Village insider and loyal supporter DOUG SNOW at a recent citizens comments suggested that he is very happy with the structure of the village's Clean Water Utility and to prove such he is PREPARED to have his bill doubled!!
Sounds noble doesn't it. While I don't know where Doug lives, or how much his CWU bill is, my guess is that it is probably less than $3/month, so doubling it would be less than $6/month. Wow Doug, you are a big spender.
Bet your wouldn't say that if YOU were a retired lady living on fixed income (mostly social security, I understand) whose bill was originally $28 and then was TRIPLED to $84/month BECAUSE she lives on a approximately 20acre parcel of mostly pastoral land.
Let's see Dougie, doubling that bill would be $168/month. Would you like that bill every month as penalty for not doing anything really attributable to any real action on your part as a landowner. It's not like she left her faucet on for 7 days on purpose and then complained about a high water bill!!
Dougie, please let us know when you are paying your double bill as offered and then maybe the village can see fit for that nice lady who has the $84/month bill to reduce hers to $81/month. Its the least you can do since you love the concept so much. Perhaps then things might be just a little closer to being the FAIR SHARE as folks like you like to use as an excuse all the time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
He's just sucking up to be the next Trustee through his future PAC called SNOWJOB! Right now he's just another SNOWblower! Will be a good quote to use against him when he runs. Isn't he the same one who raised such a stink about Lauer and the RV issue?
I think, in his haste to impress the board members, Doug Snow totally missed the point. The point is that Pleasant Prairie's Clean Water Fees are based on a formula that calculates ALL runoff in an ENTIRE watershed.
Rainwater runoff, by itself, is not problematic--it is what replenishes our rivers, lakes & streams and is a vital part of the hydrology cycle.
The Clean Water Act was enacted to address problematic runoff--mainly consisting of pollution and rapid runoff that causes flooding.
Rapid runoff and heavy pollutant loads are the product of development--the denser the development, the greater potential for flooding & heavy pollutant loads.
Why then would a property that has the same amount of impervious surface (single family home & garage)but a large amount of pervious surface (land) to slow down the water and filter out pollutants pay a much larger fee than that same size home in a subdivision that is designed to rapidly carry off the rainwater and the suspended pollutants into a storm sewer system to prevent flooding?
Based on the fact that the formula being used is not a monetary tool and that problem runoff is not measurable, this is a huge amount of money (up to $210 a month)to expect a single family homeowner to absorb.
That being said, I think it would be very nice if people like Doug Snow who have plenty $$ to give to government would donate it toward the fees & taxes of those that are struggling. (Mostly our long-term residents)
Post a Comment