Thursday, September 9, 2010

Hyrdrant Tax

I voted against the hydrant tax.

I know we are all supposed to be affluent; fat and happy -

BUT here are some of the people who live in my CDBG eligible District #2

- A Retired Worker (Home Owner) who receives $1,170.80 (monthly) (Average Old-Age Insurance - July 2010)

- A Graduate Student (paying Rent-Utilities) whose stipend is $1,500 (monthly)

- The 50 families in a New Chauncey program home (up to $39,300 eligibility); 2,500 (?) monthly.

If you run a bar, double dip (take a pension and a salary), make 202k ( a Family Practice MD at 3 years w/o profit share), or have tenure at Purdue @ say, 160 k ( pick a name ), you can afford to be nonchalant.

Those well-off like fees. They are far less affected as a percentage of income.

Rent ? Poor ? Old ? No raise this year ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I know the mayor insinuates that this is a choice between this fee and jobs. He lobby's council members in private about it. Brings along department heads. The mayor is charming. This is one of the gentle deceptions of the political process.

BUT ALL CURRENT POSITIONS ARE FUNDED IN THE 2011 BUDGET WE HAVE BEFORE US . . . . Unless the current budget is a incorrect.

What is TRUE is that the hydrants are already in this year's budget.

We can debate next month whether the budget has been trimmed or costs merely shifted off-book. (Use the Waste Water Utility - again - to pay for the hydrants? Like the new parking lot at the Lilly Nature Center?) But there is no doubt about who will pay the biggest price for this rate/tax increase. Those who can least afford it.

No comments: