You know election time is near when lawn signs start showing up all over town. The first ones were Turner signs, and they were soon accompanied by Burdsall signs. But then some of the Burdsall signs disappeared. It wasn't Burdsall supporters who removed them. Dirty tricks, right here in Egremont?
You won't be seeing Allen for Water Commissioner signs. In fact you won't be seeing much in the way of campaign materials in that regard. My platform is pretty simple. When the town voted to take over the Water Company, voters were told the users would pay all the costs so the taxpayers would never have to subsidize it. That has't happened, and the subsidy grows larger every year. I think the Water Commissioners are honor bound to run the operation in a businesslike fashion designed to eliminate the taxpayer subsidy. That hasn't happened either. I'll see that it does.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I agree with this. I too remember very clearly that the Town told said that the users would pay completely for this water system. This hasn't been the case now for several years and the amounts are significant.
There's no reason we should subsidize Water Company users. Those of us who are not on the water system have to pay for our own water, with no help from others. Why should users of the Water Company be any different? Why should we have to subsidize them?
An additional consideration is that a significant number of Water Company users, perhaps more than 50%, are second home owners. Why can't they pay their bills, including their water bills, if they're affluent enough to have two homes?
It's a disgraceful situation and the Water Commissioners have clearly not done their job.
Post a Comment