[Peace-discuss] So much for the notion of free utilities and services from government

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

>or if they will be expected to continue to chip in for activities that are
being charged for and funded by outsiders.


>>No.  Residents of the city of Urbana are taxed to pay for services
provided to residents of the city of Urbana.  As a resident of the city of
Urbana, >>Laurie, do you want your taxes providing services for the city of
Chicago?  I didn't think so.

 

First, I am not a resident of the City of Urbana since I live in Champaign.
Second, I never favored the atomistic balkanization of communities in which
each regards itself, its destiny, and its burdens and benefits as separate
and distinct from that of the whole.  When I go to a different location, I
expect that I will have the same services and protections available to me
independent of my financial means that the locals have just as I expect that
they would receive the same when in my local community. The residents of the
City of Urbana or anywhere else for that matter are taxed to pay for the
services in that community which are intended to be for everyone no matter
where they come from as if they were residents and are not intended to be
reserved for the residents exclusively.  We use federal and state tax monies
gathered from other communities in the communities of Champaign and Urbana
just as other communities use tax monies generated here in their
communities.  If that were not the case, the residents of this community
would not have many of the goods, services, amenities, and benefits that
they now enjoy as a result of state and federal funding based on money from
other communities.  

Secondly, as for "do you want your taxes providing services for the city of
Chicago," it really does not matter what I think or want; but if it did, I
would no more object to that than I would object to paying for schools for
other people's children given that I have no children or even family within
600 miles that have children in need of those services no or in the future
and given that, as a child, I was educated in communities out East.  But
this is what sharing the benefits and burdens of citizenship is all about,
paying for services that you may not need but other do and receiving
services paid for by others that you need but others may not.

 

> You're overreacting, Laurie.

I don't think so.  I am merely noting that justifying the charging of said
fees by saying that the insurance company will pay for it so it will not be
a cost to the motorist is not only stupid and near-sighted; but it is
dishonest and disingenuous regardless of any reasons that might be used to
justify such fees.  If I were really overreacting, I would have said that we
should kill the Urbana Council members and the City Staff by burying them
alive along with their friends and families; but I have not suggested that
at all. However, I do acknowledge that one persons ceiling may be another's
floor.

 

 

From: John W. [mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:16 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] So much for the notion of free utilities and
services from government

 

 

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 8:57 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>
wrote:


Apparently protect and serve will now be at a cost.


In a tiny minority of instances, perhaps.
 


I have to wonder how the poor and working poor will be able to afford such
security and safety;


Through their state-mandated auto insurance?  (Although I don't think the
city of Urbana has thought that through all that carefully.)


I have to wonder if this means that the local resident's taxes will be
reduced


No.  The city of Urbana is trying to raise ADDITIONAL revenue.

 


or if they will be expected to continue to chip in for activities that are
being charged for and funded by outsiders.


No.  Residents of the city of Urbana are taxed to pay for services provided
to residents of the city of Urbana.  As a resident of the city of Urbana,
Laurie, do you want your taxes providing services for the city of Chicago?
I didn't think so.


And it seems stupid and near-sighted to say that the insurance companies
will be paying for the fees as if that would mean that it will not cost
anyone anything.  Don't they expect that the insurance companies will recoup
the losses in spades by charging more for insurance to not only
out-of-county residents but to all their insures (particularly given that
should these fees catch on, every county and municipality will try and
charge fees for handling accidents - and not just on federal highways but on
local roads and streets as well).


You're overreacting, Laurie.




Urbana council to consider emergency-response fees


By Mike Monson <http://www.news-gazette.com/news/reporter/mmonson/>  


Saturday, May 16, 2009 8:42 AM CDT


E-mail Story
<http://www.news-gazette.com/news/email/2009/05/16/urbana_council_to_conside
r_emergency-response_fees>  Printer-friendly
<http://www.news-gazette.com/news/print/2009/05/16/urbana_council_to_conside
r_emergency-response_fees>  

URBANA - Starting July 1, out-of-county residents who get into an accident
on Interstate 74 that requires the response of the Urbana Fire Department
will likely have to pay for it.

The city council will consider at its meeting Monday night authorizing the
city to charge for fire-service responses to people who live outside of
Champaign County. In cases of serious accidents, the bill could be several
hundred dollars.

The council meets at 7 p.m. Monday at the City Building, 400 S. Vine St.

City Fire Chief Mike Dilley said that while the ordinance is not limited to
Interstate 74, that's where most of the charges will likely occur. He said
the department responds to I-74 accidents nearly 20 times per year.

"It's basically so we can recoup our expenses when we send the fire
apparatus to the interstate for nonresidents," Dilley said.

City Attorney Ronald O'Neal said the city of Champaign is considering
enacting a similar fee, as both cities are scrambling to raise revenue
during the economic downturn.

O'Neal said many cities across the country charge such fees, including some
departments that charge their own residents. He said auto insurance
companies will typically pay for the expense.

The authorizing ordinance does not include a specific schedule of fees,
which will be added at a later date. But Dilley said he intends to ask for
at least $250 per incident.

Charges will vary per incident, with the plan to charge $150 per hour per
apparatus and $35 per hour per firefighter.

An accident rescue involving an extraction of someone from a vehicle would
typically see two engines and a command car respond, with about seven
firefighters, he said.

"If you are there an hour, it could get expensive," Dilley said.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090516/a6ddea3f/attachment.htm