Let's see if I understand THIS circular logic
Just finished reading Sailor's details on the recent Budget Committee Meeting, The Overland Examiner: Budget Committee Meeting. Sailor is thorough and provides us with wonderful detail. (Good job and thanks!)
But, it seems that our ORT are using that darn circular logic again.
Supposedly, during the stone age we voted to have our utility taxes pay for trash service. In addition, some folks are complaining that they have yet to receive their utility tax refund. Are the same folks who are complaining about the lack of city paid trash the same ones complaining about not getting utility tax refunds? The same utility tax that supposedly funds the trash?
If I have read correctly about AmerenUE's rate hike proposal, they utility rates haven't been raised since 1987. One could then conclude that the utility taxes have remained the same. I am pretty sure that the bill for trash pickup is not the same as it was in 1987. Thus, the money to pay for the trash IS NOT THERE!
But, it seems that our ORT are using that darn circular logic again.
Supposedly, during the stone age we voted to have our utility taxes pay for trash service. In addition, some folks are complaining that they have yet to receive their utility tax refund. Are the same folks who are complaining about the lack of city paid trash the same ones complaining about not getting utility tax refunds? The same utility tax that supposedly funds the trash?
If I have read correctly about AmerenUE's rate hike proposal, they utility rates haven't been raised since 1987. One could then conclude that the utility taxes have remained the same. I am pretty sure that the bill for trash pickup is not the same as it was in 1987. Thus, the money to pay for the trash IS NOT THERE!
posted by suzyjax at 7:06 PM
19 Comments:
Lucky, I wonder how many times has the ORT met in private with the red light camera/trash boys.
Ahhhh, so this is what a circle jerk is!!
Wino Musical Blue Pickle Goat is back to posting half truths AGAIN. She/he/it thinks you follow the law by what book you feel like following....eeee gaaads, she/he/it, is the dumbest shit to hit the internet, seriously, what a stupid stupid person.
The following most ignorant post was posted by FINE WINO GOAT AND WHAT NOT:
WINO QUOTE: VIOLATE numerous laws, it depends on what book you are looking at. There are so many contradictions in Overland Ordinance book, the ordinance book says meetings shall be held in the Council Chambers which they were. END OF WINO QUOTE
___________________________________
Can you believe an adult would post something so hideous and stupid? That has to win most stupid ignorant post of the year!
Norm,
I really don't know if they have met with the red light folks. I will say that I personally am in favor of traffic cameras. Certainly, you need to choose a reputable company to protect against fraud and security but, so long as you do, they are great law enforcement tools. The County uses them and has really cut down the accident rate at some previously dangerous intersections.
On your previous question about the timelines for Dougy Rudz appeal, I am sorry I did not get back to you sooner. It is a very difficult question to answer without knowing the exact procedural posture of the case. I can make some assumptions and try to answer the question but please keep in mind that there is a certain logic to my assumptions that probably doesn't apply to Madame Mayor's esteemed counsel. Kind of like trying to guess what Anne is thinking.
The case was probably brought in equity asking the Court for a TRO and eventual injunction against the Election Commission prohibiting the recall from appearing on the ballot. If that is the case, the "closed door" session was probably the judge's hearing on the TRO which is not evidentiary in nature and is not truly a "hearing". In such cases, the judge is looking at the sworn pleadings alone to determine, among other things, whether the plaintiff is stating a case, alleging irrparable harm, no adequate remedy at law, likelihood of prevailing on the merits and is prepared to post a bond (in case the plaintiff is wrong).
Obviously, Dugs did not carry the burden on one or more of those issues and, therefore, the judge did not have JURISDICTION to issue the TRO. The "appeal" of this decision would be by way of a writ to the Court of Appeals. In a writ proceeding, the Court is only looking at the JURISDICTIONAL question and, like the trial court, is not deciding the merits. Practically speaking, unless the Judge was asleep, you are not going to find many writs issued for NOT granting the TRO.
In the extraordinary circumstances where writs are issued by the Court of Appeals, it is because the lower court GRANTED the TRO and the Appeals court is then saying, "no, you didn't have jurisdiction and, therefore the TRO is dissolved". But here, tje judge didn't issue it and the chances of being wrong on that one are pretty slim. Because this is equitable in nature, the typical 30 day appeal times are not really relevant.
Bottom line, if he hasn't done it yet, he ain't doing it. If he does, he has already shot himself in the foot by waiting this long for his "emergency" relief.
Then again, Dugs will probably file it tomorrow.
So now according to the post by whichever personality Music Note is using this week, I don't have to follow state laws if I have a city ordinance that states something different? If Overland were to pass an ordinance legalize gambling and prostitution within its borders then that would trump the state law? To the cybilish poster on that other site, get a clue. State law trumps municipal ordinances. It doesn't matter what book you are reading from. but then again seeing as how you and your friend swety pickles have the reading comprehension skills of a 6 year old I don't expect you to be able to understand the concept...
It's a matter of opinion that the Mayor violated the law. This is a true statement. It is a matter of opinion, and the only opinion that truly matters is the legal opinion of the St. Louis County Judges that heard these cases and ruled that Mayor Ann Purzner did in fact violate the law on several occasions.
There are contradictions in the Overland Ordinances. This is a true statement as well, though it's completely irrelevant. The statutes violated by Mayor Ann Purzner (violations confirmed by court rulings) were State statutes. Chapter 77 of the Revised Missouri Statutes is the law that restricts how elected officials in third class cities are to govern. Mayor Purzner violated those statutes on multiple occasions. Anyone who took Civics in junior high school knows that state statute supersedes municipal ordinance just as federal law supersedes state statute.
One Interestingly side note is that even if you ignore state statute in both cases Mayor Ann Purzner's actions were also violations of Overland Ordinances, specifically: Chapter 115, article two, section 115.100 and Chapter 140, article one, section 140.090. (feel free to look them up here).
It's said that when referencing things like the fact that Councilman Knode and Councilman Sellers missed 5 meetings each in the last year or so (The worst attendance records on the Council BTW), that it is wrong not to include Councilman O'Connell and Councilman Corcoran in that list. Yet, when referencing the need for order at meetings and how shouting and outbursts do not belong there, no mention of the conduct of Councilman Knode and Councilman Owensby is made. This despite the fact that they have both regularly spoken out of turn, yelled at other Council members and were rarely chastised by the chairman, Mayor Ann Purzner. It is the responsibility of the chairman, not barking dog Council members, to tell others on the Council when they are "out of order". When a Councilman tells another they are "out of order" the very act of doing so is "out of order" as well.
It's all a matter of opinion. Based on the above, what other opinion could possibly be drawn than the post by FINEWINE made on March 1, 2007, 7:40 AM at OverlandChat is hypocrisy at it's finest?
In the immortal words of Aldous Huxley: "Facts do not cease to exist [simply] because they are ignored.".
Well, "Blue Eyes" now says in order to pay for the Trash Service a Tax Increase will be needed. That is an issue worth getting into.
To avoid clogging up your comments I addressed this issue in a new article over at The Overland Examiner.
Sailor, I'm sure you will get a response from one of Goat's personalities, saying how you misunderstood her post. That is usually the answer given, when cornered.
WhiteGravy (mmmmmmm chicken fried steak comes to mind). :-)
Well, everyone is welcome to comment over at The Overland Examiner as well. All I ask is that we stick to the issues and leave the personal comments at the door (that's a general comment and is NOT intended to be directed at anyone in particular). Unless they are personal comments about me, then feel free to have at me, that is what feedback is all about. :-)
Conlon consistently has the best most effective political literature. The COGG group should seek her help in writing their localite ads and mailings.
I like the idea of a tax increase for the free trash service. Revenue nuetrality is alway good for government. Hypothetically, if the cost to the City for the free trash service is $300 and there are 100 residents, to charge them would cost $3 per resident. Under the tax increase idea, however, if the cost to the City for the free trash service is $300 and there are 100 residents, we would only have to raise taxes by $3 per resident. No fuzzy math there.
Fine Wine,
I don't know anyone who thinks that what happened in the past doesn't matter. In fact I spend a lot of my time on articles researching just that since several folks (most notably Councilman Owensby) seems to have long term memory issues. Most of my readers specifically come to The Overland Examiner because I make an effort to provide the facts when there are facts to be found.
What doesn't matter are mythical votes taken or ordinances written in the past. If you want reasonable people to take what you say happened back then seriously, then prove that it did. Considering all of the misdirections, rumors and outright lies that have come out of the ORT in the last 18 months alone (from the "Red Rag" to the "Identity theft silliness" and Councilman Owensby's "Hate Group" ravings) I think it is extremely unreasonable to expect people to simple take someone's word on it.
An ordinance written would be on file at City Hall, request it.
A vote taken would be on record at the Election Board, request it.
From what I understand the ballot initiative and ordinance concerning the Utility Tax make no reference to trash service at all.
However, I could be wrong. Provide the proof of this claim and I would be happy to concede that you're right. Until that happens I take the lack of evidence as proof that this is nothing but another fantasy.
For the record Blue Eyes, I did not call you anything. I suggested that without evidence, the idea that the utility tax was raised for Trash pick up cannot be proven, thus it is in the same category as myth and fantasy.
Obviously a vote took place to enact a utility tax, that is not what is in question. What is in question is if it was ever officially earmarked specifically for trash pick up. I have not seen any evidence of this. Politicians may have sold the people on the tax by saying that it was being asked for to pay for trash, but they never wrote it down. There is a good lesson for us all there.
What us young folks want is responsible government. We don't want a service the city cannot pay for, and we would rather have a full police force where dispatch is properly staffed than less than half the money needed to pay for the trash service.
Also, I'm not sure what group you are referring to Blue Eyes. My family? My neighbors? My economic class? My Ward? What group are you trying to pigeonhole me into? Councilman Owensby's mythical "hate group" perhaps?
Lucky thanks for your detailed response. Interestingly enough Dug wasn't at the silly council meeting on Monday; the first one he has missed in well since he started coming well over six months ago.
Perhaps his well has gone dry or he was busy working on the brief.
I was thinking that there was a drop dead date for appealing and it was in the first week of March time frame. I know of several people who have already voted because they will be out of town. I am elated to report they really relished the opportunity to vote to recall the mayor by voting yes on Proposition A, for Ann to be removed from office.
Music Note. Are you actually trying to suggest that someone is a hypocrite because the were upset when something was done to one person but not upset when it happened someone else?
Perhaps your argument would hold a bit more water if you actually said you thought Councilman Owensby was wrong when he distributed that letter with all that personal information in it.
You say that you were wronged because someone posted your publicly available tax record on a web site with a relatively small audience. A record that is available online as we all know.
Do you honestly think that is in the same category as publishing someone's social security number and birthday in a written publication that was distributed to an entire ward as Councilman Owensby did? What about when someone else's social security number was printed in a propaganda rag that was distributed to the entire town and later hosted on Mayor Ann Purzner's personal web site?
Music Note. It's hard to take your charge of hypocrisy seriously when the charge itself is drowning in it.
Oh you old goat! I never posted that XXX = your lic plate number. YOU are posting to everyone that it is your lic plate number. YOU. Damn, you are one stupid goat!
I will file your "outrage" along with dumbpickles, who always claimed I was outing her (though never said xxx = pickles), in the circular file.
The whining blue goat: "I know i can't prove it but in all honesty..."
Two points:
1) If you can't prove it, then shut up about it.
2) Terms like "in all honesty" imply that you have not been forthright previously. Hmm...that wouldn't be much of a surprise.
Quote from AmusingWhining Blue Goat: "I watched channel 4 news at 10:00 and what they were saying was that in Illinois Ameren had raised their rates and many customers monthly electric bill had doubled and some had even tripled."
Would someone please inform the self-appointed Overland historian that the City of Overland is NOT in Illinois, thus what happens in Illinois does not affect Missouri or the PSC?
Suzy,
Like I mentioned earlier, FINE WINO BLUE PICKLE MUSICAL GOAT, is the most stupid person to ever hit the internet. No wonder her family tells her not to post, because they know she is a dumb ass too. Her family is most likely embarrassed of her/him/it. They must know she has a mental problem; it's very obvious to us.
Post a Comment
<< Home