[Mpls] Stormwatergate

[gemgram]

The easiest solution to the worst part of "Stormwatergate" is simple.  Send 
a notice with the next water bill that says that the stormwater charge is 
done statistically, and if you do not have a large driveway or patio you 
probably are being overcharged; and to please check your actual square 
footage of hard surface and contact the City if they are overcharging you. 
Why is it so difficult for the "leaders" to find simple solutions instead of 
discriminating against poor community members?

It certainly seems easy for the affluent neighborhoods.  You have beer 
drinking, swearing crowd of young people around lakes, you have an emergency 
social problem that is addressed with man-power immediately.  You have a 
Franklin Avenue, Bloomington Avenue, or a 26th from Penn to Lyndale with 
drug dealers selling drugs threatening residents and shooting each other and 
it is something that takes years and huge efforts by neighborhood residents 
to address.  Why? Oh yeah that's right, they vote more and contribute more.

Of course if they actually measured the folks who have cemented their 
backyard completely for volleyball are going to pay a huge amount.  There 
are several in my neighborhood.  Do you think the people with huge patios 
and four car garages along side a basketball or tennis court are going to be 
contacting the City to change their bills?

Jim Graham
Ventura Village





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C Becker" <becker at scc.net>
To: <mpls at mnforum.org>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Stormwatergate


> Al Iverson asked
>
>> What's the incentive if the bill is based on statistical modeling and 
>> averaging as opposed to actually taking measurements?
>
> If this is the same proposal I worked on about ten years ago, we found 
> that the cost of doing actual measurements was cost-prohibitive.  At the 
> time, the City didn't have all of the footprints of things like concrete 
> driveways or patios or other hard surfaces for every property in the City 
> in its GIS system and the cost was prohibative to get it in relation to 
> the revenues raised.  So I assume this is why the city went with its 
> statistical approach.
>
> In fact, ten years ago the cost of putting together such a fee was too 
> high given the amount of revenues raised.  I haven't pursued it but it 
> would be helpful for the Mayor to put out some information on the cost of 
> creating such a tax vs the revenues that are being raise as well as the 
> tax incidence.
>
> For people who are not tax geeks, the question of "tax incidence" is a 
> question about who ends up paying the tax.  I would be curious if 
> residential payers are now paying more or less of the sewer cost than in 
> the past.  For example, the City used to pay for its garbage costs through 
> its property taxes.  But it moved to a garbage fee in the 1990's.  Under 
> the property tax, homeowners paid about 35% of the bill while under the 
> garbage fee, homeowners paid 100% of the cost, a huge shift in burden.
>
> So, anyone out there in the City that can tell us what the incidence is 
> for the new sewer fee and why residents are seeing their bills go up so 
> much?
>
> Carol Becker
> Longfellow
>
>
>
>
> REMINDERS:
> 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at 
> http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, 
> contact the list manager at mplslist at tcq.net before continuing it on the 
> list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
> For state and national discussions see: 
> http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
> For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
> ________________________________
>
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
> E-Democracy
> Post messages to: mailto:mpls at mnforum.org
> Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls