COAST joined with AFSCME and the NAACP last week at a public hearing called by City Manager Milton Dohoney on the sale of the Water Works. The objections:
1) Ratepayers are being asked to pay $475 million to the City of Cincinnati for assets we already own “because they need the money.”
2) The new entity created in the transfer would have eminent domain powers
3) The new entity created in the transfer would have new taxing powers (in unelected officials!)
Once again, COAST has reached across the left-right divide to create powerful coalitions against wasteful spending and excessive taxation.
A copy of the COAST/AFSCME/NAACP brochure is attached.
Would You Pay $475 Million for Assets You Already Own
I'm with you Covington Candace. We Kentuckians have to stick together to oppose anything in Cincinnati that limits government power.
ReplyDeleteMr. Miller, pay your son's tuition please.
ReplyDelete"Rate payers" don't own the Water Works. City residents own the Water Works, whether or not they pay for water service.
ReplyDeleteDemand that COAST stop lying on this issue!
The water works is the property of the city and its residents, not of "rate payers":
1) City and non-city Businesses do not own the water works, but they do pay water bills
2) Hamilton County Residents outside the city limits pay for Cincinnati water but don't own the water works
3) Butler County residents pay for Cincinnati water, but don't own the water works
4) Warren county residents pay for Cincinnati water, but don't own the water works
5) Clermont County residents pay for Cincinnati water, but don't own the water works
6) Northern Kentucky residents pay for Cincinnati water, but don't own the water works
Well over half the area served by the water works lies outside the city limits, and thus doesn't own a stake in the water works.
Well over half the entities that buy Cincinnati water are not Cincinnati residents, and therefore don't own the water works.
Tell COAST to stop spreading the lie that the proposal is to "sell the water works back to the people who already own it".
The proposal is simply to sell the over-stake in the water works from the minority of present-day users that currently own it to the entire population of people it serves, and to provide a system that will grow that stake as the service area expands and as the population grows within the service area.
Why COAST is coming down on the side of supporting a system that maintains city control (the voice of a minority of users) over a regional utility is beyond me.
Also beyond me is why COAST decried "red light cameras" as the next great Satan when City Council was reviewing them, but has largely turned the other cheek as they've sprung up all over the 'burbs, such as in Florence, West Chester, Sharonville, Evendale, Kenwood (so-called "limited government" Sycamore Twp) and many other places.
Could it be that COAST's agenda is really just to obstruct anything the city in interested in considering or actually doing?
How Coleman's posts are written: ^^^^
ReplyDeleteHow Coleman's posts come across: blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah
Coleman (Hamilton County Young Democrat Club lackey),
ReplyDeleteShouldn't you be washing Mark Mallory's car or shining David Pepper's shoes? Please get back to work, or at the very least keep your long-winded partisan hate posts to a manageable length.
Thank you :)
Bris, does Mark Mallory even have a car for Coleman to shine? The way he acts I figure he takes Metro everywhere. Except when he's traveling overseas.
ReplyDeleteWhen he needs a car, he probably borrows Brad Thomas' car (that he doesn't want us to think he has).