PDA

View Full Version : Opinions?



Hilfiger1975
11-04-2011, 02:01 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unable-to-pay-bill-Mich-city-apf-2920161472.html?x=0

Hilfiger1975
11-04-2011, 02:17 PM
Don't be shy i know you want to say something...:winking0071:

duane1969
11-04-2011, 02:20 PM
Seems a little extreme to remove the lights but if you can't afford the electric bill then turning them off makes sense. It says the city's past due electric bill goes back a decade. Seems to me they needed to do something.

If the people are truly that concerned for their safety then they can get lights themselves. The electric company will install halogen lights on a pole on their property and bill them for the electric usage.

themanishere
11-04-2011, 02:25 PM
That city's problems are obviously much deeper than some debt over electricity. The lack of foresight is no surprise I guess.

I mean, in an area with a low median income and high poverty, what do you expect would happen when you make it easier for people to commit crimes at night?

Hilfiger1975
11-04-2011, 02:27 PM
Seems a little extreme to remove the lights but if you can't afford the electric bill then turning them off makes sense. It says the city's past due electric bill goes back a decade. Seems to me they needed to do something.

If the people are truly that concerned for their safety then they can get lights themselves. The electric company will install halogen lights on a pole on their property and bill them for the electric usage.
:twitch:

mrveggieman
11-04-2011, 02:31 PM
If I could quote the poster named WCW:

"And yet the US still sends billions of dollars overseas... start taking care of our own FIRST!"

Hilfiger1975
11-04-2011, 02:32 PM
If I could quote the poster named WCW:

"And yet the US still sends billions of dollars overseas... start taking care of our own FIRST!"
Here's a man with some common sense!

pghin08
11-04-2011, 02:33 PM
Wonder what other costs they could have cut. Seems odd.

Hilfiger1975
11-04-2011, 02:34 PM
Wonder what other costs they could have cut. Seems odd.
That's the million dollar question right there...

duane1969
11-04-2011, 02:34 PM
If I could quote the poster named WCW:

"And yet the US still sends billions of dollars overseas... start taking care of our own FIRST!"

It is not the federal government's responsibility to keep the lights on in rural communities. You are confusing two different situations. I understand your point and agree that we need to deal with our own issues first, but there are actually laws in place that prevent the Fed from getting involved in local and state government issues.

Hilfiger1975
11-04-2011, 02:36 PM
It is not the federal government's responsibility to keep the lights on in rural communities. You are confusing two different situations. I understand your point and agree that we need to deal with our own issues first, but there are actually laws in place that prevent the Fed from getting involved in local and state government issues.
Could have fooled me...:):

That's not saying a lot though... =)

mrveggieman
11-04-2011, 02:40 PM
It is not the federal government's responsibility to keep the lights on in rural communities. You are confusing two different situations. I understand your point and agree that we need to deal with our own issues first, but there are actually laws in place that prevent the Fed from getting involved in local and state government issues.


Since when has the fed gov't let a little thing called the law stop them from doing whatever they want to do?

Hilfiger1975
11-04-2011, 02:42 PM
Since when has the fed gov't let a little thing called the law stop them from doing whatever they want to do?
Or even America RIGHTS for that matter...

duane1969
11-04-2011, 02:43 PM
Wonder what other costs they could have cut. Seems odd.

Well, they are a municipality, so they could have laid off some police, laid off some city maintenance people, laid off their 911 operators, closed city hall and had no local government...there isn't too much you can do to cut cost at the city level. The bulk of any municpality's expenses will almost always be personnel.

Think about your local government. What are their primary expenses? Road maintenance, police force, provide water/trash/sewer service, maybe have a magistrate court...that is about it. There isn't much wiggle room on the city/township level.

And if they did cut something else, how much does it help. They have an electric bill that is 10 years past due! Clearly these lights were a major expense.

duane1969
11-04-2011, 02:46 PM
Since when has the fed gov't let a little thing called the law stop them from doing whatever they want to do?

I am just telling you what the word will be. If the Fed govt. wanted to send them $100k to keep the lights on I have no problem with it but at some point the city needs to be responsible for itself.

Speaking for me personally, if I was that concerned, then I would spend the $30 or $40 a month to have the electric company put a security light on my property. These people will not do that because the mentality in America right now is that the government owes the people everything that they want out of life.

Hilfiger1975
11-04-2011, 02:57 PM
I want to thank everyone that has posted and gave their opinions, no matter how warped i think it is...:winking0071:

duwal
11-04-2011, 03:37 PM
makes sense. Can't pay your bill, power gets shut down

pghin08
11-04-2011, 03:58 PM
Well, they are a municipality, so they could have laid off some police, laid off some city maintenance people, laid off their 911 operators, closed city hall and had no local government...there isn't too much you can do to cut cost at the city level. The bulk of any municpality's expenses will almost always be personnel.

Think about your local government. What are their primary expenses? Road maintenance, police force, provide water/trash/sewer service, maybe have a magistrate court...that is about it. There isn't much wiggle room on the city/township level.

And if they did cut something else, how much does it help. They have an electric bill that is 10 years past due! Clearly these lights were a major expense.

I think they've pretty much cut all road maintenance in my town. I can actually hear my car crying as I drive down the highway. Pothole city.

Star_Cards
11-04-2011, 04:04 PM
I can see that they could reduce the electricity used, but I'm confused as to why they would spend the man hours to remove the lights rather than just shut them off. Seems fishy to me.

As far as turning off the lights, it sounds like a way to reduce costs, but there are also some safety concerns by not having street lights. Lights can provide a safety aspect from crime as well as pedestrian traffic around roads.

mrveggieman
11-04-2011, 04:23 PM
I am just telling you what the word will be. If the Fed govt. wanted to send them $100k to keep the lights on I have no problem with it but at some point the city needs to be responsible for itself.

Speaking for me personally, if I was that concerned, then I would spend the $30 or $40 a month to have the electric company put a security light on my property. These people will not do that because the mentality in America right now is that the government owes the people everything that they want out of life.


An extra $30 or $40 might be a drop in the bucket to some but for people out there who are living pay check to pay check and extra $30 on their light bill may be the difference between weather or not their lights stay on.

themanishere
11-04-2011, 04:30 PM
Well, they are a municipality, so they could have laid off some police, laid off some city maintenance people, laid off their 911 operators, closed city hall and had no local government...there isn't too much you can do to cut cost at the city level. The bulk of any municpality's expenses will almost always be personnel.

Think about your local government. What are their primary expenses? Road maintenance, police force, provide water/trash/sewer service, maybe have a magistrate court...that is about it. There isn't much wiggle room on the city/township level.

And if they did cut something else, how much does it help. They have an electric bill that is 10 years past due! Clearly these lights were a major expense.

It will likely have side effects though (e.g. increased costs related to addressing more crime) given the level of poverty and income there.

Also, the electricity made up less than 10% of their debt. Taking that kind of measure, with the risk of unintended consequences as aforementioned, is pretty short-sighted.

I mean, of course it's common sense to stop a service you can't pay for any more. But for government, it's not so simple, for various reasons.

Hilfiger1975
11-04-2011, 04:40 PM
i think they've pretty much cut all road maintenance in my town. I can actually hear my car crying as i drive down the highway. Pothole city.
+1

duane1969
11-06-2011, 11:30 PM
An extra $30 or $40 might be a drop in the bucket to some but for people out there who are living pay check to pay check and extra $30 on their light bill may be the difference between weather or not their lights stay on.

Which is the same thought process that the township/city had. When you don't have it, you don't have it.

Perhaps what the city should have done is left the lights on until the electric company turned off all power to the entire city. Then the people wouldn't have to worry about those silly stop lights or cross walk lights and they wouldn't have had to bother with flushing the toilet or having any local government at all.

I realize what you guys are saying but Option #2 wasn't an option. If the electric gets cut off then the police don't get 911 calls, the sewage treatment plant doesn't treat sewage...you can't just shut down your entire operations to keep a few hundred street lights turned on.

duane1969
11-06-2011, 11:40 PM
It will likely have side effects though (e.g. increased costs related to addressing more crime) given the level of poverty and income there.

Also, the electricity made up less than 10% of their debt. Taking that kind of measure, with the risk of unintended consequences as aforementioned, is pretty short-sighted.

I mean, of course it's common sense to stop a service you can't pay for any more. But for government, it's not so simple, for various reasons.

I agree with what you are saying but something has to give. No matter what they cut someone is going to complain. Lay off some police, people complain that their streets are less safe. Lay off some road maintenance workers, people complain that the roads need better maintained. Only pick up trash every 2 weeks instead of every week, people complain that the city is causing unhealthy conditions.

That is the problem with the Fed government right now. Everybody wants to whine because the government is not fiscally responsible but as soon as you start talking about cutting funding to their favorite entitlement program they lose their mind.

theonedru
11-07-2011, 01:50 PM
I would look into slowly put the lights into grids that run on small solar panels, we see these running other things everywhere, at first it would be an increased cost to install but considering the cost from that point is practically nil it would be worth it. Now where are the smart people in this thread thinking about solving issues instead of complaining about them all the time....