Sue, Sue, Sue,
Please point out where I am incorrect.
Show the "ignorance" that I have "smeared all over the internet".
I've kicked your bitter old ass to the curb with facts, Sue.
Please don't act all high and mighty because I've called you as you are - a bitter old woman. After all the name calling you've done over the years, your tender sensiblilities shouldnt be offended in the least.
The ONLY thing that I have corrected you on is your bullshit that the general fund could afford to pay for discounts. Please explain how that is smearing my ignorance all over the internet.
BTW, Sue, most of us on the old blogosphere are anonymous. Doesnt make what we say any less true.
You dont have a clue as what a workshop is, dude.
What you think that was at the Wharfinger building where a whopping 35 people showed up? That, my friend, was a workshop.
You hit the nail on the head though, friend - as the rates are changed; as they are set to be properly based upon usage, WHICH IS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED -Senior discounts will be illegal.
If you call rate models which were which were calculated by engineering and financial professionals, "poorly thought out", it's only because you are obviously gearing up for another run at a city council seat -
meanwhile the folks are basing the new rates on the true cost to operate the system and build reserves.
Here's the kicker though - leave the rates as they are; then you can have your senior discounts and artifically low rates - but - under new guidelines, namely prop 218, rates MUST be devised based upon usage measurements.
So - after you've decided to keep our rates the way they are, where are you gonna buy the water? The water district won't sell it to us unless they can cover the cost of delivering it to us, and how are we going to pay for future infrastructure costs?
In Print This Week:
Nov 28, 2013
vol XXIV issue 48
Bar Food Crawl
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation