Your constitutional right to free trash?
In Owensby’s most recent flyer, he states (on page 2) that the city council majority had “denied you of your constitutional rights to vote on the trash issue 4 times.”
I’ve studied both the US and Missouri constitution. No where does it state that citizens of Overland are entitled to vote on whether the city will pay for trash. In fact, both constitutions provide for representatives to be elected who shall make such “day-to-day” decisions.
I’ve studied both the US and Missouri constitution. No where does it state that citizens of Overland are entitled to vote on whether the city will pay for trash. In fact, both constitutions provide for representatives to be elected who shall make such “day-to-day” decisions.
posted by ORT Contrarian | 3/31/2007 09:56:00 AM
2 Comments:
I know your post is from last spring, but I just wanted to say it was not so much they took 'free' trash away (nothing is free) but that they in effect raised our taxes by doing so. And, even more of an eye-opener... no bids were taken for the service, and the contract was signed for several years. If you had major work done at your own home would you not have gotten more than one estimate? In my opinion, the people who voted in favor didn't look out for the citizens they represent.
Velo,
Thanks for dropping by and spreading more ORTian propaganda. The truth is that we opted to extend the existing contract at current rates. The city could have gone out for bids but all indications said those bids would be higher than the current contract rates (rising gas prices and landfill fees).
You give an example, but here is one for you. Let's say you have a lawnmowing service. Do you stick with the current provider who has promised not to raise rates, or do you go out for bid and end up paying more since prices have gone up since you originally started 5 years ago!!
I think anyone would go for the 5 years ago price.
Your initial point said this was, in effec, a tax increase. If you truly thought that you should sue the city for violation of provisions in the Hancock Amendment. However, you would also have to sue each time Charter raised their rates, Laclede Gas, etc. This isn't a rise in taxes but a rise in the cost of living.
The only thing you got right was your parroting of Owensby's talking points, lies, and half-truths.
Post a Comment
<< Home