And if so, the difference of $1,000 is so nominal, then why can't the residents in that area benefitting simply pick up the minor balance right? If there are about 32 residents here, or perhaps that was the 60% required to pass it, its about $32.00 each, the cost of the monthy DSL bill. So, I agree...they should pay it, its negligible.

 

I would have great and keen interest to keep the topic and eye on any attempts the city had to raise $3.50 monthly, for any Duke maintenance fee on lighting in Middletown. On two occasions, I have callled Duke and they have come out and immediately changed the light bulb in the street light next to my driveway, with no city involvement. I also do not comprehend why that is a dublicate bill, as some aspect of any lighting would come out of the .25% increase in general public safety.

 

Any attempt to make a few $ a month times all the total street lamps, when it is also being gotten elsewhere, is absolutely wrong. This is one I'd like to ask others to keep their eyes on, as really get into the details, if indeed, the city passes on a $3.50 monthly maintenance for the Duke lighting.

 

Middletown, between the two tax levies including the nonsensical one especially for paying down Sr Citizen debt, is just driving more and more away from the city sinking in despair.  

       

 

my solution:

Assuming a "final" cost( or approx.)  for lighting/installation has been agreed and properly pro-rated to the affected property owners:

The minor cost of the public sector could be picked up by the same neighborhood association that offered to pay 1/2 of that cost. Why 50% of such a small #? Why not simply cover it all since they recieve the benefit?

 

Create a pro-rated monthly assessment for the increased monthly cost(400%!!) of operating this lighting. Same could be done in the Highlands area, the former downtown area, and anywhere else where this expensive lighting has been installed. Since it has become so easy for the city to add new costs/fees to water/sewer/trash billing invoices(and city already plans to add a fee for streetlight maintenence/power), this monthly assessment could be added also.The areas featuring this more expensive lighting are areas of greater affluence than the areas without. There should be no increased financial hardship created for those with less income for services not fully recieved.  It simply isn't fair. As utility costs increase, everyones' share increases,

 

Since this new lighting is so much safer and illuminating, it should be installed everywhere when road improvements are made"(especially since installation has become so affordable in this case!). I surely want it on my street, and in less safe areas of the community that have more walker traffic. Soon everyone will be sharing the cost equally, while recieving full benefit from the more efficient, effective and safe street lamping.

 

Opinions?

"What's Law Got To Do With It?" (with apologies to Tina Turner)...

By Jove, I think you've got it!

On South Main Street, since there are already existing lights, the cost to the taxpayers should be ZERO!!!

Zero for demo;  zero for trenching up and down each side of the street;  zero for underground conduit;  zero for the foundations; zero for the lamposts and globes!!!  Zero for labor;   zero for materials and supplies;  zero for equipment usage; zero for overhead and profit.  Zero for the whole darned job!!!

 

Perhaps there is no difference in 2 12's vs. 1 24; I suggest something along those lines because other continuously operating institutions like hospitals or manufacturers (like AK) schedule their employees for 12 or 8 hours per shift, never 24.  I will readily admit that I'm not fully up to speed on this issue, just that it doesn't, at first glance, appear to be the most efficient way to schedule an operation.  I am, however, open to be convinced that their current modus operandi is the best way.  And the idea of having a smaller firefighter force that is augmented by volunteers, as Kettering, does, is something that certainly ought to be considered.  If you say they have 52 paid firefighters vs. Middletown's (approximately) 75 then there is a potential for some signficant savings, and such an arrrangement ought to be further researched. 

 

Also, I would be in favor of allocating several additional dollars of the water bill each month towards street repairs as you suggest, and I agree that it ought to be "earmarked" for only street repairs and not lost into the general fund somewhere. 

 

Mike,

 

I agree with your principle that the city ought to either extend the same privileges to the rest of its citizens that are (potentially) being bestowed upon S. Main or it ought to withhold those extra privileges from the S. Main residents if it won't extend them to the rest of the city.  And I have conceded that perhaps the petition needs to be modified so that the petitioners also cover the portion that of the street that is city owned.  But one thing I'm not clear on--you say that there is an "extra" cost of demolishing the existing lights, and I would concur that this cost is separate from the installation of the new lights.  Are you certain that this cost of demolition is not covered by the petition as it stands now?  If so, what are your source documents?  I don't know either way myself, but I would agree with you that this cost of demolition ought to be included in the assessment along with the cost of the installation.  And I further agree that if your drinking partner wanted decorative lights on his street that the residents ought to pay for the incremental cost over and above the cost of the standard lights, as you suggest.

 

And VietVet, although S. Main has some impressive homes on it, I would hardly call it "high-fallutin'" given the hodge podge of historic homes/Section 8 homes, wealthy/poor, high income/low income, owner-occupied/rental units, and also its proximity to some of the drug-infested parts of town.  I'm not suggesting you're guilty of this, necessarily, but there does seem to be a fair amount of class envy on this forum.  And my concern is that Middletown is made worse off because many people would rather drag down the well-to-do of this city than fault the un-educated and multi-generational LBJ "Great Society" ne'erdowells for making this town a far worse place than it used to be.