PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:07 PM
Subject: [Mpls] Stormwatergate robbery gets personal
Unfortunately, (for me) Stormwatergate has reared its ugly political head
even higher. Today I looked at the waterbill for the small duplex that my
son homesteads. The duplex sits on a 1/2 lot
Unfortunately, (for me) Stormwatergate has reared its ugly political head even
higher. Today I looked at the waterbill for the small duplex that my son
homesteads. The duplex sits on a 1/2 lot that is only about thirty feet wide.
It occupies about 850 square feet of area and has neither a
Dear Readers please accept my apology. I had said I thought the powers that
be (the elected politicians) would be taking care of the Stormwatergate
quickly, because it was embarrassing to appear so uncaring and stupid during
an election year. I forgot that some politicians have no shame. I
Pardon my poor editing again. In my apology, I should have said that my
attacks on Coleman and Graham related to the storm water topic constituted a
Straw
Man fallacy. And here's some more.
Given that we haven't heard much from municipal government on this topic,
presumably folks there are
gemgram wrote:
Something disturbing was added to the StormWatergate. I was unaware
that I was not only being defrauded on impervious charge calculations,
but also being required to pay almost three times as much per
stormwater unit for my owner-occupied duplex as someone living in a
All water from the interior of the home goes into
the sanitary sewer, not the storm water line. So
that's a different issue entirely.
By the way swales and water gardens are
excellent controllers of run off and, as Bill Kahn
pointed out, pretty easy to do on your
Nick Coleman puts a face on the tragedy of an elected group of politicians
who seem incapable of either managing the City, and in addition is incapable
of fixing their mistakes when slapped in the face with them. Elected people
who tout their Executive Skills and management ability, yet whose
, or any of the
other suggestions listed. To think otherwise is just plain silliness.
Dean E. Carlson
Ward 10, East Harriet
- Original Message -
From: gemgram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, April 22, 2005 7:43 am
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Stormwatergate, con't.-The Fraud and Denial
Continues
The article still reads as another story on how the rich are getting
richer and sticking it to the poor.
for example:
It is lovely to read politicians bragging that our taxes aren't going
up. But read the fine print: It's just the wealthiest whose taxes
aren't going up. The widows are paying
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dean Carlson writes:
an owner of a single family home, duplex or fourplex on a
5,000 square foot lot with best green intentions is not going to be
constructing rain gardens, drainage swales, green roofs, or any of the
other suggestions listed. To think otherwise is just
I would like to tell you my experience with the city on this. I posted here
right after my first bill about the fact that my water bill went up by $20+,
a 60% increase. I called the city and, after some discussion, discovered
that my home was shown as a duplex, something that hasn't been true
Jim Graham writes:
In my community hundreds of poor homeowners are being defrauded and
stolen from by the City, just as Jan Gustafson is. They, like Jan, are
being told to PROVE IT before we will stop stealing from you. Elderly,
and the trusting, and in some cases less educated people are
Dean Carlson writes:
Coleman's article also highlighted another absurdity with
stormwatergate and that is the information on how to reduce the amount
of drainage from your lot. The information is appropriate for a
developer of a new subdivision or a large lot apartment building but
I'm sorry, an
I'd suggest that unless the city makes some early adjustments to how
billing is done for stormwater runoff that the whole idea of billing at
all for it is going to be lost. It's obvious that some things just
weren't contemplated when the initial system was setup. Unless some
fixes are put in
I found Bill Kahn's post both inaccurate as well as amusing. Perhaps Bill
should have read several of my previous posts on the subject, or perhaps he
did and just was unable to understand what I actually said. But Bill,
please read slowly so as to not miss this. I said the stormwater change
Nick Coleman, with his second column on the city's stormwater fees, finds
another homeowner on a duplex lot with a big increase.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/357/5362872.html
David Brauer
List manager
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules.
I read the posts on A little media disagreement and conclude that the
problem is not so much a difference between analysis by different media
but that the whole storm water fee was an idea that wasn't completely
thought through before it was put into place.
The fact is that nobody can seem to
- Original Message -
From: Steve Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:50 pm
Subject: [Mpls] Stormwatergate
I read the posts on A little media disagreement and conclude that the
problem is not so much a difference between analysis by different media
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
, 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
I have not gotten the letter that has created such an uproar. However, I did
follow this issue when it first started getting coverage last year and so I
have a question:
Does the letter explaining the storm water utility fee also explain that the
sewer fee, which is currently set at a rate of
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Stormwatergate NOT
To: mpls@mnforum.org
I served along with a number of other residents or stakeholders on the
Stormwater Utility Rate Model Implementation Citizen Advisory Committee called
together by Minneapolis Public Works to review and comment
Thanks to Jeff Strand, I appreciate your kind words. The post was intended
to do what it did. Get attention! Stormwatergate is cute, thanks to David
Brauer for that. Isn't it wonderful what humor can achieve! Well I seem to
have someone's attention, unfortunately no answer from the Leaders.
Notwithstanding Jim's water-bill situation, the city said late last year
that the average homeowner would pay $1.11 less each month with the new
storm water charge.
(It's not so much a new tax as it is a splitting of the water bill into two
components. Splitting out the stormwater component is
David Brauer wrote:
Notwithstanding Jim's water-bill situation, the city said late last year
that the average homeowner would pay $1.11 less each month with the new
storm water charge.
(It's not so much a new tax as it is a splitting of the water bill into two
components. Splitting out the
On Mar 2, 2005, at 10:39 PM, David Brauer wrote:
Notwithstanding Jim's water-bill situation, the city said late last year
that the average homeowner would pay $1.11 less each month with the new
storm water charge.
~~
I have to side with Jim. I got my notice this week, too, and if the
26 matches
Mail list logo
