The Buffalo News and LUSJ reported.
"The 2011 budget the Common Council passed Wednesday includes a property tax reduction that may evaporate for many homeowners once the cost of the city’s new privatized garbage and recycling program is figured in..."
----
The $21.4 million general fund budget spends almost $1.8 million less than this year, but that’s primarily because the Council detached the estimated $1.3 million cost of the new garbage program and placed it in a separate budget. The tax rate of $15.24 per $1,000 of assessed valuation is down 69 cents, or 4.34 percent, but that’s because garbage isn’t included.
Now we can follow the garbage privatization process unfold...
11 comments:
Funny thing is, the mayor admitted they have no idea what the amount for each household is going to be, yet they still put it through the budget. They all put down Chapman's estimate of $124 per household, but the truth is, they have NO idea what the cost is going to be. I see the town is paying $178 per for their garbage pickup the next two years. How would that figure sit with the average resident of the city??
I also laugh at the fact that the town recycles at the lowest amount in the county, and that they are thinking of resorting to give aways and contests to encourage recycling. Yet our council president says that this community wants, and welcomes recycling. I think it's bull and only will appeal to a small amount of the residents. Again, a council with it's own agenda, not the people they represent....
That has been "admitted" from the start.
Part of the lack of "demand" in the town is it is a one-size-fits all system where everyone gets up to (6) 30 gal bags or cans a week. There is no incentive to recycle unless one's trash is greater than that one limit. One cannot pay a lower price for a (4) bag per week limit.
Just because it's been admitted from the start, doesn't make it proper. Would you agree to buy a car without knowing the price or payments??
Where is my incentive to recycle if I can fit all my garbage into the city provided can as well??
It may be dumb, but unfortunately, that's how gov't usually works. They can't make the switch until they have the funding.
The difference in your car analogy is that you or I would have to be able to plan how much to spend on the car before we did. A gov't has unlimited resources (the taxpaying pubic), so they spend money, and then decide how they will pay for it. Lockport isn't any different from any other place in this regard.
As a town resident I know recycling is a function of your own personal values, do you care enough about the environment and/or the town saving money to recycle or not? You aren't 'foreced' to recycle, and limiting the number of bags won't force anyone to recycle either.
If you drive around you will notice recycling is mainly done in the nice residential areas, people with families and responsibilities.
I don't think you will see much recycling in the city is many areas, such as the 'war zone'.
No, recycling is a function of your own guilt. Most recycling actually has negative effects on the environment (the waste from recycling paper is more toxic than making new paper), but that doesn't pull on our heart strings, nor does it get government grants.
Also, most of the electronics that you send off to be recycled are sent to poor towns in China (because the only way it makes sense is if you use cheap labor), which are quickly becoming environmental disaster areas.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/10/ewaste
(PS, nice 'poor people don't have values' dig in there. Stay class anon. It's more like the people in the "nice residential areas" have more guilt.)
MavJon:
As for the "car": The current budget was pulled out of the general fund and into a special fund. We know the cost of our "current car lease". If the different car turns out to cost too much to lease, we keep leasing the current one. Nothing i lost on our end except that now everyone is paying for how much they use it.
RB-I was going to post on the Chinese toxic e-waste cities a while back. It is a very interesting topic. Though instead of saying recycling is bad, I'd suggest our heavy consumption rate of the products and the supressed costs due to the Chinese lack of regulation is more to blame. Those metals would not be doingus too much good in our local landfills either.
Anon:
Ah yes, the "warzone", in the city with its murder evey other year....about the same as Amherst. I realise perceptions are relative but seriously? It has poverty and the issues that come along with it but is hardly a warzone.
Check the siren calls! The calls are predominantly from that area. Yes we are blessed that we don't seem to have a high murder rate (especially with the incompetence of our police department, how many trials have they screwed up this year due to messed up investigations?), but we have plenty of crimes, especially in that area.
And now that we are going to add even more rentals to that area I can't see the trend changing!
Seeing I live a couple blocks from it and walk it every morning I am actually semi-close to the "action". A large number of siren calls to an area of high poverty concentration: as I said above, no news flash and still hardly a warzone.
I'm curious where we would hope to find 100+ single family home owners looking to take on 3000+ square ft structures. The city needs to establish some residential DT and promote housing rehabs within 2-3 blocks of it. They would become upgraded rentals or home owner occupied with income suites. You may find a handful of people looking to inhabit the whole structure in that dense of an area as they are out there but I wouldn't expect too many here. Those old houses are massive. Density need not be a bad word. The highest priced real estate in the world exists within it.
Just cutting budgets will not get us there. We need some targeted smart investment. No different than a company finding a way to fund R+D in tough times to succeed down the road instead of sliding into bankruptcy.
Here's a great idea to save some money....When city employees clock in for the day, they should not be allowed to bring their personal phones to work. They don't have time to do their work but they are often seen on cell phones making personal calls, twittering, e-mailing and doing all their personal business while being paid by the city. This happens in every department. I can see an emergency situation, that's different. When you go to work, it's to work, not do all your personal business. With all their benefits being paid by the city some employees are making the big bucks and also taking advantage. Shame on them. In the work place there is no time (or extra money)for playing/chatting while at work. Each department should cut some people so there is no time for personal things to be done. Violators should pay a fine or lose 3 days of pay. Perhaps they'll learn they are there to work. City Hall needs a mole to inform the Mayor of all the personal stuff that goes on. I think he'd be surprised at the money the city would save or collect. CITY EMPLOYEES....YOU ARE THERE TO WORK NOT TO DO YOUR PERSONAL BUSINESS.
Abuse is one thing, but if you have to make a call, or take a call, hey, we all have lives outside of work. I've never been a 'no tolerance' type of guy, because that always forces you to make the worst decision regardless of the situation.
Post a Comment
Please be be respectful. Diverse opinions are welcome and encouraged. Trolling/baiting/personal attacks/spam will be deleted on sight, as will respnding to one that has yet to be deleted. Do not encourage the behavior.