the parties hereto. The city council never passed an ordinance permitting modifying the contract per 2.2 when it awarded the current yard waste contract and did Allied sign such an agreement to modification???
Per the section containing references to fire services:
No one recalls that fire services were once provided by private fire companies similar to the way trash is being handle now-a-days. But did the city allow that to go on?
(My original comments are in parenthesis.)
Michael,
Good job!
And thanks for asking about some of the content at
http://attackofthegarbagecans.blogspot.com/2011/03/carrie-carrolls-fact-sheet-and-my.html
Per the section containing:
Since the city began its current trash and recycling collection, more than 2 million pounds of solid waste has been kept out of the city landfill, extending its life and postponing a very costly replacement.
(We are leasing the city's landfill to Allied Waste. The city, according to the contract, still shares responsiblities for its upkeep.)
Per the deed file at the County Recorder's office, The City of Jefferson does NOT own, nor never has owned, the land fill. The title that appears can lead one to believe the city does or did, but the fact is that Allied, now Republic, owns the landfill by way of owning the actual shell company that owns the landfill. We have those documents. They are public documents at the Recorder's office so I obtained them and Arthur has filed them.
Per the section containing:
If PROPOSITION A passes, the city will be in violation of its current trash contract with Allied Waste Services (Republic Services) and could face costly legal action. Termination of the trash agreement would mean city residents and businesses would also have no price control over trash service. It is estimated the residential rates will increase. It is unlikely that any new competitors will enter the market. Residents in the unincorporated areas of the county where there are no limits pay 75 percent more than city residents. There would also be no curbside recycling service.
(According to the contract, there is no real price control now. Before we could dump items on Dix Road for as low as twenty dollars a truck load. The current price is sixty-five dollars and up. I understand this price is going up in April.)
What is being overlooked by ALL concerned with defeating Prop A is that this effort is NOT, never has been, about ending the mandatory pick up of garbage. That was included in the ordinance at the same time as the "authorized collector" phrase which we are seeking to remove.
AND also wholesomely being overlooked is that the contract contains the clause that requires Allied to submit a request to the city council for a rate increase. SO THEREFORE: If the rates increase, the city council will have voted to increase them!
AND further overlooked, and egregiously so, is the section 37.1 Force Majeure (see page 23 of the contract, if you have a copy from the start up days) in that the passage of Prop A will be caused by a contingency beyond a party's reasonable control, to wit, compliance with applicable laws or government orders! This is the clause that brings scorn from the city attorney in that, in my opinion, he seems to feel any government controls the people rather than the other way around!
AND also overlooked is the fact that many sections of the contract are NOT being enforced or are being ignored or are in breach! In breach would be section 2.2 Exclusivity of Yard Waste, page 7, where there was NOT a single action by city council to remove this section. And according to the modification clause, section 34, page23, the only way parts of the agreement can be considered modified, altered, change, assigned, or amended in any respect unless in writing and signed by the parties hereto. The city council never passed an ordinance permitting modifying the contract per 2.2 when it awarded the current yard waste contract and did Allied sign such an agreement to modification???
Per the section containing references to fire services:
No one recalls that fire services were once provided by private fire companies similar to the way trash is being handle now-a-days. But did the city allow that to go on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)