Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 49 (Exempt non-customers from sewer fees) [by newmark on February 24, 2009]JGault,
We're often on the same side, but on this one, I have to disagree.
My father lives in a rural part of a county. He doesn't have any sewers (septic or storm). He has a septic tank which he maintains at his expense. The creek in his back yard occasionally overflows, and he is the one that cleans up the debris. Further up the road, the creek does cross under the road, and often the water will flow over that road. You either drive the other way, or go through it.
The storm water tax provides him with absolutely no services at all. The purpose of this tax is to upgrade and seperate the storm and septic sewers in cities. Out in the rural counties, people choose to live further away to avoid these taxes, at the expense of not getting these services. Taxing people for services that they do not receive is immoral.
Reply
This dumb bill seems to come up every year. Those people who don't have sanitary sewers (i.e. those with septic tanks) don't want to help support the storm sewer system. Come on. Unless these people can prove that no rain water from their property ever drains into a storm sewer, and they can prove that they never drive on a public road, (thereby benefiting from having drained public streets), and they don't ever expect an ambulance to reach their home quickly when roads have flooded, then quit proposing this ridiculous bill and pay your fair share.
Reply
Introduced in the Senate on February 3, 2009
Click here to view bill details.
Reply
View Full Conversation
