Six weeks ago I got a letter from the city informing me of a new "drainage
fee" and assessing me $190/year for the "impermeable" surface on my
property.

Their thinking went, presumably, that this impermeable surface meant
rainfall ran off to the street where is was processed by the storm-sewer
system. This new fee is meant to add funds to the storm-sewer creation and
maintenance function of the city's government.

There are exceptions: One of which is if the property is served by an open
drainage ditch.

So, I go to the city's site for registering a protest. Ah ha, there is an
aerial view (Google Earth) of my property overlaid by some bit of software
that drew little rectangles over the "impermeable" areas (driveway,
sidewalks, out-buildings, dog just standing in the yard, etc.). This bit of
software evidently adds up the area comprising all the rectangles to achieve
a total square footage and assesses a fee of three cents per square-foot per
year.

Well, **** this nonsense. I protested the assessment allowing as how my
property is served by a drainage ditch to the rear that easily handles half
of the rainfall. (Man, the ditch is twenty feet deep and fifty feet wide -
it's more like a canal than a ditch.) I further opined that, since it hasn't
rained here since January, it seems a little disingenuous to be imposing a
DRAINAGE fee.

Anyway, the city just sent me an email saying my reasoning is flawed, the
original assessment stands, and I smell funny.

I'm gonna appeal.

Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to your
town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your garage and
outbuildings' roofs.

HeyBub wrote:
Six weeks ago I got a letter from the city informing me of a new
"drainage fee" and assessing me $190/year for the "impermeable"
surface on my property.

Their thinking went, presumably, that this impermeable surface meant
rainfall ran off to the street where is was processed by the
storm-sewer system. This new fee is meant to add funds to the
storm-sewer creation and maintenance function of the city's
government.
There are exceptions: One of which is if the property is served by an
open drainage ditch.

So, I go to the city's site for registering a protest. Ah ha, there
is an aerial view (Google Earth) of my property overlaid by some bit
of software that drew little rectangles over the "impermeable" areas
(driveway, sidewalks, out-buildings, dog just standing in the yard,
etc.). This bit of software evidently adds up the area comprising all
the rectangles to achieve a total square footage and assesses a fee
of three cents per square-foot per year.

Well, **** this nonsense. I protested the assessment allowing as how
my property is served by a drainage ditch to the rear that easily
handles half of the rainfall. (Man, the ditch is twenty feet deep and
fifty feet wide - it's more like a canal than a ditch.) I further
opined that, since it hasn't rained here since January, it seems a
little disingenuous to be imposing a DRAINAGE fee.

Anyway, the city just sent me an email saying my reasoning is flawed,
the original assessment stands, and I smell funny.

I'm gonna appeal.

Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to
your town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your garage
and outbuildings' roofs.

be glad you're not in colorado where where it's illegal to collect
rainwater.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar...ed-rainwater18

if you put out buckets to collect the rainwater, you can get the buckets tax
free: http://www.catchtherain.com/Resource..._sales_tax.php. i
would guess that the square footage of the buckets would count against your
hardscape area. perhaps you need to collect ALL the rainwater that falls on
your property?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to your
town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your garage and
outbuildings' roofs.

Yeah, and I bet Texas is gonna get zoning laws and require building
permits, too. Damn commies.

Sometimes the answer to every question is no, and you don't get their
attention until you appeal.

Especially when appeals are handled by a sort of impartial third
party, instead of the folks who work for the municipality that needs
your money.

On Jul 14, 4:06*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Six weeks ago I got a letter from the city informing me of a new "drainage
fee" and assessing me $190/year for the "impermeable" surface on my
property.

Their thinking went, presumably, that this impermeable surface meant
rainfall ran off to the street where is was processed by the storm-sewer
system. This new fee is meant to add funds to the storm-sewer creation and
maintenance function of the city's government.

There are exceptions: One of which is if the property is served by an open
drainage ditch.

So, I go to the city's site for registering a protest. Ah ha, there is an
aerial view (Google Earth) of my property overlaid by some bit of software
that drew little rectangles over the "impermeable" areas (driveway,
sidewalks, out-buildings, dog just standing in the yard, etc.). This bit of
software evidently adds up the area comprising all the rectangles to achieve
a total square footage and assesses a fee of three cents per square-foot per
year.

Well, **** this nonsense. I protested the assessment allowing as how my
property is served by a drainage ditch to the rear that easily handles half
of the rainfall. (Man, the ditch is twenty feet deep and fifty feet wide -
it's more like a canal than a ditch.) I further opined that, since it hasn't
rained here since January, it seems a little disingenuous to be imposing a
DRAINAGE fee.

Anyway, the city just sent me an email saying my reasoning is flawed, the
original assessment stands, and I smell funny.

I'm gonna appeal.

Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to your
town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your garage and
outbuildings' roofs.

Santa Monica actually PAYS homeowners to convert hardscape into
permeable, and water-thirsty plantings into xeriscape -- especially
doing away with turf grass which is a huge consumer of water (and
chemicals). I think they said it is the largest crop in the
country?...

AFAIK, up to half the cost can be met by the City, providing the
homeowner follows certain protocols; makes out the requisite forms,
etc. Not a five-minute paperwork job; careful irrigation design is
part of the process. Also, we are STRONGLY encouraged to use rain
barrels and other collection devices which are sold inexpensively by
the City. Runoff is subject to penalty, which means I'd better set a
timer when I turn on a hose; this multi-tasking has got to end g.

I just attended a Landscape Design seminar sponsored by the City
(sneaked in as a ringer, since it was supposed to be for
professionals, but they don't really care).
Part of an extensive year-round group of seminars on all subjects
connected with water-saving, xeriscapic design, non-chemical
gardening, etc.
Maybe Colorado should visit Santa Monica's Sustainable Environment Web
site. This thing about forbidding people to collect rain water sounds
really weird!

At the seminar I met a young woman (also not a professional designer)
who had gone through the whole process and qualified for the grant.
She showed me her place, which was still a work in progress, but well
on the way to saving huge amounts of water while presenting an
attractive design, appropriate for what is, basically, a desert area.
(The gigantic metropolitan LA area only began to attract population
when Mulholland brought the water from up North to So. Calif.)

HB

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to
your town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your
garage and outbuildings' roofs.

Yeah, and I bet Texas is gonna get zoning laws and require building
permits, too. Damn commies.

Fudge! We've already GOT requirements for building permits. Houston does
not, however, have any zoning laws.

Every few years a delegation from HUD visits our city to investigate
land-use patterns. What they find is that land use does not vary
significantly from cities with Draconian zoning: Heavy industry is clustered
in one area, light manufacturing in another, multi-family residences are on
heavily-traveled streets (as are shopping centers), single family residences
are off the main drags. Gas stations tend to be on corners of well-traveled
intersections.

Most of the time, these visitors put on their beanies (the kind with the
propeller on top) and return to Washington, no wiser than before. They write
a report that no one reads and collect their consulting fee.

When it's pointed out to them that we don't have the corruption, bribery,
and special-dealing often associated with zoning and zoning variances, they
say: "Well, that's just not right!"

On Jul 15, 7:27*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to
your town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your
garage and outbuildings' roofs.

Yeah, and I bet Texas is gonna get zoning laws and require building
permits, too. Damn commies.

Fudge! We've already GOT requirements for building permits. Houston does
not, however, have any zoning laws.

Every few years a delegation from HUD visits our city to investigate
land-use patterns. What they find is that land use does not vary
significantly from cities with Draconian zoning: Heavy industry is clustered
in one area, light manufacturing in another, multi-family residences are on
heavily-traveled streets (as are shopping centers), single family residences
are off the main drags. Gas stations tend to be on corners of well-traveled
intersections.

Most of the time, these visitors put on their beanies (the kind with the
propeller on top) and return to Washington, no wiser than before. They write
a report that no one reads and collect their consulting fee.

When it's pointed out to them that we don't have the corruption, bribery,
and special-dealing often associated with zoning and zoning variances, they
say: "Well, that's just not right!"

So you live in Houston?

On Jul 15, 9:16*am, "hr(bob) "
wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:27*am, "HeyBub" wrote:





Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to
your town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your
garage and outbuildings' roofs.

Yeah, and I bet Texas is gonna get zoning laws and require building
permits, too. Damn commies.

Fudge! We've already GOT requirements for building permits. Houston does
not, however, have any zoning laws.

Every few years a delegation from HUD visits our city to investigate
land-use patterns. What they find is that land use does not vary
significantly from cities with Draconian zoning: Heavy industry is clustered
in one area, light manufacturing in another, multi-family residences are on
heavily-traveled streets (as are shopping centers), single family residences
are off the main drags. Gas stations tend to be on corners of well-traveled
intersections.

Most of the time, these visitors put on their beanies (the kind with the
propeller on top) and return to Washington, no wiser than before. They write
a report that no one reads and collect their consulting fee.

When it's pointed out to them that we don't have the corruption, bribery,
and special-dealing often associated with zoning and zoning variances, they
say: "Well, that's just not right!"

So you live in Houston?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One of the main reasons Colorado doesn't allow collecting rainwater is
that Colorado is only one of two states where water doesn't flow into
the state. All rivers and streams flow out of the state. Water is
typically scarce and the cities want to collect and process as much of
it as possible. So for those states, such as CA, who rely on
Colorado's water to fill those swiming pools, be thankful for where
you get it from.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:06:38 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Six weeks ago I got a letter from the city informing me of a new "drainage
fee" and assessing me $190/year for the "impermeable" surface on my
property.

Their thinking went, presumably, that this impermeable surface meant
rainfall ran off to the street where is was processed by the storm-sewer
system. This new fee is meant to add funds to the storm-sewer creation and
maintenance function of the city's government.

There are exceptions: One of which is if the property is served by an open
drainage ditch.

So, I go to the city's site for registering a protest. Ah ha, there is an
aerial view (Google Earth) of my property overlaid by some bit of software
that drew little rectangles over the "impermeable" areas (driveway,
sidewalks, out-buildings, dog just standing in the yard, etc.). This bit of
software evidently adds up the area comprising all the rectangles to achieve
a total square footage and assesses a fee of three cents per square-foot per
year.

Well, **** this nonsense. I protested the assessment allowing as how my
property is served by a drainage ditch to the rear that easily handles half
of the rainfall. (Man, the ditch is twenty feet deep and fifty feet wide -
it's more like a canal than a ditch.) I further opined that, since it hasn't
rained here since January, it seems a little disingenuous to be imposing a
DRAINAGE fee.

Anyway, the city just sent me an email saying my reasoning is flawed, the
original assessment stands, and I smell funny.

I'm gonna appeal.

Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to your
town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your garage and
outbuildings' roofs.



We have a constant battle in my area to stop some people from pouring
concrete over every bit of green and brown. It makes sense to me to
charge them more for sewer runoff than I pay since more water runs off
their property and overloads the sewers. That certainly seems like
what is happening in your area but you seem like collateral damage and
I can't see why you wouldn't win on appeal.

That's really funny about it not raining since January and they're
still collecting - but of course they have to build the sewers anyway
so they need to get paid.

I did not mean that it's funny that it hasn't rained of course.
Whether humans caused it or not (I think we certainly contributed) the
weather patterns are not looking happy.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to your
town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your garage and
outbuildings' roofs.

You mean to say this is happening in the taxpayer's paradise of Texas? I'm
astonished.

Water-permeable concrete is the way to go, that and directing all your
run-off to a dry well at the back of your property. Then sue the city if
they try to claim your water is still going into the storm drains. Of
course all that will cost a pile of money, but nobody ever said standing on
principle was cheap.

hr(bob) wrote:

Fudge! We've already GOT requirements for building permits. Houston
does not, however, have any zoning laws.

Every few years a delegation from HUD visits our city to investigate
land-use patterns. What they find is that land use does not vary
significantly from cities with Draconian zoning: Heavy industry is
clustered in one area, light manufacturing in another, multi-family
residences are on heavily-traveled streets (as are shopping
centers), single family residences are off the main drags. Gas
stations tend to be on corners of well-traveled intersections.

Most of the time, these visitors put on their beanies (the kind with
the propeller on top) and return to Washington, no wiser than
before. They write a report that no one reads and collect their
consulting fee.

When it's pointed out to them that we don't have the corruption,
bribery, and special-dealing often associated with zoning and zoning
variances, they say: "Well, that's just not right!"

So you live in Houston?

Yeah, it has its ups and downs. Our big cultural event is the annual
livestock show and rodeo with 2.25 million people attending this past
February (outstripping the total attendance of our three professional sports
teams).

Don't know whether to count that as a plus or a minus... Guess it depends on
whether you like chickens.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to
your town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your
garage and outbuildings' roofs.

You mean to say this is happening in the taxpayer's paradise of
Texas? I'm astonished.

Well, yeah. That's the purpose of my post - NOBODY is immune! If they can
get us, not even your little dog is safe. Best you can do is to avoid
electing a "progressive" city government.


Water-permeable concrete is the way to go, that and directing all your
run-off to a dry well at the back of your property. Then sue the
city if they try to claim your water is still going into the storm
drains. Of course all that will cost a pile of money, but nobody
ever said standing on principle was cheap.

Ah, but they don't claim the water is going into the storm sewer system -
they are taxing impermeable surfaces, not run-off. According to their
regulations, a swimming pool or a stock-tank is an impermeable surface! As
is standing outside with an umbrella in the rain. (If it ever rains here
again.)

I'm thinking places like shopping centers are gonna take it in the naughty
bits. We'll all pay more for stuff.

Maybe I can get my beef jerky over the internet...

On 7/15/2011 3:46 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Jul 14, 4:06 pm, wrote:
Six weeks ago I got a letter from the city informing me of a new "drainage
fee" and assessing me $190/year for the "impermeable" surface on my
property.

Their thinking went, presumably, that this impermeable surface meant
rainfall ran off to the street where is was processed by the storm-sewer
system. This new fee is meant to add funds to the storm-sewer creation and
maintenance function of the city's government.

There are exceptions: One of which is if the property is served by an open
drainage ditch.

So, I go to the city's site for registering a protest. Ah ha, there is an
aerial view (Google Earth) of my property overlaid by some bit of software
that drew little rectangles over the "impermeable" areas (driveway,
sidewalks, out-buildings, dog just standing in the yard, etc.). This bit of
software evidently adds up the area comprising all the rectangles to achieve
a total square footage and assesses a fee of three cents per square-foot per
year.

Well, **** this nonsense. I protested the assessment allowing as how my
property is served by a drainage ditch to the rear that easily handles half
of the rainfall. (Man, the ditch is twenty feet deep and fifty feet wide -
it's more like a canal than a ditch.) I further opined that, since it hasn't
rained here since January, it seems a little disingenuous to be imposing a
DRAINAGE fee.

Anyway, the city just sent me an email saying my reasoning is flawed, the
original assessment stands, and I smell funny.

I'm gonna appeal.

Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to your
town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your garage and
outbuildings' roofs.

Santa Monica actually PAYS homeowners to convert hardscape into
permeable, and water-thirsty plantings into xeriscape -- especially
doing away with turf grass which is a huge consumer of water (and
chemicals). I think they said it is the largest crop in the
country?...

AFAIK, up to half the cost can be met by the City, providing the
homeowner follows certain protocols; makes out the requisite forms,
etc. Not a five-minute paperwork job; careful irrigation design is
part of the process. Also, we are STRONGLY encouraged to use rain
barrels and other collection devices which are sold inexpensively by
the City. Runoff is subject to penalty, which means I'd better set a
timer when I turn on a hose; this multi-tasking has got to endg.

I just attended a Landscape Design seminar sponsored by the City
(sneaked in as a ringer, since it was supposed to be for
professionals, but they don't really care).
Part of an extensive year-round group of seminars on all subjects
connected with water-saving, xeriscapic design, non-chemical
gardening, etc.
Maybe Colorado should visit Santa Monica's Sustainable Environment Web
site. This thing about forbidding people to collect rain water sounds
really weird!

Mebbe they want the runoff to end up in the Colorado river aquifer, for
the farmers and the down-river treaty signers? Any H20 that evaporates
or gets diverted never makes it into the water table. Calling it a
'drainage fee' hides their real goal. Or maybe they are just broke, and
truly need money to keep the canal banks bush-hogged, and the culverts
cleared.

Yer right, I got no idea what they are thinking....

--
aem sends...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Ah, but they don't claim the water is going into the storm sewer system -
they are taxing impermeable surfaces, not run-off. According to their
regulations, a swimming pool or a stock-tank is an impermeable surface! As
is standing outside with an umbrella in the rain. (If it ever rains here
again.)

My acquaintances with libertarian leanings are always telling me we don't
need govt. regulation because citizens can always sue to get redress.
Sounds like you should be organizing a class action for your fellow
citizens, take the city to court and roll back the law. I'll wish you luck,
and it will be sincere too.

HeyBub wrote:
Six weeks ago I got a letter from the city informing me of a new "drainage
fee" and assessing me $190/year for the "impermeable" surface on my
property.

Their thinking went, presumably, that this impermeable surface meant
rainfall ran off to the street where is was processed by the storm-sewer
system. This new fee is meant to add funds to the storm-sewer creation and
maintenance function of the city's government.

There are exceptions: One of which is if the property is served by an open
drainage ditch.

So, I go to the city's site for registering a protest. Ah ha, there is an
aerial view (Google Earth) of my property overlaid by some bit of software
that drew little rectangles over the "impermeable" areas (driveway,
sidewalks, out-buildings, dog just standing in the yard, etc.). This bit of
software evidently adds up the area comprising all the rectangles to achieve
a total square footage and assesses a fee of three cents per square-foot per
year.

Well, **** this nonsense. I protested the assessment allowing as how my
property is served by a drainage ditch to the rear that easily handles half
of the rainfall. (Man, the ditch is twenty feet deep and fifty feet wide -
it's more like a canal than a ditch.) I further opined that, since it hasn't
rained here since January, it seems a little disingenuous to be imposing a
DRAINAGE fee.

Anyway, the city just sent me an email saying my reasoning is flawed, the
original assessment stands, and I smell funny.

I'm gonna appeal.

Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to your
town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your garage and
outbuildings' roofs.




The storm drain systems are designed on 100 year flood levels. It all
works out on paper.... We pay a run off water fee based on lot coverage,
some years the system works, some years it's not needed, some years
it's not adequate. Hopefully some of the money you are paying goes to
keeping that ditch clear down stream of you so water won't back up into
your place when you get that hundred year flood.
Want to save some money? Check your phone bill for cramming.

Fatter Than Ever Moe wrote:

The storm drain systems are designed on 100 year flood levels. It
all works out on paper.... We pay a run off water fee based on lot
coverage, some years the system works, some years it's not needed,
some years it's not adequate. Hopefully some of the money you are
paying goes to keeping that ditch clear down stream of you so water
won't back up into your place when you get that hundred year flood.
Want to save some money? Check your phone bill for cramming.

Heh! I already save bucketloads of state taxes by not playing the lottery.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Fatter Than Ever Moe wrote:

The storm drain systems are designed on 100 year flood levels. It
all works out on paper.... We pay a run off water fee based on lot
coverage, some years the system works, some years it's not needed,
some years it's not adequate. Hopefully some of the money you are
paying goes to keeping that ditch clear down stream of you so water
won't back up into your place when you get that hundred year flood.
Want to save some money? Check your phone bill for cramming.

Heh! I already save bucketloads of state taxes by not playing the lottery.

Interestingly enough, the lottery proceeds in Indiana go, to a
certain extent, to pay part of the excess (errrr excise) tax on my car
plates. I get more in lottery-related savings on my cars than I play.
So, I look at it as though I am playing for free.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Heh! I already save bucketloads of state taxes by not playing the
lottery.

Interestingly enough, the lottery proceeds in Indiana go, to a
certain extent, to pay part of the excess (errrr excise) tax on my car
plates. I get more in lottery-related savings on my cars than I play.
So, I look at it as though I am playing for free.

Oooh! Good point!

We should, therefore, encourage others to play the lottery thereby keeping
our taxes down.

Good idea.

Back in the olden days, here's the way the "Numbers Game" worked. You would
pick a number from 00 to 99 and pay the person selling the ticket ten cents.
If the next day's Dow Jones average ended in the two digits you picked, you
won $6.00!

Obviously the players redeemed about 60% of the total take (on average). My
state pays out 62% of the revenue in prizes, which make it slightly better
than the mob.

HeyBub wrote:

I further opined that, since it hasn't
rained here since January, it seems a little disingenuous to be imposing a
DRAINAGE fee.

It's raining today, maybe that's what the $190 is for!

On 7/16/2011 12:14 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Heh! I already save bucketloads of state taxes by not playing the
lottery.

Interestingly enough, the lottery proceeds in Indiana go, to a
certain extent, to pay part of the excess (errrr excise) tax on my car
plates. I get more in lottery-related savings on my cars than I play.
So, I look at it as though I am playing for free.

Oooh! Good point!

We should, therefore, encourage others to play the lottery thereby keeping
our taxes down.

Good idea.

Back in the olden days, here's the way the "Numbers Game" worked. You would
pick a number from 00 to 99 and pay the person selling the ticket ten cents.
If the next day's Dow Jones average ended in the two digits you picked, you
won $6.00!

Obviously the players redeemed about 60% of the total take (on average). My
state pays out 62% of the revenue in prizes, which make it slightly better
than the mob.



When prohibition ended, many states saw how much the mob had been making
off booze- that is the REAL reason so many states set up state liquor
stores. A few decades later, they saw how much corner candy store
numbers rackets and Vegas casinos were making, and decided to horn in on
those too. Mob doesn't have many profit centers left.

--
aem sends...

On 07/16/2011 02:19 PM, aemeijers wrote:
On 7/16/2011 12:14 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Heh! I already save bucketloads of state taxes by not playing the
lottery.

Interestingly enough, the lottery proceeds in Indiana go, to a
certain extent, to pay part of the excess (errrr excise) tax on my car
plates. I get more in lottery-related savings on my cars than I play.
So, I look at it as though I am playing for free.

Oooh! Good point!

We should, therefore, encourage others to play the lottery thereby
keeping
our taxes down.

Good idea.

Back in the olden days, here's the way the "Numbers Game" worked. You
would
pick a number from 00 to 99 and pay the person selling the ticket ten
cents.
If the next day's Dow Jones average ended in the two digits you
picked, you
won $6.00!

Obviously the players redeemed about 60% of the total take (on
average). My
state pays out 62% of the revenue in prizes, which make it slightly
better
than the mob.



When prohibition ended, many states saw how much the mob had been making
off booze- that is the REAL reason so many states set up state liquor
stores. A few decades later, they saw how much corner candy store
numbers rackets and Vegas casinos were making, and decided to horn in on
those too. Mob doesn't have many profit centers left.

Just extortion, drugs, kidnapping, prostitution, robbery, murder,
burglary, selling stolen property, selling fake medication,
slavery. There's more.........

--

Mysterious Traveler wrote:

When prohibition ended, many states saw how much the mob had been
making off booze- that is the REAL reason so many states set up
state liquor stores. A few decades later, they saw how much corner
candy store numbers rackets and Vegas casinos were making, and
decided to horn in on those too. Mob doesn't have many profit
centers left.
Just extortion, drugs, kidnapping, prostitution, robbery, murder,
burglary, selling stolen property, selling fake medication,
slavery. There's more.........

There's always opportunity.

Many years ago Gillette decided to complete the switch to stainless razor
blades. They had a warehouse in New Jersey chock-a-block full of "Blue
Blades". Gillette contracted with a salvage company to load hundreds of
thousands of pounds of these blades on a barge, tow the barge out into the
Atlantic, and Davy Jones the whole business.

The barge was filled, the tug boat departed. A few hours later the barge
docked at, I think they call it, a "mob pier" where the razor blades were
offloaded.

These razor blades were sold, at a steep discount, to drug stores,
groceries, and what-nots throughout the midwest. Gillette never did figure
out why they couldn't GIVE a stainless blade away in Missouri.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:14:22 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Heh! I already save bucketloads of state taxes by not playing the
lottery.

Interestingly enough, the lottery proceeds in Indiana go, to a
certain extent, to pay part of the excess (errrr excise) tax on my car
plates. I get more in lottery-related savings on my cars than I play.
So, I look at it as though I am playing for free.

Oooh! Good point!

We should, therefore, encourage others to play the lottery thereby keeping
our taxes down.

Good idea.

Back in the olden days, here's the way the "Numbers Game" worked. You would
pick a number from 00 to 99 and pay the person selling the ticket ten cents.
If the next day's Dow Jones average ended in the two digits you picked, you
won $6.00!

Obviously the players redeemed about 60% of the total take (on average). My
state pays out 62% of the revenue in prizes, which make it slightly better
than the mob.

Most states rely on guns to keep the mob off their turf and only pay 50%. When
I moved here, I was sorta amazed that there was no lottery. I rather like it.

"HeyBub" wrote in
news
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Heh! I already save bucketloads of state taxes by not playing the
lottery.

Interestingly enough, the lottery proceeds in Indiana go, to a
certain extent, to pay part of the excess (errrr excise) tax on my
car plates. I get more in lottery-related savings on my cars than I
play. So, I look at it as though I am playing for free.

Oooh! Good point!

We should, therefore, encourage others to play the lottery thereby
keeping our taxes down.

Good idea.

Back in the olden days, here's the way the "Numbers Game" worked. You
would pick a number from 00 to 99 and pay the person selling the
ticket ten cents. If the next day's Dow Jones average ended in the two
digits you picked, you won $6.00!

....and so began AIG.


Obviously the players redeemed about 60% of the total take (on
average). My state pays out 62% of the revenue in prizes, which make
it slightly better than the mob.

On Jul 14, 7:06*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Six weeks ago I got a letter from the city informing me of a new "drainage
fee" and assessing me $190/year for the "impermeable" surface on my
property.

Their thinking went, presumably, that this impermeable surface meant
rainfall ran off to the street where is was processed by the storm-sewer
system. This new fee is meant to add funds to the storm-sewer creation and
maintenance function of the city's government.

There are exceptions: One of which is if the property is served by an open
drainage ditch.

So, I go to the city's site for registering a protest. Ah ha, there is an
aerial view (Google Earth) of my property overlaid by some bit of software
that drew little rectangles over the "impermeable" areas (driveway,
sidewalks, out-buildings, dog just standing in the yard, etc.). This bit of
software evidently adds up the area comprising all the rectangles to achieve
a total square footage and assesses a fee of three cents per square-foot per
year.

Well, **** this nonsense. I protested the assessment allowing as how my
property is served by a drainage ditch to the rear that easily handles half
of the rainfall. (Man, the ditch is twenty feet deep and fifty feet wide -
it's more like a canal than a ditch.) I further opined that, since it hasn't
rained here since January, it seems a little disingenuous to be imposing a
DRAINAGE fee.

Anyway, the city just sent me an email saying my reasoning is flawed, the
original assessment stands, and I smell funny.

I'm gonna appeal.

Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to your
town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your garage and
outbuildings' roofs.

So what method do you propose for paying for a storm drainage system?

Jimmie

JIMMIE wrote:

Anyway, heads up. This silliness will spread, you mark my words, to
your town, too. Start thinking about camouflage paint for your
garage and outbuildings' roofs.

So what method do you propose for paying for a storm drainage system?


Uh, from revenues that flow into the general fund, primarily from property
taxes.

I'll note the city didn't offer to reduce my property tax bill by $200/year
as recompense for shifting the storm sewer system from something the city
should normally do, to a "fee for service" methodology.

What's next? Charging me every time I stop at a red light (they already
charge me for not stopping)?

Well, I can give you both the economist's answer and the common sense
answer.

The economist understands that it makes sense to charge people for the
services they use- so if you use more sewer, or water, or electricity,
you pay for it, not everyone else. That seems equitable in terms of
distributing costs and fair in terms of discouraging people from using
scarce resources.

The common sense answer is threefold:
1. Where does this lead? The guy who is frequently robbed more pays a
higher police tax? You see who smokes and charge them a higher fire
protection premium? If your kid requires special ed we charge you
more? How about the fat kid who weighs down the school bus and uses
more fuel?

2. The guy who is robbed doesn't call the police- so there's more
robbery of everyone, and we catch fewer criminals. People lie about
smoking to keep their taxes down...

3. At some point it's nuts to nickel-and-dime everyone because the
cost of keeping track of all this is a significant percentage of
what's collected. I just paid $80 to renew my driver's license for
eight years. I understand I pay for the right to drive, but isn't
collecting this money and keeping track of it (and paying credit card
fees) a waste of resources?

I'm a former economist and I say that the common sense argument wins.