Nelson List archive

---

From: "Andrew Howroyd" <savecentral@[xxx]>
Subject: Re: [NL] city vs nelson
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:05:57 -0800

David writes:
Just hold on a second Andrew, you've forgotten that we city dwellers pay
about $400 for sewer, water and garbage every February, as well as a weekly
few for garbage collection.

Andrew:
I have not forgotten anything (at least by my definition of 'forget')- I
first asked city payers for information relating to these costs.

David:
My experience (both from the summer place and via my profession) is that
once these are properly set up the annual costs don't approach what is paid
in the city.

Andrew:
You cannot ignore set up costs (either rural or city). [just look on the
bill for the new facilities to see how much is set-up costs and interest
charges over the next 30 years]. Maintenance is also not an issue to be
ignored (either rural or city) especially if pumps are buried deep in the
ground - there comes a time when a pump will fail. You are the expert on
these matters, so tell me what is the life-time of a pump and the cost of
replacement. (then we can do the division sum). If you have come to the
conclusion that it is cheaper for every person to drill a well in their
garden rather than to have a single common system then you must be missing
something.

David:
Personally I don't think that this discussion around the sewer and water
adds much relevance to the discussion of differential treatment of city and
rural dwellers. I use a sewer and you send it to the back yard. Big deal.

Andrew:
I don't know to what extent it does. However, somebody needs to come up with
a plausable explanation of what the city is doing with the many millions of
dollars it is collecting from a) commercial taxation and b) hydro profits
not to mention residential taxation. The list of regional services that has
thus far been presented does not come close to accounting for the use of
those revenues. If it is not the sewer and water system then there must be
something else the city is pouring money into.

David:
That really doesn't have much relevance in this discussion as you were well
aware of the distance and made that choice at the time that you settled
there.

Andrew:
Bingo. And at the time the city dwellers settled in the city they were well
aware of the taxes they would be expected to pay. This is indeed the
strongest argument for keeping things the way they are. The fact is we have
some major costs that you don't have and vice versa (whatever they are).
Furthermore, it appears regional services provided by the city are more than
covered by regional profits made by the city.

Andrew Howroyd

--

All communications made available as part of this mailing list and any opinions, advice, statements, views or other information expressed in this forum are solely provided by, and the responsibility of, the person posting such communication. The Kootenay Communications Society does not certify, endorse, verify, edit or review the contents of any communication posted to these forums, nor do we offer warranty of any kind, express or implied, with regard to the posted communications or information contained therein. KICS is not responsible for defamatory, offensive or illegal conduct of any author posting to this forum.