I got my water bill today. It's for the April through June quarter.
Disclaimers: I live alone. I don't have a pool. I don't water the "grass." (I don't have any.) I bathe every day, sometimes more than once a day, but I use a cut-off valve when I don't need the water actively running. I do my own laundry in a front load washing machine.
My usage was 5000 gallons. I'm not sure if it was less, but I think they have a minimum charge for 5000 gallons. Unless they did away with that in exchange for the meter fee, but it doesn't say there was a meter fee.
My last quarter bill, under the old billing system, was a total of $72.26. This quarter, under what I think is the new system, it is $61.87. The "water charge" is $42.85. The County adds a "Service Fee" (not sure what service the County renders) of $4.02. CNM applies a surcharge of 25% for "delivering" water outside North Miami, so that was an additional $10.71. We, VBP, add a utility tax of 10%, which was $4.29. These charges are all per quarter.
So the total for me is about $20.62 per month. In other parts of the country, people pay water bills of $100 per month.
So that's it, ladies and gentlemen. Drink up.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
RFD (Request for Data)
An interesting question has been posed to me, regarding the post entitled "Send in the Clowns."
I am asked for a graph of attendance at Commission meetings, to illustrate any change in it over the past few years.
This is difficult to produce, impossible, really, since we don't keep attendance.
What I can say is that when I started to come to Commission meetings, in 2005, the room was very full. After Steve Bernard was appointed, then elected, it is my impression that attendance began to deteriorate. And I'm not the only one who noticed. Steve also started to complain about it, though he thought the association, and the cause, were elsewhere. Now, even Bryan Cooper is complaining about poor attendance. And I completely agree with Bryan. Attendance at Commission meetings is terrible.
What's curious is that attendance should have increased beginning in December, when the good guys took the majority, at least according to Steve's theory of why attendance deteriorated in the first place. And Steve, if you read this blog, I'm most interested in your thoughts. Is there some factor you didn't mention or think of? Were you actually wrong about your explanation of poor attendance? What do you now think is the explanation for the poor attendance?
So since we don't keep attendance, no one can provide data as to what the attendance was or is. But does anyone have any impressions as to whether it seems about as it always was, or it decreased at some point, or increased at some point? Steve, Bryan, and I think it dropped off dramatically and disturbingly. What have you noticed?
I'm just asking, because someone asked me. Please use the "Comment" opportunity immediately below, at the end of this particular post, to register your impressions or observations.
Thanks.
I am asked for a graph of attendance at Commission meetings, to illustrate any change in it over the past few years.
This is difficult to produce, impossible, really, since we don't keep attendance.
What I can say is that when I started to come to Commission meetings, in 2005, the room was very full. After Steve Bernard was appointed, then elected, it is my impression that attendance began to deteriorate. And I'm not the only one who noticed. Steve also started to complain about it, though he thought the association, and the cause, were elsewhere. Now, even Bryan Cooper is complaining about poor attendance. And I completely agree with Bryan. Attendance at Commission meetings is terrible.
What's curious is that attendance should have increased beginning in December, when the good guys took the majority, at least according to Steve's theory of why attendance deteriorated in the first place. And Steve, if you read this blog, I'm most interested in your thoughts. Is there some factor you didn't mention or think of? Were you actually wrong about your explanation of poor attendance? What do you now think is the explanation for the poor attendance?
So since we don't keep attendance, no one can provide data as to what the attendance was or is. But does anyone have any impressions as to whether it seems about as it always was, or it decreased at some point, or increased at some point? Steve, Bryan, and I think it dropped off dramatically and disturbingly. What have you noticed?
I'm just asking, because someone asked me. Please use the "Comment" opportunity immediately below, at the end of this particular post, to register your impressions or observations.
Thanks.
Sure, But Grover Norquist is Honest.
To be sure, the dog is loyal. But why, on that account, should we take him as an example? He is loyal to man, not to other dogs. -Karl Kraus, writer (1874-1936)
Our Tea Party friends are asked to sign a "pledge," in exchange for support, when they run. They must pledge not, under any circumstances, to approve a tax increase. No matter what the fiscal realities, nor forseen or unforseen developments, they must not approve a tax increase, of any kind, in any guise, or for any reason. And the evil genius of this crime against the government and the people is Grover Norquist. As fiscal discussions play out, and the occasional Tea Party member begins to show signs of straying, Norquist is right there to call him or her to task, and threaten defeat, if not practically assassination. Norquist will do this publicly. You might hear him on someone's radio show. Even NPR. And if he doesn't deliver the ultimatum in person, Bill O'Reilly or someone else will. This is all, frankly, above board. It may be ridiculous, it may be sabotaging, it may represent a fundamental threat to the concept of devotion to one's voting constituents, but it's in the open. As some of us in BP like to say, it's in the Sunshine. Tea Party politicians have a constituent, and it isn't the people who voted for them, or the citizenry of the country. It is Grover Norquist.
And Norquist has a theory, which he will articulate. Ask him, and he'll be happy to tell you. He doesn't like or trust government, and he would like it shrunken to a size small enough that it can be drowned in the bathtub. I'm quoting him here. That's his theory, and if you want his help, you'll adhere to it. And if you do adhere to it, like people who accept favors from the Mafia, you will quickly learn that your loyalties are to him, not to the people who live in your district.
It's mind-numbingly common for politicians to claim to represent "the people" and to claim to have solicited, cared about, and acted on the will of the people. They might be lying, but that's what they ALWAYS say. This declaration is a feature of political pronouncements here in BP as well. In last night's Commission meeting, Jacobs invoked "public input" once or twice, depending on how you count it, and Cooper invoked it four times. Ross mentioned it once. Anderson is usually good for a reference like that, but it didn't happen to happen last night.
What did happen last night was a vote to place a matter on the general ballot in November, for the purpose of soliciting the voice of the people through a referendum. Yup, the voice of the people, in regards to the possibility of a specific Charter change. Pretty garden variety voice-of-the-people stuff. An obvious 5-0, right? Ask Grover Norquist if there's anything bigger than the voice of the people.
So no, the voice of the people was not sought unanimously. The vote was 3-2. Two Commissioners did not want or need to know what the residents of BP thought. One of those two Commissioners had paid ephemeral, if repeated, lip service to the idea of public input four times last night, and the other invoked it once or twice. This is the lip service, the blah, blah, blah. But when push comes to shove, these two Commissioners apparently answer to a "higher authority." The problem is, we aren't told who or what that higher authority is. No one is as honest and self-respecting as Grover Norquist, to come forward and say "In this town, Commissioners don't do what you think is best for you. They do what I think is best for you. Or what I think is best for me."
If I had a choice, I'd rather deal with Grover Norquist. At least I'd know who the enemy of the people is. It's easier to deal with an enemy who wears a different uniform. When they infiltrate, and camouflage themselves to look like us, it's harder for some people to know they're the enemy.
Our Tea Party friends are asked to sign a "pledge," in exchange for support, when they run. They must pledge not, under any circumstances, to approve a tax increase. No matter what the fiscal realities, nor forseen or unforseen developments, they must not approve a tax increase, of any kind, in any guise, or for any reason. And the evil genius of this crime against the government and the people is Grover Norquist. As fiscal discussions play out, and the occasional Tea Party member begins to show signs of straying, Norquist is right there to call him or her to task, and threaten defeat, if not practically assassination. Norquist will do this publicly. You might hear him on someone's radio show. Even NPR. And if he doesn't deliver the ultimatum in person, Bill O'Reilly or someone else will. This is all, frankly, above board. It may be ridiculous, it may be sabotaging, it may represent a fundamental threat to the concept of devotion to one's voting constituents, but it's in the open. As some of us in BP like to say, it's in the Sunshine. Tea Party politicians have a constituent, and it isn't the people who voted for them, or the citizenry of the country. It is Grover Norquist.
And Norquist has a theory, which he will articulate. Ask him, and he'll be happy to tell you. He doesn't like or trust government, and he would like it shrunken to a size small enough that it can be drowned in the bathtub. I'm quoting him here. That's his theory, and if you want his help, you'll adhere to it. And if you do adhere to it, like people who accept favors from the Mafia, you will quickly learn that your loyalties are to him, not to the people who live in your district.
It's mind-numbingly common for politicians to claim to represent "the people" and to claim to have solicited, cared about, and acted on the will of the people. They might be lying, but that's what they ALWAYS say. This declaration is a feature of political pronouncements here in BP as well. In last night's Commission meeting, Jacobs invoked "public input" once or twice, depending on how you count it, and Cooper invoked it four times. Ross mentioned it once. Anderson is usually good for a reference like that, but it didn't happen to happen last night.
What did happen last night was a vote to place a matter on the general ballot in November, for the purpose of soliciting the voice of the people through a referendum. Yup, the voice of the people, in regards to the possibility of a specific Charter change. Pretty garden variety voice-of-the-people stuff. An obvious 5-0, right? Ask Grover Norquist if there's anything bigger than the voice of the people.
So no, the voice of the people was not sought unanimously. The vote was 3-2. Two Commissioners did not want or need to know what the residents of BP thought. One of those two Commissioners had paid ephemeral, if repeated, lip service to the idea of public input four times last night, and the other invoked it once or twice. This is the lip service, the blah, blah, blah. But when push comes to shove, these two Commissioners apparently answer to a "higher authority." The problem is, we aren't told who or what that higher authority is. No one is as honest and self-respecting as Grover Norquist, to come forward and say "In this town, Commissioners don't do what you think is best for you. They do what I think is best for you. Or what I think is best for me."
If I had a choice, I'd rather deal with Grover Norquist. At least I'd know who the enemy of the people is. It's easier to deal with an enemy who wears a different uniform. When they infiltrate, and camouflage themselves to look like us, it's harder for some people to know they're the enemy.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
"Send in the Clowns"
Is this what they mean when they talk about something going from bad to worse?
For the past few years, we've been hearing about the embarrassingly diminishing attendance at Commission meetings. It was Steve Bernard who introduced the idea. Not only did he point it out repeatedly (as if it wasn't painfully obvious), but he explained the cause. According to Steve, it was all because of the crushing and suppressing majority on the last Commission. Not only did they dishearten him and Bryan Cooper, they also caused the residents who used to come to meetings to lose heart and give up in frustration. Why bother to come to meetings? The brutes were only going to ignore the public and have their own way. And there were enough 3-2 votes to prove Steve's point. But then...
In December, 2011, a month to remember, Steve succeeded in getting a new majority seated. He sacrificed himself, but he added two protegees to Bryan Cooper, and it was a new majority and a new day. Finally, the people were honestly and lovingly represented, and were more than welcome to venture out of their homes, to the Commission chamber. I don't know if it was supposed to be joyous, or perhaps solemn like the pilgrimages made by Jews and others to visit the old concentration camps in Poland and Germany. But one thing was for sure. There was no longer anything to fear. The beast was killed, and the public could rejoice.
Tonight, there were two meetings. A workshop on renovation of the log cabin started at 6:30, and a special Commission meeting started at 8. There were perhaps 8 people at the workshop. Noah seems to treat workshops as his personal tutorials, and this one was no exception. At about 7:40, he remembered that the few of us were there, and he thought perhaps he might as well invite some comment. He correctly pointed out that the Commission had monopolized the meeting. Some workshop.
At the 8:00 meeting, two more people showed up. I didn't recognize them. Cooper twice commented on the low attendance at the two meetings. But he also recalled a charrette about something about "five years ago," and his memory was that it was well-attended.
So I think I lost the thread of what was supposed to be going on. According to Steve's logic, the people stay away while the brutes are there, then come back when they're defeated. What Steve didn't factor in, though, is that it was shortly after he was elected that attendance dropped off. It was disturbingly low, and now that Steve's majority is in charge, it's even lower. I don't think that's what was supposed to happen.
And Noah, who campaigned in part on the strength of complaints about our immediate past brutalizing Mayor, has been remarkably suppressing on his own. He has dismissed both residents and other Commissioners. The fact is, the immediate past Mayor was frankly quite accommodating, and Noah is suffocating, in that hand around your throat kind of way.
And both Noah and Bryan, who suggested that they were champions of the voice of the people, have invariably suppressed and ignored that voice. Why just tonight, there was a vote to elevate the voice of the residents, by placing a referendum on the November general election ballot. Noah and Bryan were the only two to vote against hearing that voice.
So where is the promised crowd of Village residents? In fact, where is Steve Bernard? If I can't have my neighbors back, at least I'd like to hear an explanation.
For the past few years, we've been hearing about the embarrassingly diminishing attendance at Commission meetings. It was Steve Bernard who introduced the idea. Not only did he point it out repeatedly (as if it wasn't painfully obvious), but he explained the cause. According to Steve, it was all because of the crushing and suppressing majority on the last Commission. Not only did they dishearten him and Bryan Cooper, they also caused the residents who used to come to meetings to lose heart and give up in frustration. Why bother to come to meetings? The brutes were only going to ignore the public and have their own way. And there were enough 3-2 votes to prove Steve's point. But then...
In December, 2011, a month to remember, Steve succeeded in getting a new majority seated. He sacrificed himself, but he added two protegees to Bryan Cooper, and it was a new majority and a new day. Finally, the people were honestly and lovingly represented, and were more than welcome to venture out of their homes, to the Commission chamber. I don't know if it was supposed to be joyous, or perhaps solemn like the pilgrimages made by Jews and others to visit the old concentration camps in Poland and Germany. But one thing was for sure. There was no longer anything to fear. The beast was killed, and the public could rejoice.
Tonight, there were two meetings. A workshop on renovation of the log cabin started at 6:30, and a special Commission meeting started at 8. There were perhaps 8 people at the workshop. Noah seems to treat workshops as his personal tutorials, and this one was no exception. At about 7:40, he remembered that the few of us were there, and he thought perhaps he might as well invite some comment. He correctly pointed out that the Commission had monopolized the meeting. Some workshop.
At the 8:00 meeting, two more people showed up. I didn't recognize them. Cooper twice commented on the low attendance at the two meetings. But he also recalled a charrette about something about "five years ago," and his memory was that it was well-attended.
So I think I lost the thread of what was supposed to be going on. According to Steve's logic, the people stay away while the brutes are there, then come back when they're defeated. What Steve didn't factor in, though, is that it was shortly after he was elected that attendance dropped off. It was disturbingly low, and now that Steve's majority is in charge, it's even lower. I don't think that's what was supposed to happen.
And Noah, who campaigned in part on the strength of complaints about our immediate past brutalizing Mayor, has been remarkably suppressing on his own. He has dismissed both residents and other Commissioners. The fact is, the immediate past Mayor was frankly quite accommodating, and Noah is suffocating, in that hand around your throat kind of way.
And both Noah and Bryan, who suggested that they were champions of the voice of the people, have invariably suppressed and ignored that voice. Why just tonight, there was a vote to elevate the voice of the residents, by placing a referendum on the November general election ballot. Noah and Bryan were the only two to vote against hearing that voice.
So where is the promised crowd of Village residents? In fact, where is Steve Bernard? If I can't have my neighbors back, at least I'd like to hear an explanation.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Sniff, sniff. Hmm.
I received a somewhat convoluted e-mail yesterday. It was sent to me by a resident, who seems to have gotten it from Steve Bernard, who appears to have forwarded the original e-mail, which was from Noah Jacobs, except Steve added his own little pitch, which was for readers to contact Noah if they had anything to say about the matter at hand. Noah appeared to be taking some sort of poll regarding satisfaction, or not, with our water. He appears to be dissatisfied with his.
So the first curiosity is the circuitous route this communication took. Why didn't Noah simply send his request for feedback to everyone whose e-mail address he has? He has mine. If he wanted more addresses, why didn't he just ask Steve for his list? If Steve refused to give it to him (is Steve by any chance controlling what Noah knows?), why didn't he, Steve, simply forward without comment? And why didn't Steve include me? He has my address, too. All, as I say, curious.
Noah's problem: It appears Noah doesn't like the water that comes out of his tap. He referenced the taste, the smell, and the color. He didn't say he called a plumber, to see if there is a problem with his pipes. No, he solicited possible similar complaints from his neighbors. He seemed to say people had come to him with complaints. Or Steve said they came to him. She's my sister and my daughter. This part is much more murky than the water. And frankly, it smells worse.
Being a neighbor and all, and setting aside completely my feelings of offense and neglect that Noah didn't ask me for feedback, I cheerfully and generously gave him some. I'm just that type of guy. I told him I had no problem with my water, none of my friends complain about theirs, I have a purification system anyway, as many people do, and I was especially happy that our water is so cheap. (It is. Even Noah agreed to that.) And I offered that he could come over any time, for a glass of water. He's welcome to check it out.
Do not accuse Noah of not being sharp as a tack. He is. He immediately pointed out the great expense I had gone to to purify my water (great "personal" expense of time and money, he informed me), and further (Aha, Jonas, you conniving and hypocritical rascal), he nailed me on the ultimate discrepancy: if I'm satisfied with the water, why did I expend my considerable financial resources (well, that's how he made it sound) to purify it? I'm telling you, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of Jacobs' kitchen.
What could I say? He had me. I tried to tell him that I did not spend much money on my system, I never said or implied I spent a lot on it, I used a system that was more comprehensive than was necessary (I got a deal on it), there are even cheaper systems at Home Depot, and many people just put a filter on the tap. People do that all over the country. But no, Noah had satisfied himself that he had caught me, and no more interaction was necessary. So I didn't hear back. I picture him blowing the lingering smoke off the end of the barrel of his gun, and twirling it back into the holster. And I imagine a call to his sponsor, saying something like "I think I got him, Sheriff."
Which brings me to the overarching curiosity. No one in Biscayne Park ever heard of Noah Jacobs until Steve Bernard propped him up with a speech and a list of complaints, and trotted him out to a Commission meeting, to articulate Steve's usual laundry list of complaints. Then, Steve got Noah elected, and Steve's other protegees elected Noah Mayor. Noah has dutifully parroted each of Steve's pet gripes, even about things Noah clearly doesn't understand, and requiring Steve to suggest specific phrases Noah should use. Now, Noah seems to be trying to scare up a complaint about the water, another Bernard theme, and Bernard seems to be shepherding it, at least. So is all of this remarkably coincidental, or should we be asking the implied question, Mayor "Jacobs?"
So the first curiosity is the circuitous route this communication took. Why didn't Noah simply send his request for feedback to everyone whose e-mail address he has? He has mine. If he wanted more addresses, why didn't he just ask Steve for his list? If Steve refused to give it to him (is Steve by any chance controlling what Noah knows?), why didn't he, Steve, simply forward without comment? And why didn't Steve include me? He has my address, too. All, as I say, curious.
Noah's problem: It appears Noah doesn't like the water that comes out of his tap. He referenced the taste, the smell, and the color. He didn't say he called a plumber, to see if there is a problem with his pipes. No, he solicited possible similar complaints from his neighbors. He seemed to say people had come to him with complaints. Or Steve said they came to him. She's my sister and my daughter. This part is much more murky than the water. And frankly, it smells worse.
Being a neighbor and all, and setting aside completely my feelings of offense and neglect that Noah didn't ask me for feedback, I cheerfully and generously gave him some. I'm just that type of guy. I told him I had no problem with my water, none of my friends complain about theirs, I have a purification system anyway, as many people do, and I was especially happy that our water is so cheap. (It is. Even Noah agreed to that.) And I offered that he could come over any time, for a glass of water. He's welcome to check it out.
Do not accuse Noah of not being sharp as a tack. He is. He immediately pointed out the great expense I had gone to to purify my water (great "personal" expense of time and money, he informed me), and further (Aha, Jonas, you conniving and hypocritical rascal), he nailed me on the ultimate discrepancy: if I'm satisfied with the water, why did I expend my considerable financial resources (well, that's how he made it sound) to purify it? I'm telling you, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of Jacobs' kitchen.
What could I say? He had me. I tried to tell him that I did not spend much money on my system, I never said or implied I spent a lot on it, I used a system that was more comprehensive than was necessary (I got a deal on it), there are even cheaper systems at Home Depot, and many people just put a filter on the tap. People do that all over the country. But no, Noah had satisfied himself that he had caught me, and no more interaction was necessary. So I didn't hear back. I picture him blowing the lingering smoke off the end of the barrel of his gun, and twirling it back into the holster. And I imagine a call to his sponsor, saying something like "I think I got him, Sheriff."
Which brings me to the overarching curiosity. No one in Biscayne Park ever heard of Noah Jacobs until Steve Bernard propped him up with a speech and a list of complaints, and trotted him out to a Commission meeting, to articulate Steve's usual laundry list of complaints. Then, Steve got Noah elected, and Steve's other protegees elected Noah Mayor. Noah has dutifully parroted each of Steve's pet gripes, even about things Noah clearly doesn't understand, and requiring Steve to suggest specific phrases Noah should use. Now, Noah seems to be trying to scare up a complaint about the water, another Bernard theme, and Bernard seems to be shepherding it, at least. So is all of this remarkably coincidental, or should we be asking the implied question, Mayor "Jacobs?"
Thursday, July 12, 2012
The Berkshire Eagle, Pittsfield, Mass, Wed, 7/11/12
"City Shifts $770K to Cover Deficits" By Dick Lindsay
"The City Council on Tuesday night agreed to shift more than $770K of surplus funds to cover other departments that ended fiscal 2012 in the red.
"The Council, with little discussion, unanimously approved Mayor Daniel Bianchi's request to transfer $773,066.94 from several city accounts and departments to the police, fire, and personnel departments, which incurred a spending deficit in fiscal 2012...
"The Police Department recorded the largest deficit at $455K, erased by using a surplus from the city's health insurance account, [the City Treasurer and Finance Director said]...
"[The police Chief] attributed the shortfall to several factors, including officer pay raises negotiated after fiscal 2012 began, overtime incurred by several major criminal investigations, and a high number of officers on disability leave.
"As for the Fire Department, the Council tapped into the city's workers compensation fund to cover its $270,128.28 deficit. [The Fire Chief] said retroactive pay raises for firefighters led to the shorfall.
"While City Councilor-at-large Barry Clairmont supported the measure, he is worried the public safety service may run out of money again when the current fiscal year ends... 'I thought all along the Fire Department budget was too low to begin with when we had our [fiscal 2013] debate last month.'
"Finally, the Council approved using $110,938.66 from the City's contingency fund to balance the personnel budget.
"Meanwhile, the Maintenance Department didn't have a deficit as previously reported. Three maintenance accounts finished a total of $66,437.85 in the hole, but the department overall had enough unspent money in its utilities account to cover the shorfall, city officials said. The Council also approved the intradepartment transfer.
"[The Public Utilities Commissioner] said higher-than-anticipated gasoline and diesel prices the past 12 months necessitated the shift in funds within the maintenance budget."
Sounds fairly simple. This is what happens when everyone is working toward the same goal: successful management of the municipality. And this is also what happens when everyone understands the dynamics of municipal accounting.
"The City Council on Tuesday night agreed to shift more than $770K of surplus funds to cover other departments that ended fiscal 2012 in the red.
"The Council, with little discussion, unanimously approved Mayor Daniel Bianchi's request to transfer $773,066.94 from several city accounts and departments to the police, fire, and personnel departments, which incurred a spending deficit in fiscal 2012...
"The Police Department recorded the largest deficit at $455K, erased by using a surplus from the city's health insurance account, [the City Treasurer and Finance Director said]...
"[The police Chief] attributed the shortfall to several factors, including officer pay raises negotiated after fiscal 2012 began, overtime incurred by several major criminal investigations, and a high number of officers on disability leave.
"As for the Fire Department, the Council tapped into the city's workers compensation fund to cover its $270,128.28 deficit. [The Fire Chief] said retroactive pay raises for firefighters led to the shorfall.
"While City Councilor-at-large Barry Clairmont supported the measure, he is worried the public safety service may run out of money again when the current fiscal year ends... 'I thought all along the Fire Department budget was too low to begin with when we had our [fiscal 2013] debate last month.'
"Finally, the Council approved using $110,938.66 from the City's contingency fund to balance the personnel budget.
"Meanwhile, the Maintenance Department didn't have a deficit as previously reported. Three maintenance accounts finished a total of $66,437.85 in the hole, but the department overall had enough unspent money in its utilities account to cover the shorfall, city officials said. The Council also approved the intradepartment transfer.
"[The Public Utilities Commissioner] said higher-than-anticipated gasoline and diesel prices the past 12 months necessitated the shift in funds within the maintenance budget."
Sounds fairly simple. This is what happens when everyone is working toward the same goal: successful management of the municipality. And this is also what happens when everyone understands the dynamics of municipal accounting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)