(Note: This article originally was titled, "CM Price invokes the Second Amendment -- and other hilarity I'll be missing tonight.")
Tuesday morning update: Go to the Volunteer Hoosier blog for thoughts on last night's meeting:
Government in Abstentia, etc., by Randy Smith.
The thread's still open below, if you'd like to use it, or pick up the discussion at Randy's.
----
Original article text:
Sincere apologies to loyal NA Confidential readers, but I was held over at work tonight, and with a very real prospect on the horizon of the same thing happening every other night this week, I decided to "just say no" to an evening of Coffeyesque bloviation on the third floor.
Consider this an open thread; did you attend the City Council meeting tonight, and if so, is there anything to report?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Keep us advised, Mr. Deatrick. Agenda-driven obscurantism isn't what is needed.
But as we discussed, it is not entirely a technical matter. It is also political. Yes, we could pay the freight out of general fund revenues, as some cities do, at least in these early years of stormwater management.
But, as I see it, this is an impact fee, and should be apportioned accordingly. If your property increases and concentrates the stormwater runoff, your PROPERTY should pay the attendant costs.
My own commercial property is both downhill and uphill, and is essentially impermeable 100%. Work fast on the permanent plan. Find a way to fund the research fast. I'm as unhappy as the next guy to be paying the same rate as an enormous strip mall property or mega-chain.
Equity is always political.
And I was only half-joking about the residential driveway exemptions. Using "tax" policy to promote off-street parking will make the city safer. I see no benefit in penalizing properties that keep the streets safe for driving.
Yes, I know. We drive on parkways, and park on driveways.
How will this bill benefit all of us other than health issues? It appears to me that it is another way of collecting money and then how will it be used, to actually rid drainage problems such as Councilman Schmitt took upon himself to help his relations situation?
Edward, it appears to be as much an environmental/pollution mandate as it is anything. The sewer department has been responsible for drainage issues, with the twist that council members carved out a piece of pork for themselves for targeted projects like Mr. Schmidt's work at the location of his niece's home.
The fee will now fund the management and operations of a coordinated drainage master plan, which still must be developed. Right now, no one seems to know what the long-range obligations will be, but EPA is requiring municipalities to create a plan now or pay a stiff fine.
Homeowners will pay $3 a month under the interim stormwater management user fee while the professionals create an equitable allocation of the impact costs. We'll pay $15 a month for our commercial property. BTW, the average commercial assessment for Clarksville is $17.
NAC: It's "abstentia."
When I searched "abstentia" in the on-line dictionaries, and I did it in two different ones, it came up as spelled correctly, and asked if I intended to write "absentia."
On the other hand, a web search shows both in use.
I'll change it back to reflect your initial spelling, but this one confuses me.
abstentions combined with absences = abstentia. From the New Albanian Dictionary, perhaps the only jurisdiction in which it could regularly be used.
Perhaps all the abstentions are a subtle form of resigning from an official post. It's just too subtle for us to see that they are retiring on the job.
Post a Comment