If you can't pay your electric bill, turn the lights off, but why
remove them?

On 11/4/2011 10:58 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
If you can't pay your electric bill, turn the lights off, but why
remove them?

Its a typical tactic. First you create a crisis. That's what they're
doing now by taking out the street lights. After a few months of dark
streets and the resultant increase in crime, the taxpayers will be in
the mood to vote a millage/tax increase so the municipality can buy new
energy efficient LED street lights. It will be a very lucrative contract
for one of the mayor's cronies. The whole process will take about 3 years.

In article ,
Metspitzer wrote:

If you can't pay your electric bill, turn the lights off, but why
remove them?

they are also tearing down houses and turning some swaths of land into small
farms/community gardens...don't need lights for corn

On Nov 4, 11:50*pm, Jack Hammer wrote:
On 11/4/2011 10:58 PM, Metspitzer wrote:

If you can't pay your electric bill, turn the lights off, but why
remove them?

Its a typical tactic. First you create a crisis. That's what they're
doing now by taking out the street lights. After a few months of dark
streets and the resultant increase in crime, the taxpayers will be in
the mood to vote a millage/tax increase so the municipality can buy new
energy efficient LED street lights. It will be a very lucrative contract
for one of the mayor's cronies. The whole process will take about 3 years..

Wrong...

There are entire sections of the city of Detroit which are totally
and completely abandoned... Ripping down whatever is left of
the long vacant houses, digging up the streets and underground
utilities and removing the old street lights which will no longer
be needed...

Detroit is actually being made smaller... If they remove 10,000
street lights they won't be putting any of those back in within
any reasonable time frame, certainly nothing on the order of 3
years... Detroit is actually starting to clean up the long empty
and decaying sections and is shrinking through these efforts
to actual be the size its population and tax base can support...

~~ Evan

In article ,
Metspitzer wrote:

If you can't pay your electric bill, turn the lights off, but why
remove them?

Sometimes the lights belong to the utility. If so, then the utility may
be the one wanting them back.

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

Much the same as gun bans. Outlaw some specific type of gun
which is seldom used in crimes. Be it sniper rifles, assault
weapons, etc. Crime goes up because honest people aren't
carrying. Call for more gun bans. If it isn't working, do it
harder.

Stimulus bill. Take money from working people by force of
law, and give that money to O's cronies. The economy gets
worse, so do it more, harder, faster.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jack Hammer" wrote in message
...
On 11/4/2011 10:58 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
If you can't pay your electric bill, turn the lights off,
but why
remove them?

Its a typical tactic. First you create a crisis. That's what
they're
doing now by taking out the street lights. After a few
months of dark
streets and the resultant increase in crime, the taxpayers
will be in
the mood to vote a millage/tax increase so the municipality
can buy new
energy efficient LED street lights. It will be a very
lucrative contract
for one of the mayor's cronies. The whole process will take
about 3 years.

On 11/5/2011 6:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:

If you can't pay your electric bill, turn the lights off, but why
remove them?

Sometimes the lights belong to the utility. If so, then the utility may
be the one wanting them back.


Like many older urban areas, metro Detroit is made up of lots of tiny
cheek-by-jowl towns/townships that can't afford to provide their own
basic services any more. Entire area needs to be made into one
government, or at least dissolve the towns, townships, and cities, and
do it all at county level. But that would put a whole lot of Boss Hoggs
and blue-haired old clerks out of work, so it will never happen. It is a
very common problem- nobody wants to give up turf, so instead of two
governments merging and surviving, they both end up basically failing.

Or to put it simply- if driving through, you can't SEE a border, there
shouldn't BE a border.

--
aem sends...

Jack Hammer wrote:

Its a typical tactic. First you create a crisis. That's what they're
doing now by taking out the street lights. After a few months of dark
streets and the resultant increase in crime, the taxpayers will be in
the mood to vote a millage/tax increase so the municipality can buy new
energy efficient LED street lights. It will be a very lucrative contract
for one of the mayor's cronies. The whole process will take about 3 years.

You are obviously not familiar with what is going on in Detroit. The city has
lost about 40% of it's population. There are whole neighborhoods of abandoned
house, and blocks with maybe one occupied house. The city is bankrupt - you
don't get any tax revenue from empty houses.

The only hope they have is to focus the little money they have on neighborhoods
that actually have residents. They aren't guying new anything, much less LED
lighting.

On 11/5/2011 9:27 AM, Robert Neville wrote:
Jack wrote:

Its a typical tactic. First you create a crisis. That's what they're
doing now by taking out the street lights. After a few months of dark
streets and the resultant increase in crime, the taxpayers will be in
the mood to vote a millage/tax increase so the municipality can buy new
energy efficient LED street lights. It will be a very lucrative contract
for one of the mayor's cronies. The whole process will take about 3 years.

You are obviously not familiar with what is going on in Detroit. The city has
lost about 40% of it's population. There are whole neighborhoods of abandoned
house, and blocks with maybe one occupied house. The city is bankrupt - you
don't get any tax revenue from empty houses.

The only hope they have is to focus the little money they have on neighborhoods
that actually have residents. They aren't guying new anything, much less LED
lighting.

Are there any "taxpayers" actually living inside the city limits of
Detroit? Perhaps the city should die? Then people with that good old
American pioneering spirit will move in and rebuild the place but only
after the vermin have found another habitat. ^_^

TDD

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:34:25 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

On 11/5/2011 6:38 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:

If you can't pay your electric bill, turn the lights off, but why
remove them?

Sometimes the lights belong to the utility. If so, then the utility may
be the one wanting them back.


Like many older urban areas, metro Detroit is made up of lots of tiny
cheek-by-jowl towns/townships that can't afford to provide their own
basic services any more. Entire area needs to be made into one
government, or at least dissolve the towns, townships, and cities, and
do it all at county level. But that would put a whole lot of Boss Hoggs
and blue-haired old clerks out of work, so it will never happen. It is a
very common problem- nobody wants to give up turf, so instead of two
governments merging and surviving, they both end up basically failing.

Or to put it simply- if driving through, you can't SEE a border, there
shouldn't BE a border.

That's *way* too simplistic. Many cities have grown to have a common border
but are very distinct entities, often with different priorities (bedroom
community vs. industrial, high-tax vs. low-tax, etc.). People have
consciously decided which is best for them and have voted with their feet. One
size does not fit all and there is no reason for government to try to force
uniformity. Do you think the federal government should force states together?

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 09:54:49 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 11/5/2011 9:27 AM, Robert Neville wrote:
Jack wrote:

Its a typical tactic. First you create a crisis. That's what they're
doing now by taking out the street lights. After a few months of dark
streets and the resultant increase in crime, the taxpayers will be in
the mood to vote a millage/tax increase so the municipality can buy new
energy efficient LED street lights. It will be a very lucrative contract
for one of the mayor's cronies. The whole process will take about 3 years.

You are obviously not familiar with what is going on in Detroit. The city has
lost about 40% of it's population. There are whole neighborhoods of abandoned
house, and blocks with maybe one occupied house. The city is bankrupt - you
don't get any tax revenue from empty houses.

The only hope they have is to focus the little money they have on neighborhoods
that actually have residents. They aren't guying new anything, much less LED
lighting.

Are there any "taxpayers" actually living inside the city limits of
Detroit? Perhaps the city should die? Then people with that good old
American pioneering spirit will move in and rebuild the place but only
after the vermin have found another habitat. ^_^

That appears to be what's happening. The city is trying a "controlled
collapse" or perhaps "providing cover-fire for the retreating residents" is a
better metaphor.

" wrote:

That appears to be what's happening. The city is trying a
"controlled collapse" or perhaps "providing cover-fire for
the retreating residents" is a better metaphor.

That does not appear to be the situation.

I suggest you have a look at this:

http://voiceofdetroit.net/2011/08/26...street-lights/

An 8-minute video shows a 2-man crew removing a light pole (the lamp
itself was already removed by another crew a week prior).

It really makes no sense to remove the pole.

This appears to be a fully functioning and populated street. Well-kept
lawns, no vacant homes, etc.

They way I read this story, DTE (the electicity utility) owns and
operates the lights - not the municipality (Highland Park).

Highland Park owes $4 million to DTE, and the lights apparently cost
$62k per month to operate. As part of some sort of agreement with DTE,
they are changing some lights at intersections to more efficient (but
fewer) type, and removing many residential lights (with those streets
going completely dark).

You'd have to ask DTE why it's cost-effective for them to send out crews
to completely remove these lights (poles and all) instead of just
throwing a breaker to turn off the electricity to them.

I suspect the answer is - insurance (which is the answer for most of the
baffling and seemingly illogical things that people and corporations
do).

My guess is that if Highland park doesn't want to turn on it's
residential street lights for the forseeable future, then DTE doesn't
want to pay the insurance premiums for having those public
infrastructure items standing there - even if they post just a remote
liability risk.

========================

HIGHLAND PARK IN THE DARK: DTE REMOVES STREETLIGHTS

BY PAUL LEE

Two contractors for Corby Energy Services of Bellville, Mich., remove
the DTE street light from in front of my home at 150 Massachusetts,
Highland Park, on Aug. 19, 2011. It took all of seven minutes to
complete.

The citywide removal of street lights was done under the euphemistic
name “Highland Park Lighting Improvement Project,” which was careful to
downplay the fact that the lights on the STREETS, as opposed to SOME of
those at the intersections, would NOT be replaced.

When the bulbs were removed last week, the contractors were followed by
a private investigator, wearing a police badge, apparently because DTE
was concerned about the reaction of residents — most of whom know little
or nothing about this program.

DTE and the mayor have justified the removal on the basis of a
debt-forgiveness and cost-saving arrangement. When I asked city native
and former city Emergency Financial Manager Arthur Blackwell, whose
mother lives a few doors from me, about the arrangement, he replied,
“It’s a great deal,” particularly in light of the city’s population
loss.

However, most residents are only learning about this program as the
lights are being removed, and many are concerned about the possible
ramifications on safety, particularly of our children and older
residents. Below is a report on this by WWJ-TV (CBS),
============================

Detroit:

Street Light Upgrades Leaving Residents In The Dark

August 16, 2011 6:17 AM

HIGHLAND PARK (WWJ) — Highland Park residents say the lack of street
lights in their city leaves them fearing for their safety.

Reporting live from Rhode Island Street, WWJ’s City Beat Reporter Vickie
Thomas found it pretty dark there in the early-morning hours. The street
lights and many others throughout the block had already been turned off
and they would not be coming back on.

“The residential streets have no lights, but the intersections have
lights now,” resident Diane Parren told Vickie. “They just recently did
that so it’s still a major concern because the fear is still there.”

Crews are in the process of installing new, more efficient lights at
intersections, so one light will replace about six of the old street
lights. Intersections and main roads, such as Woodward Avenue, will stay
lit.

“My concern is for my mom,” said Parren. “She’s older and with the
street lights being out, it’s sort of confining her to the house. She
doesn’t come out after dark, and she’s concerned — as I am — about the
neighborhood and things that could happen in the night…”

Mark Hackshaw, president of the Highland Park Business Association,
isn’t happy about it either and is also concerned.

“The membership is very concerned and the residents of the community are
very concerned, for all of the obvious reasons,” said Hackshaw.

Elene Robinson, a write-in candidate for mayor said the city should use
solar lighting.

“I don’t understand how a city so small hasn’t applied for government
money to be focusing on bringing solar to the municipal building and to
our street lights,” said Robinson.

Mayor Hubert Yopp says the city owed DTE Energy $4 million and the new
plan puts the city back in the black with the utility. The city’s
monthly bill will go from about $62,000 down to about $10,000. (VOD:
DEFINITELY PUTS THE CITY IN THE DARK! INCREDIBLE!)

In article , Home Guy wrote:


You'd have to ask DTE why it's cost-effective for them to send out crews
to completely remove these lights (poles and all) instead of just
throwing a breaker to turn off the electricity to them.
I can see how it might be cost effective to get the lights since they
can easily be reused. The poles, I am not sure since I can only find
costs of having them put in on Google. At the list price of $400-750 for
pole, installation, transformer, etc. I can't see how that could be
terribly cost effective, either.


My guess is that if Highland park doesn't want to turn on it's
residential street lights for the forseeable future, then DTE doesn't
want to pay the insurance premiums for having those public
infrastructure items standing there - even if they post just a remote
liability risk.
The other indicator might be who owns the right of way. If it is
someone other than DTE and DTE has to pay some kind of rent to use the
right of way, it might be in their best interests to take em down. I'm
not really all that familar with how that works.

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

Kurt Ullman wrote:

You'd have to ask DTE why it's cost-effective for them to send
out crews to completely remove these lights (poles and all)
instead of just throwing a breaker to turn off the electricity
to them.

I can see how it might be cost effective to get the lights since
they can easily be reused.

They probably removed the lamp fixtures (bulbs included) not so much
with re-use in mind as it made removing the whole thing easier. They're
going to end up with a whole lot of fixtures in storage - far more than
they will ever need to use for replacement of busted fixtures that are
still in use in their service area.

My guess is that if Highland park doesn't want to turn on it's
residential street lights for the forseeable future, then DTE
doesn't want to pay the insurance premiums for having those
public infrastructure items standing there - even if they
post just a remote liability risk.

The other indicator might be who owns the right of way. If
it is someone other than DTE and DTE has to pay some kind of
rent to use the right of way,

I highly doubt that.

Utility companies don't normally pay for right-of-way on city property.
These poles are probably on city property, on a utility easement that is
granted to utility companies.

When a utility puts up a pole on an easement, they can rent the use of
the pole to another utility (cable, phone, etc) but I don't think
there's normally a cost paid to the city to have access to the easement.

Some easements are on private property, and you don't see that
home-owners get payments when they have a 10-foot-wide easement running
along their back yard fence.

Metspitzer wrote in
:

If you can't pay your electric bill, turn the lights off, but why
remove them?


so the copper wiring and aluminum poles don't get stolen.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 12:03:57 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

" wrote:

That appears to be what's happening. The city is trying a
"controlled collapse" or perhaps "providing cover-fire for
the retreating residents" is a better metaphor.

That does not appear to be the situation.

It is *exactly* the situation in Detroit (I was specifically responding to DDs
post directly above, which you snipped).

I suggest you have a look at this:

http://voiceofdetroit.net/2011/08/26...street-lights/

An 8-minute video shows a 2-man crew removing a light pole (the lamp
itself was already removed by another crew a week prior).

yawn

It really makes no sense to remove the pole.

This appears to be a fully functioning and populated street. Well-kept
lawns, no vacant homes, etc.

Different issue. The city is bankrupt. Their toys get repossessed.

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 12:05:56 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:

Metspitzer wrote in
:

If you can't pay your electric bill, turn the lights off, but why
remove them?


so the copper wiring and aluminum poles don't get stolen.

Are they worth more than the labor to remove them?

On 11/5/2011 7:27 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Much the same as gun bans. Outlaw some specific type of gun
which is seldom used in crimes. Be it sniper rifles, assault
weapons, etc. Crime goes up because honest people aren't
carrying. Call for more gun bans. If it isn't working, do it
harder.


Yer either with 'us' or aginst 'us'. You must be a terrist? ;-)

" wrote:

That appears to be what's happening. The city is trying a
"controlled collapse" or perhaps "providing cover-fire for
the retreating residents" is a better metaphor.

That does not appear to be the situation.

It is *exactly* the situation in Detroit (I was specifically
responding to DDs post directly above, which you snipped).

Are you talking about the removal of residential street lights in
Highland Park, or the abandonment of entire streets and neighborhoods
within Detroit city limits?

This appears to be a fully functioning and populated street.
Well-kept lawns, no vacant homes, etc.

Different issue. The city is bankrupt.
Their toys get repossessed.

In this case, the lights don't appear to be owned by the city, but by
the private electricity utility (DTE) or the contractor they hired. So
it's not "their toys" (they being the city of Highland Park).

DTE is shooting themselves in the foot. The lights give them revenue
when they're operating. While their customer (Highland park) can't pay
them *RIGHT NOW* to juice up the lights, by removing the lights DTE is
insuring that they will get NO REVENUE when Highland park will be in a
position in the future to afford to turn them back on.

" wrote:

If you can't pay your electric bill, turn the lights off, but why
remove them?


so the copper wiring and aluminum poles don't get stolen.

Are they worth more than the labor to remove them?

That's what I question.

Then there's the logistics of the actual theft.

Anyone coming along with pickup truck in the middle of the night with
battery-operated tools is going to have a hard time cutting just one of
those off it's base and then make at least one more cut to get it short
enough to put in his truck and drive away before someone wakes up and
gives their license plate number to a 911 operator.

Then try to fence it at a scrap yard.

And they might even be made of magnesium (same as your lawn mower
deck?). But then again I don't know if you get a different price for
magnesium vs aluminum from the recycler.

Coming along with a cherry picker and taking off the lamp fixtures is
one thing. There's probably a moderate amount of value there. But to
remove the pole? And cut the base bolts off and the wiring off? Think
of the labor cost to re-do the base if they ever want to put the lights
back in.

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 14:17:31 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

" wrote:

That appears to be what's happening. The city is trying a
"controlled collapse" or perhaps "providing cover-fire for
the retreating residents" is a better metaphor.

That does not appear to be the situation.

It is *exactly* the situation in Detroit (I was specifically
responding to DDs post directly above, which you snipped).

Are you talking about the removal of residential street lights in
Highland Park, or the abandonment of entire streets and neighborhoods
within Detroit city limits?

DD was referring to the latter, which I was adding to.

This appears to be a fully functioning and populated street.
Well-kept lawns, no vacant homes, etc.

Different issue. The city is bankrupt.
Their toys get repossessed.

In this case, the lights don't appear to be owned by the city, but by
the private electricity utility (DTE) or the contractor they hired. So
it's not "their toys" (they being the city of Highland Park).

OK. They were renting the toys. They didn't pay the rent so they were
repo'd.

DTE is shooting themselves in the foot. The lights give them revenue
when they're operating. While their customer (Highland park) can't pay
them *RIGHT NOW* to juice up the lights, by removing the lights DTE is
insuring that they will get NO REVENUE when Highland park will be in a
position in the future to afford to turn them back on.

LOL!

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 14:30:25 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

" wrote:

If you can't pay your electric bill, turn the lights off, but why
remove them?


so the copper wiring and aluminum poles don't get stolen.

Are they worth more than the labor to remove them?

That's what I question.

Then there's the logistics of the actual theft.

Anyone coming along with pickup truck in the middle of the night with
battery-operated tools is going to have a hard time cutting just one of
those off it's base and then make at least one more cut to get it short
enough to put in his truck and drive away before someone wakes up and
gives their license plate number to a 911 operator.

Then try to fence it at a scrap yard.

....yet it happens all the time.

And they might even be made of magnesium (same as your lawn mower
deck?). But then again I don't know if you get a different price for
magnesium vs aluminum from the recycler.

I doubt it. They're most likely either steel (strength) or aluminum
(corrosion resistance). I don't see any advantage to magnesium and a *lot* of
cost.

Coming along with a cherry picker and taking off the lamp fixtures is
one thing. There's probably a moderate amount of value there. But to
remove the pole? And cut the base bolts off and the wiring off? Think
of the labor cost to re-do the base if they ever want to put the lights
back in.

The city will pay it if they *ever* are in a position to do so again
(doubtful).

In article ,
" wrote:


DTE is shooting themselves in the foot. The lights give them revenue
when they're operating. While their customer (Highland park) can't pay
them *RIGHT NOW* to juice up the lights, by removing the lights DTE is
insuring that they will get NO REVENUE when Highland park will be in a
position in the future to afford to turn them back on.

LOL!

Or more revenue as DTE charges them for all that installation.

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

Awww, poor Detroit!

Fresh out of school in 1976, I bought my first new "Big 3" car made in
Detroit. What a ****ing piece of ****! Seriously!

I should have immediately known it would be a lemon because it wouldn't
start when I went to take delivery from the dealer. Apparently the
assembly line worker was drunk or on drugs and failed to tighten the
bolts. At about 40,000 miles, the auto transmission failed leaving me
with an out of warranty repair bill of $1500. At 45,000 miles, the
engine seals were leaking about a quart of oil a week. Tired of
expensive repairs, I cut my losses and sold it.

In 1980, I tried a different Detroit brand. While this car started out
better, just out of warranty at 38,000 miles the engine developed
compression problems. Faced with more expensive repair bills I dumped
this car as well. As I recall, this car was difficult to keep centered
on the road. The dealer checked steering and alignment but was never
able to fix it. Apparently this car was the result of some more of
Detroit's finest crackheads.

Totally frustrated by Detroit cars, my wife and I bought our first Honda
Accord in 1984. What a difference!!! We drove the Accord for 10 years
and never did anything but change the oil, filters, and other minor
scheduled maintenance. Amazing! 150,000 totally trouble free miles.

Since 1984, my wife and I have purchased 4 new Honda Accords and 4 new
Toyota Tacomas. None of our Toyotas or Hondas have ever required
expensive surprise repairs, just routine scheduled maintenance.

So before you shed any tears, why couldn't those stupid ****ing idiots
in Detroit engineer and build a reliable car?

Home Guy wrote:

They probably removed the lamp fixtures (bulbs included) not so much
with re-use in mind as it made removing the whole thing easier.
They're going to end up with a whole lot of fixtures in storage - far
more than they will ever need to use for replacement of busted
fixtures that are still in use in their service area.


Or, they will put them on (many) 18-wheelers and sell them to the power
companies in Houston, Dallas, or Beaumont.

They could probably make out like a bandit by selling the light poles to
Homeland Security to erect along the Canadian border. A light every fifty
feet or so would, in the opinion of some fool in Washington, no doubt cut
down on illegal border crossings by 37.8%.

There is probably actual math somewhere supporting this.

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 15:37:27 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


DTE is shooting themselves in the foot. The lights give them revenue
when they're operating. While their customer (Highland park) can't pay
them *RIGHT NOW* to juice up the lights, by removing the lights DTE is
insuring that they will get NO REVENUE when Highland park will be in a
position in the future to afford to turn them back on.

LOL!

Or more revenue as DTE charges them for all that installation.

Prezactly. *IF*

" wrote:

DTE is shooting themselves in the foot. The lights give them
revenue when they're operating. While their customer (Highland
park) can't pay them *RIGHT NOW* to juice up the lights, by
removing the lights DTE is insuring that they will get NO REVENUE
when Highland park will be in a position in the future to afford
to turn them back on.

Or more revenue as DTE charges them for all that installation.

Prezactly. *IF*

No.

DTE is not in the business of installing lights. I'm sure they'd much
rather sell the electricity like they've been doing for how many dozen
years. And remember that just like they did when they pulled them down,
they'd simply contract out the job to someone else.

By taking down the equipment, they've added an unncessary complication
for Highland Park city hall were they to decide to have the lights back
up and working again. The added cost to re-install the lights (unless
absorbed by DTE over many years) will only postpone any decision to turn
them on again. This is still a stupid decision on the part of DTE -
unless the money saved in lower insurance costs makes up the difference
over 5 or 10 years.

HeyBub wrote:

They're going to end up with a whole lot of fixtures in storage -
far more than they will ever need to use for replacement of busted
fixtures that are still in use in their service area.

Or, they will put them on (many) 18-wheelers and sell them to the
power companies in Houston, Dallas, or Beaumont.

Is there a shortage of residential street lights in Texas?

They could probably make out like a bandit by selling the light poles
to Homeland Security to erect along the Canadian border.

You couldn't pay me enough to live in the US, let alone think that the
average Canadian would cross illegally if given the chance.

A light every fifty feet or so would, in the opinion of some fool in
Washington, no doubt cut down on illegal border crossings by 37.8%.

I bet there wasn't even 38 illegal crossings made into the US last year
across the whole northern border.

But don't worry.

Honeywell or General Dynamics or some other mega gov't contractor will
convince your congress otherwise.

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 19:28:42 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

" wrote:

DTE is shooting themselves in the foot. The lights give them
revenue when they're operating. While their customer (Highland
park) can't pay them *RIGHT NOW* to juice up the lights, by
removing the lights DTE is insuring that they will get NO REVENUE
when Highland park will be in a position in the future to afford
to turn them back on.

Or more revenue as DTE charges them for all that installation.

Prezactly. *IF*

No.

DTE is not in the business of installing lights. I'm sure they'd much
rather sell the electricity like they've been doing for how many dozen
years. And remember that just like they did when they pulled them down,
they'd simply contract out the job to someone else.

You don't think they make a profit installing lights?

By taking down the equipment, they've added an unncessary complication
for Highland Park city hall were they to decide to have the lights back
up and working again. The added cost to re-install the lights (unless
absorbed by DTE over many years) will only postpone any decision to turn
them on again. This is still a stupid decision on the part of DTE -
unless the money saved in lower insurance costs makes up the difference
over 5 or 10 years.

I guess you know more than the management of DTE. Maybe you should send your
resume over...

In article ,
Burned By Big 3 wrote:
Awww, poor Detroit!

Fresh out of school in 1976, I bought my first new "Big 3" car made in
Detroit. What a ****ing piece of ****! Seriously!

I should have immediately known it would be a lemon because it wouldn't
start when I went to take delivery from the dealer. Apparently the
assembly line worker was drunk or on drugs and failed to tighten the
bolts. At about 40,000 miles, the auto transmission failed leaving me
with an out of warranty repair bill of $1500. At 45,000 miles, the
engine seals were leaking about a quart of oil a week. Tired of
expensive repairs, I cut my losses and sold it.

In 1980, I tried a different Detroit brand. While this car started out
better, just out of warranty at 38,000 miles the engine developed
compression problems. Faced with more expensive repair bills I dumped
this car as well. As I recall, this car was difficult to keep centered
on the road. The dealer checked steering and alignment but was never
able to fix it. Apparently this car was the result of some more of
Detroit's finest crackheads.

Totally frustrated by Detroit cars, my wife and I bought our first Honda
Accord in 1984. What a difference!!! We drove the Accord for 10 years
and never did anything but change the oil, filters, and other minor
scheduled maintenance. Amazing! 150,000 totally trouble free miles.

Since 1984, my wife and I have purchased 4 new Honda Accords and 4 new
Toyota Tacomas. None of our Toyotas or Hondas have ever required
expensive surprise repairs, just routine scheduled maintenance.

So before you shed any tears, why couldn't those stupid ****ing idiots
in Detroit engineer and build a reliable car?

They reliably unexpectedly failed. Maybe reliable ain't the right word.
They consistently unexpectedly failed.

You can take some solace in that the pensions which destroyed 2 of the 3
were being paid to those very same crackheads who earned the reputation
for ****. Kharma.

m

On 11/5/2011 11:50 AM, Home Guy wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

You'd have to ask DTE why it's cost-effective for them to send
out crews to completely remove these lights (poles and all)
instead of just throwing a breaker to turn off the electricity
to them.

I can see how it might be cost effective to get the lights since
they can easily be reused.

They probably removed the lamp fixtures (bulbs included) not so much
with re-use in mind as it made removing the whole thing easier. They're
going to end up with a whole lot of fixtures in storage - far more than
they will ever need to use for replacement of busted fixtures that are
still in use in their service area.

My guess is that if Highland park doesn't want to turn on it's
residential street lights for the forseeable future, then DTE
doesn't want to pay the insurance premiums for having those
public infrastructure items standing there - even if they
post just a remote liability risk.

The other indicator might be who owns the right of way. If
it is someone other than DTE and DTE has to pay some kind of
rent to use the right of way,

I highly doubt that.

Utility companies don't normally pay for right-of-way on city property.
These poles are probably on city property, on a utility easement that is
granted to utility companies.

When a utility puts up a pole on an easement, they can rent the use of
the pole to another utility (cable, phone, etc) but I don't think
there's normally a cost paid to the city to have access to the easement.

Some easements are on private property, and you don't see that
home-owners get payments when they have a 10-foot-wide easement running
along their back yard fence.

We have a regular treated wood pole off the street next to our driveway
and steps leading up to the house and we pay Alabama Power a few bucks a
month for a HPS pole light which lights up the front yard and a good bit
of the neighbors yards and street. The only city provided lights are
at intersections. The light does help keep a lot of goblins away and
lets us see what the dogs are barking at. ^_^

TDD

On 11/5/2011 6:34 PM, Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

They're going to end up with a whole lot of fixtures in storage -
far more than they will ever need to use for replacement of busted
fixtures that are still in use in their service area.

Or, they will put them on (many) 18-wheelers and sell them to the
power companies in Houston, Dallas, or Beaumont.

Is there a shortage of residential street lights in Texas?

They could probably make out like a bandit by selling the light poles
to Homeland Security to erect along the Canadian border.

You couldn't pay me enough to live in the US, let alone think that the
average Canadian would cross illegally if given the chance.

A light every fifty feet or so would, in the opinion of some fool in
Washington, no doubt cut down on illegal border crossings by 37.8%.

I bet there wasn't even 38 illegal crossings made into the US last year
across the whole northern border.

But don't worry.

Honeywell or General Dynamics or some other mega gov't contractor will
convince your congress otherwise.

I'm not worried about my Canuck friends, it's the OTC who may try to
slip in from the Northern border. All the Canadians I know are cool
(no pun intended) folks. ^_^

TDD

On 11/5/2011 2:18 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 14:17:31 -0400, Home wrote:

" wrote:

That appears to be what's happening. The city is trying a
"controlled collapse" or perhaps "providing cover-fire for
the retreating residents" is a better metaphor.

That does not appear to be the situation.

It is *exactly* the situation in Detroit (I was specifically
responding to DDs post directly above, which you snipped).

Are you talking about the removal of residential street lights in
Highland Park, or the abandonment of entire streets and neighborhoods
within Detroit city limits?

DD was referring to the latter, which I was adding to.

This appears to be a fully functioning and populated street.
Well-kept lawns, no vacant homes, etc.

Different issue. The city is bankrupt.
Their toys get repossessed.

In this case, the lights don't appear to be owned by the city, but by
the private electricity utility (DTE) or the contractor they hired. So
it's not "their toys" (they being the city of Highland Park).

OK. They were renting the toys. They didn't pay the rent so they were
repo'd.

DTE is shooting themselves in the foot. The lights give them revenue
when they're operating. While their customer (Highland park) can't pay
them *RIGHT NOW* to juice up the lights, by removing the lights DTE is
insuring that they will get NO REVENUE when Highland park will be in a
position in the future to afford to turn them back on.

LOL!

[Theremin music in the background] In the future, cities will be lighted
by small artificial suns developed by scientists working
in the field of nuclear fusion. These small suns will be attached
to small blimps floating over sections of the city and can be moved
around to provide additional light to a section if some event requires
it. ^_^

TDD

Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

They're going to end up with a whole lot of fixtures in storage -
far more than they will ever need to use for replacement of busted
fixtures that are still in use in their service area.

Or, they will put them on (many) 18-wheelers and sell them to the
power companies in Houston, Dallas, or Beaumont.

Is there a shortage of residential street lights in Texas?

Yes. Dimebox, Texas is almost all dark, while Cut-N-Shoot is not much
better. Pflugerville is coming along nicely.

We have long lines at the border of folks trying to get in. Fortunately, we
have street-lights all along the Louisiana border. New Mexico, not so much.


They could probably make out like a bandit by selling the light poles
to Homeland Security to erect along the Canadian border.

You couldn't pay me enough to live in the US, let alone think that the
average Canadian would cross illegally if given the chance.


He would, and does, to buy stuff that he can't get in Canada.

A light every fifty feet or so would, in the opinion of some fool in
Washington, no doubt cut down on illegal border crossings by 37.8%.

I bet there wasn't even 38 illegal crossings made into the US last
year across the whole northern border.

Even if it's only 37, in the words of our Secretary of Homeland Security,
"Thirty-seven is too many."

Home Guy wrote:

DTE is not in the business of installing lights. I'm sure they'd much
rather sell the electricity like they've been doing for how many dozen
years. And remember that just like they did when they pulled them
down, they'd simply contract out the job to someone else.

By taking down the equipment, they've added an unncessary complication
for Highland Park city hall were they to decide to have the lights
back up and working again. The added cost to re-install the lights
(unless absorbed by DTE over many years) will only postpone any
decision to turn them on again. This is still a stupid decision on
the part of DTE - unless the money saved in lower insurance costs
makes up the difference over 5 or 10 years.

The pole will come down someday. DTE takes it down, it falls down from lack
of maintenance, or some driver knocks it into the street where it is hit by
a station wagon full of illegal aliens and their seven children, killing all
but one infant.* Perhaps DTE, looking at the insurance premium they have to
pay on each pole, decide they could come out ahead by taking the poles down
now.

--------
* Lest you think I jest, the all-steel, 30' pole in front of my house - on a
straight street - was hit during the night and completely uprooted! It fell
across my driveway, narrowly missing my car and probably the cat.

The next morning, my son and I surveyed the debris field. We found a lens
cover from a turn indicator. Running the part number down (it wasn't easy)
we discovered it came from a Chevy S-10 pickup. Imagine how a girl-sized
pickup could knock a 14" diameter steel pole twenty feet. It boggles the
mind.

The story gets better. Three times during the next two weeks I called the
pole people, asking politely for them to move it from my driveway. No luck.

From the backyard, I got a 15' fallen tree limb and stuck it in the hole
formerly occupied by the street lamp. I placed a small kerosene lamp near
the top. I then emailed a picture of the result to the service department of
the light company along with the message: "No hurry, I replaced it."

The pole was moved the next day.

Wait, it gets better.

I didn't see who moved the pole, but I did see where they moved it. They
moved this 30', dented, steel pole to the road median! That's exactly what
they did, they simply drug it out of the way!

There the pole rested for about a month until (I guess) one night some
passing urban fairies cut it up for scrap and hauled it off.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

We have a regular treated wood pole off the street next to our
driveway and we pay Alabama Power a few bucks a month for a HPS
pole light which lights up the front yard and a good bit of the
neighbors yards and street.

Yea so they probably provided the fixture / lamp (years ago) and they're
providing power to it.

HeyBub wrote:

Is there a shortage of residential street lights in Texas?

Yes. Dimebox, Texas is almost all dark, while Cut-N-Shoot is not
much better. Pflugerville is coming along nicely.

I must be missing something, because I have no idea what you're talking
about.

Is metal theft so bad in Texas that it's darkened the streets of so many
towns, causing a street-light shortage?

Or did these towns not have street lighting in the first place, and
they're thinking that now is a good time to get some?

Or did a bunch of tornados rip them up over the summer, causing a street
light shortage?

Explanation required.

You couldn't pay me enough to live in the US, let alone think
that the average Canadian would cross illegally if given the
chance.

He would

Who's he?

and does, to buy stuff that he can't get in Canada.

Oh the horror of Canadians doing some cross-border shopping in the US!

Oh the tragedy of the added commerce and sales to those destitute US
border cities!

News Flash: I wouldn't call it an illegal crossing when a Canadian
drives over to the US to do some shopping - and then returns back to
Canada later that day. Wouldn't it be great if Mexicans were doing the
same thing?

HeyBub wrote:

* Lest you think I jest, the all-steel, 30' pole in front of my house

Well, right off the bat I can just imagine what the urban landscape
looks like outside your front door. But continue...

was hit during the night and completely uprooted! It fell
across my driveway, narrowly missing my car and probably
the cat.

And I guess you didn't hear it come down.

The next morning, my son and I surveyed the debris field. We found
a lens cover from a turn indicator. Running the part number down
(it wasn't easy) we discovered it came from a Chevy S-10 pickup.

Did you file a police report?

Imagine how a girl-sized pickup could knock a 14" diameter steel
pole twenty feet.

And still be able to drive away?

There the pole rested for about a month until (I guess) one night
some passing urban fairies cut it up for scrap and hauled it off.

Which again you didn't see or hear the noise of the grinder.

What ****-hole of a city do you live in anyways?

Now you see why I say you can't pay me enough to live in the states.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

But don't worry.

Honeywell or General Dynamics or some other mega gov't contractor
will convince your congress otherwise.

I'm not worried about my Canuck friends, it's the OTC who may try to
slip in from the Northern border.

What's "OTC"?

Over The Counter?

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 06:44:28 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

The next morning, my son and I surveyed the debris field. We found a lens
cover from a turn indicator. Running the part number down (it wasn't easy)
we discovered it came from a Chevy S-10 pickup. Imagine how a girl-sized
pickup could knock a 14" diameter steel pole twenty feet. It boggles the
mind.

How very CSI of you two.