How fitting it would be to have some measure of freedom be re-declared and promoted.  On Wednesday July 6th 2011, it will be.

I am presenting this resolution to the Grand Traverse County board of commissioners for approval.  It is merely a declaration of belief that workers ought not be trapped into a scheme of having to pay for union representation if they do not feel represented in order to keep their job.  It is a statement that we as Michigan workers are truly free, and third party interests in our employment are subservient to OUR wishes, not the other way around.

This is the resolution I am offering:

Whereas , we agree with President John F. Kennedy’s executive order regarding federal employees, that all persons “should have the right, freely and without fear of penalty, to form, join, or assist a labor organization,” and of equal importance, “or to refrain from any such activity.”

Whereas , to ensure individual freedom of choice, we believe that no person should be compelled, as a condition of employment, to: (1) refrain from voluntary membership or financial support of a labor organization, or (2) become or remain a member of a labor organization, or (3) pay any dues, fees, or assessments to a labor organization.

Whereas , we believe that the freedom to choose regarding union membership or financial support is a civil right, and that job discrimination on the basis of union membership or non-membership or financial support or nonsupport should be prohibited by law.

Whereas , in addition to being a matter of individual freedom and civil rights, those states that have enacted laws prohibiting the threat of being discriminated against or fired based on union affiliation have experienced dramatically higher job creation and income growth, a benefit Michigan can no longer afford to do without.

Whereas , over the last decade, Michigan suffered the biggest loss of jobs of any state in the nation, while the top five states for the creation of new private sector jobs over that same time were all states that protect employees’ individual freedom of choice regarding union membership and financial support.

Whereas , according to the U.S. Census Bureau, two-thirds of the states which guarantee employees individual freedom to choose regarding union membership and support have higher per capita income than do the citizens of Michigan.

Whereas , over the last half-century, eight of the top ten states with the highest average annual growth in income were such voluntary unionism states, while Michigan ranked 50th among the states.

Whereas , when adjusted for taxes and the cost of living, families in voluntary unionism states have been found to have over $2,000 more disposable income each year than in states such as Michigan, where employees face the threat of being discriminated against and fired if they choose not to join or financially support a labor organization.

Whereas , we conclude that in addition to protecting our citizens’ individual freedom and civil rights, passage of a state law guaranteeing voluntary unionism and prohibiting job discrimination based on union affiliation will also dramatically improve Michigan’s ability to attract and create new jobs and thus stimulate our economy.

Therefore be it resolved , that the Grand Traverse County board of commissioners hereby calls on Gov. Rick Snyder and the Legislature, and specifically Senator Howard Walker and Representative Wayne Schmidt, to propose and enact an Employee Freedom To Work Act that will safeguard our individual freedom and civil rights by guaranteeing that all persons in Michigan have the right, freely and without fear of penalty, to form, join, or assist a labor organization, or to refrain from any such activity in order to to acquire, keep or maintain employment.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution shall be sent to Gov. Snyder, Sen. Walker, and Rep. Schmidt, and also to the boards of county commissioners of the other counties of the state, who we urge to join us in calling for the enactment of an Employee Freedom To Work Act for the people of Michigan.

Please join us on the 6th of July in the commission chambers at 7pm for the debate that surely will follow.

Today, I wrote the following to the good folks who will be deciding how the county districts will be comprised for the next ten years.  While not entirely engaged in their process, I am still interested to see what becomes of the arrangement, and whether the voter has more say, or less, in how their county is run.

Gentlemen and Ladies,

I have withheld any real comment on this issue because I trust all of those involved in the discussion, and planning of county districts have given sufficient consideration to quite a few issues outside of the political ramifications.

I have one suggestion that ought to be considered before taking a final vote on plans.

No plan should be approved that has fewer commission districts than currently established.

Consider these points:

1. A smaller number of districts creates a more sizable constituency.  The uniqueness of certain parts of the county is less likely to be properly represented.
2. Stretching the responsibilities by adding additional governmental units to each remaining district may affect their ability to represent or interface with those units.
3. For the same reasons a reduction of commissioners would result in committee seats being either left vacant or not properly populated because of either real life, or conflicting schedules within the committee structure.
4. OPEN MEETINGS – A smaller configuration for the board will result in OMA violations, OR reduced effectiveness of the board.

This last point in my view, is probably as important, or more so than the previous three.

Currently, a casual gathering of four commissioners (ie: at the end of a meeting) does not constitute a quorum.  Though sometimes information is exchanged that is beneficial to solving an issue (or issues), it is considered legal. A smaller board would make SOME of these discussions necessarily vacated.

Currently, A phone call or email to discuss different possibilities of a project with another commissioner can be seen as relatively benign if it is understood that it does not result in a chain of communications.  Occasionally, another commissioner might be included for expertise or some history.  A smaller board would reduce the threshold to a point where again, some solutions would not be discussed because to do so would require a potential OMA violation prior to a board meeting.

Ideas are born of discourse.  Communications are necessary, and limiting topical discussion to a few meetings a month by default would be unfortunate.

Jason Gillman
Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners
District 1

cc: JasonGillman.com

In today’s Traverse City Record Eagle, they took another (below the belt) shot with a blindly authored editorial quip.  Included in their (as usual) inappropriate hyperbole, they seemed to imply that as a county commissioner, I support the spending of $20,000 of the EDC funds toward this promotional effort.

I had never heard of it as it has not yet been presented in either the board meetings, or any of the committees that I am a part of.

Perhaps MR. Richardson the county commissioner who sits on the EDC board would know more.  I would encourage folks who are concerned about this plan to contact him.

As I stated in last month’s full board meeting, I am philosophically opposed to many EDC type efforts as they raise the cost in other ways.  At that meeting, the board voted to expand the use of Grand Traverse County EDC monies to other counties.  I opposed the measure along with one other commissioner even though the funds to be used exist already.

My reasoning?  I represent Grand Traverse County.  I stated as much before voting no.

It COULD have been reported.

Its a shame the fish in this town will continue to be covered much better by the Record Eagle than the relevant votes and information that you might find important.

I have not backed down on fiscal responsibility issues, or work on returning the proper role of government as the result of the coordinated effort to try and take my voice away.

The most recent letters to the editor at the record eagle are carefully arranged for maximum effect.  In failing to note the name of one writer as a Democrat activist, and who is the wife of one of the other commissioners, that is also the VICE CHAIR of the GT Democrat party, the Record Eagle has failed in properly presenting opinion once again.

The letter the next day from that commissioner, failed to note his position as vice chair for the DEMOCRAT PARTY of Grand Traverse county.

A letter writer last week was Bernie (Bernol) Soutar, the candidate whom I beat by 30% in November for the 1st district seat which I represent.  He is ALSO the TREASURER for the Grand Traverse County Democrats.

Coincidence?

Its political.  Soften up the competition.  The shellacking received by Democrats in the November election seems to have them digging in and taking shots well before the next election cycle coming up.

Its all good.  Now that I understand their primary motivation, I can concentrate on finding unique solutions for Grand Traverse County’s fiscal future.  We are not yet out of THAT crisis, but I can report that the administrator, and the board, are very conscious of where we are headed in this time of reduced property values and shrinking revenues.  We are ALL (including that one commissioner) working towards solutions that get you more bang for the buck.

Today’s ROAD COMMISSION report had a brief clip about a couple of interesting items.

1. The tribal road inventory additions of some of the county’s non federal roads (holiday & Lafranier used as examples) could lead to federal dollars being brought in for their needed repairs.  Though I am not a big fan of going out and getting federal money (I feel it happens all over so we pay for it anyhow) the tribal road inventory additions may help to repair specific areas that we have had difficulty putting together financing for.

2. The replacement for the Cass road bridge would be approx 9 million dollars. Think about this, and the Dam situation.  Have I been talking about upcoming costs of removal enough?  Maybe not enough, but I think you get the picture.

BASEBALL

A couple of folks on the parks commission seems to have a problem letting go of the American Legion baseball program.  They would encumber the vets with more contract language than is necessary.  We will be meeting with them on the 16th.  The county board has the ultimate say, but procedurally we have to endure the attempt to burden the program operators with punitive measures.  Stay tuned on this.

PENSIONS

3. In the midst of our migration from defined benefits to defined contributions for county employees, we are trying to find a solution that is fair to the employees, and allows them to accept promotions without being punished.  The retirement system we utilize is pressuring us for an absolute decision that could cost the county a great deal.  It was on today’s plate, but has been moved to the leftover shelf.  Feel free to call me if you have any questions on this. (I’m in the book)

In fact feel free to catch me in the evenings or leave a message with Candy (truly my better half) during the day.

Some of their (the board members and implementation team members who are working diligently towards removal) Arguments:

1. We have had an open process
2. The public has had input with over a thousand people involved
3. Our constituents would never vote for a dollar towards this
4. We are ‘repairing’ a damaged river.
5. We have too much time into this to turn back
6. If the brown bridge dam breaks it takes out the Boardman and Sabin
7. We have gone over this and the experts we have hired say to do it
8. We want a faster river
9. We want trout all the way down
10. The property values will go up
11. Recreational revenues will increase.
12. We will have a NEW and DIFFERENT type of biodiversity
13. It costs too much and will continue to cost future generations
14. There is money to take them down, and no money to repair.

My own argument following the numbers.

1. The ‘open process’ is driven by professionals who make their living on tearing out dams.
2. The public has been merely placated with a kangaroo committee process that leaves them unable to object and keeps the ball rolling towards the ‘designated’ end. (removal of the dams) The starting of the process included the city of Traverse City’s voluntary surrender of a FERC license which was an ASSET.  It forced an additional cost of over $500,000 for re-licensing if ever the dams would be used for power generation again. That raised the bar for removal opponents.
3. They would not allow the vote for a millage on this, which [of course] proves them right.
4. A damaged river that has been this way for nearly a century.  Which has had a community grow around it in the way it is now.  Which has vast areas of emergent wetlands and unique species of plants and animals not found easily elsewhere.
5. Even if it might not be such a good idea?  What if we see a greater dollar amount cost to the community later? In for a penny in for a pound perhaps. The term I prefer is: Good money after bad.
6. True.  Very true.  However, a strong Brownbridge (city owned though) would also check 50 and 100 year floods.  In my opinion, you can say goodbye to Logan’s Landing without some serious modifications or consideration for river velocity.  In fact, the truth is, that even though over $2,000,000.00 has been spent to forward the removal process, (IT process) no one has yet performed a full hydrology test on the path of the river.  Engineering has been done ONLY to determine the cost of removal, repair, and variables surrounding those options.  The impoundment changes has also been documented by the engineers for an assessment of wetlands change and mitigation.
7. The “experts”, or at least the engineers provided a great analysis which could be used to look at options that could be chosen.  Either way, the costs appear to be represented fairly, and depending on other variables, the decision to go forward based on the engineering ALONE is merely a matter of what we value.
8. A faster river is an exciting prospect.  Wow wouldn’t that be great?  Except we will STILL have to look at that pesky union street dam.  It will slow the river down just like the others did.  Well..  Maybe.  I refer to #6, and how a 100 year flood might affect the region without checkpoints.  As I have pointed out we have built our community AROUND the river in the state they are in. Though it might seem that might not matter, a slower river has a different biology, and is less likely to cut into embankments.  Be ready to move some things.
9. “We” is a number of anglers who do not feel like traveling to other trout fishing locations, and would rather change the river closest to them.
10. Actually, property values in some places might, and in others will not.  If you had a home on the water, and the water receded away so that exposed bottom lands were like a moonscape, and topping it off you don’t even own those lands between you and where the water now is…  how does that help values?
11. The numbers say $3,000,000.  What no one is saying is that ‘economic benefit is over a period of 30 years. (in today’s dollars)
12. New and different.  Though the loss of 80 acres of wetlands in between Boardman and Sabin dams will have immediate and devastating effects on loons, swans, Golden eagles and plant species, the new wetland species have yet to be discovered.
13. To repair the Boardman and Sabin dams it would have cost under $500,000.00.  This would have to be revisited over time by future generations.
14. Dovetailing with the above: $500,000 to repair, and $3,000,000 to remove these same dams. EXCEPT..  the removal will leave parts of them which we will have to deal with later.  Total removal estimated by the engineers to be almost $10,000,000.  I guess when we get there, we’ll find that out.  Already over $2,000,000 has been spent simply trying to get this done.  And there has not even been a hydrology study for the effects on the river near roads of critical areas.  The money to remove is from multiple sources, including what MIGHT come from federal monies. Given the nature of our federal fiscal health, all bets are off in my view.

Somewhat like the CBO having information given it with regard to health care, the engineers (ECT) could only comment on those things given to comment. The outcome and its true cost being borne by taxpayers is yet to be seen.

No one likes to be wrong. One might think I hate to lose.

I don’t have a problem being wrong. But I expect a demonstration of reasoned decision making. The process I have witnessed in only the short time of being commissioner, has convinced me that this is a mirror of how government plods forward on such issues.  The big thing that drives the commissioners, is wise use of the taxpayer funds they are responsible for.  I get that.    My fear for some of them, is that they see the investments made already, and feel it would ‘waste’ those efforts and the expense made on those efforts.

This is in my view, a flawed reason to proceed.

Alternately, some might think the information provided to them is complete.  Some had attended other sessions long before I had even considered running for this position. Its possible there were things discussed that are not in the minutes of some meetings, or were not presented in report format but was absorbed by the commissioners present. (telepathy perhaps?)

I asked early in my investigation on this issue about the Hydrology testing. “We haven’t gotten to that part yet” has been the standard reply.  Given that might be the most important part of whether this can go forward in the end anyway, it suggests one thing to me:

The cart appears to be pulling the horse.

And I am not surprised.

The Boardman, and Sabin Dams are presumably at risk. They are currently in a state of needing repair, and there appears to be more moneys available to remove, than to repair. Even though the actual cost to repair (without the hydro electric capabilities) is LESS than the removal cost.

While exploring the possibility of giving the public one chance to keep the nearly century old dams that are all we have known, and contain a valuable ecosystem, I had a thought about similarities to another story where a seemingly small act at first might well have saved another community far away. This version is abridged to fit in this forum:

Many years ago, there lived in Haarlem, one of the principal cities of Holland, a sunny-haired boy of gentle disposition. His father was a sluicer, that is, a man whose business it was to open and close the sluices, or large oaken gates, that are placed at regular distances across the entrances of the canals, to regulate the amount of water that shall flow into them.

The sluicer raises the gates more or less according to the quantity of water required, and closes them carefully at night, in order to avoid all possible danger of an oversupply running into the canal, or the water would soon overflow it and inundate the surrounding country. As a great portion of Holland is lower than the level of the sea, the waters are kept from flooding the land only by means of strong dikes, or barriers, and by means of these sluices, which are often strained to the utmost by the pressure of the rising tides. Even the little children in Holland know that constant watchfulness is required to keep the rivers and ocean from overwhelming the country, and that a moment’s neglect of the sluicer’s duty may bring ruin and death to all.

[...]

One lovely autumn afternoon, when the boy was about eight years old, he obtained his parents’ consent to carry some cakes to a blind man who lived out in the country, on the other side of the dike. The little fellow started on his errand with a light heart, and having spent an hour with his grateful old friend, he bade him farewell and started on his homeward walk.

Trudging stoutly along the canal, he noticed how the autumn rains had swollen the waters. Even while humming his careless, childish song, he thought of his father’s brave old gates and felt glad of their strength, for, thought he, ‘If they gave way, where would Father and Mother be? These pretty fields would all be covered with the angry waters – Father always calls them the angry waters. I suppose he thinks they are mad at him for keeping them out so long.’ And with these thoughts just flitting across his brain, the little fellow stooped to pick the pretty flowers that grew along his way. Sometimes he stopped to throw some feathery seed ball in the air and watch it as it floated away; sometimes he listened to the stealthy rustling of a rabbit, speeding through the grass, but oftener he smiled as he recalled the happy light he had seen arise on the weary, listening face of his blind old friend.

[...]

Suddenly the boy looked around him in dismay. He had not noticed that the sun was setting. Now he saw that his long shadow on the grass had vanished. It was growing dark, he was still some distance from home, and in a lonely ravine, where even the blue flowers had turned to gray. He quickened his footsteps and, with a beating heart recalled many a nursery tale of children belated in dreary forests. Just as he was bracing himself for a run, he was startled by the sound of trickling water. Whence did it come? He looked up and saw a small hole in the dike through which a tiny stream was flowing. Any child in Holland will shudder at the thought of a leak in the dike! The boy understood the danger at a glance. That little hole, if the water were allowed to trickle through, would soon be a large one, and a terrible inundation would be the result.

Quick as a flash, he saw his duty. Throwing away his flowers, the boy clambered up the heights until he reached the hole. His chubby little finger was thrust in, almost before he knew it. The flowing was stopped! Ah! he thought, with a chuckle of boyish delight, the angry waters must stay back now! Haarlem shall not be drowned while I am here!

This was all very well at first, but the night was falling rapidly. Chill vapors filled the air. Our little hero began to tremble with cold and dread. He shouted loudly; he screamed, ‘Come here! come here!’ but no one came. The cold grew more intense, a numbness, commencing in the tired little finger, crept over his hand and arm, and soon his whole body was filled with pain. He shouted again, ‘Will no one come? Mother! Mother!’ Alas, his mother, good, practical soul, had already locked the doors and had fully resolved to scold him on the morrow for spending the night with blind Jansen without her permission. He tried to whistle. Perhaps some straggling boy might heed the signal, but his teeth chattered so, it was impossible. Then he called on God for help. And the answer came, through a holy resolution: ‘I will stay here till morning.’

[...]

The midnight moon looked down upon that small, solitary form, sitting upon a stone, halfway up the dike. His head was bent but he was not asleep, for every now and then one restless hand rubbed feebly the outstretched arm that seemed fastened to the dike – and often the pale, tearful face turned quickly at some real or fancied sounds.

How can we know the sufferings of that long and fearful watch – what falterings of purpose, what childish terrors came over the boy as he thought of the warm little bed at home, of his parents, his brothers and sisters, then looked into the cold, dreary night! If he drew away that tiny finger, the angry waters, grown angrier still, would rush forth, and never stop until they had swept over the town. No, he would hold it there till daylight – if he lived! He was not very sure of living. What did this strange buzzing mean? And then the knives that seemed pricking and piercing him from head to foot? He was not certain now that he could draw his finger away, even if he wished to.

At daybreak a clergyman, returning from the bedside of a sick parishioner, thought he heard groans as he walked along on the top of the dike. Bending, he saw, far down on the side, a child apparently writhing with pain.

‘In the name of wonder, boy,’ he exclaimed, ‘what are you doing there?’

‘I am keeping the water from running out,’ was the simple answer of the little hero. ‘Tell them to come quick.’

It is needless to add that they did come quickly.

Where this was culled had another note I thought every bit as relevant as the story itself. Discussion of the story (Written by Elizabeth Mary Dodge) includes the oft used continuations after the story would be told:

True! Of course it is! [...] I have given you the story just as Mother told it to me, years ago. Why, there is not a child in Holland who does not know it. And [...] you may not think so, but that little boy represents the spirit of the whole country. Not a leak can show itself anywhere either in its politics, honor, or public safety, that a million fingers are not ready to stop it, at any cost.

Indeed.

See you in the morning?

Yesterday, the board voted 5-4 to change three committee-of-the-whole meetings from their currently scheduled time of 7:30 in the morning to an evening session 7PM.  This was done presumably to encourage public participation in the meetings, and provide a schedule that is more accommodating to others who might be interested in running for county commission, yet continue to have ‘day jobs’.

I voted against it.

It might seem to go against the logic for someone to go against having the meetings at a later time of the day, when that person, specifically me, would like to see more public involvement.  Indeed I have been more encouraging of input from those in the county, and have as a matter of course in my activism, attempted to get more people involved in the entire process of community politics.

The promise of more becoming involved by this successful vote has a fatal flaw however.  It assumes that EVERYONE in our community works a day job.  The Grand Traverse County BOC currently has 7:30AM committee meetings for 3 of its 4 monthly scheduled gatherings. The first Wednesday is Public Health & Safety, the second Wednesday Resource Management, and the third is Ways & Means.  The final Wednesday evening meeting is where final decisions are made including the recommendations by these ‘committees of the whole.’

Presumably, the move to 7PM every Wednesday would foster more participation by the public because of work scheduling.  Most people may work in the daytime, but a move that eliminates ALL of the morning full board meetings now results in NO availability for evening workers to participate other than letter writing or phone calls.

It defeats the intent, as it takes the ‘mix’ of full board from 3 in the morning and the final vote in the evening session on the last Wednesday, to all meetings in the evening with no mix or accommodations for attendance by evening workers.  As it was, those people who work in the evenings had SOME ability to be a part of the process before, now they will have none.

The argument for having more availability to prospective commission candidates is also MOOT, as there are more activities that occupy a day’s time than simply the full board meetings.  Commissioners have a far busier schedule than one might think.  To be truthful, the level of community involvement to do the job properly, was not something I had expected to be as time consuming.  It is,  and it is also more rewarding than I could have imagined.

But it may well exclude those who cannot schedule their own day.  Employees of certain businesses might well have a hard time making their work and time on the commission scheduling effective.  One side (the employer) or the other (the voter) could suffer. It is what it is.

As things go, these types of things require a bit more thinking through to discover the net effect of the actual decision.  In this case, I had at first considered the evening meetings to be the best course for participation, and after considering all factors, discovered this not to be the case.

On Wednesday, Jan 12 the  decision was made to end the county run youth baseball program.  The question of whether it should have been done without fore knowledge of the American Legion’s intent in resuming the operation has already had my phone ringing.

As I had run on the platform of returning it to the vets in August, it became clear to me that any move on this issue had to be bold, and decisive.  Over the period of a couple months, the issue continued to be an ‘unfinished’ business agenda.  Allowing it to go any further into the planning process of the season would have risked a lost opportunity to return it to its appropriate operators.

Any delays would have reduced the possibility of it happening at all.

The January 12 committee meeting can be viewed here: Resource Management & Administration – Committee Meeting

The Baseball issue is one like any other, that has passions on both sides.  Much of the hubbub last year with folks arguing for the county taking over the program, and the threat of no program at all moved the commissioners into an action they soon regretted.  It was reactive and left a few hard feelings.  The season survived, but at a cost of fewer participants, and higher participant cost.

In the end however, government ought not be running a sports program.  Maintaining the facilities so that users of county parks is a safe venture is a priority.  Its THE priority.  The decision, though not meant to carry that message alone does indeed make it clear.

But the veterans,who have not only run the program for more than 6o years, and BUILT the fields they play on, are now going to take it back.

And may God bless them for doing so, as swinging bats by more kids in our parks will be a pretty great reward!

I declined the benefit package offered to commissioners.

I campaigned on the fact I do not believe a part time job of voluntary public service means a generous gratuity is called for.  Many folks throughout the district, and Grand Traverse County fight for the few dollars they can afford to pay the high property taxes for services and the infrastructure offered by the county and government in general.

Further, I have declined the alternate $2,000.00 payment for not receiving the generous benefits package.  Its like turning down a no-strings attached gift of $2,000.00.  My thoughts again turn to the spirit of the pledge I made to the people who entrusted me with their voice.  To accept the ‘in-lieu’ money would have been almost as bad as taking the benefits in the first place.

It may seem like a hard decision, but at least i will be able to sleep at night.  I hope to be considered a commissioner with a conscience.

I will however accept the compensation package that is otherwise fair and gives SOME consideration for time and energy spent away from otherwise ‘productive’ personal pursuits.

I would get some thoughts from constituents on the Septage, Planning, and Boardman River Dams issues.

And on those dams..

Dam Picture Credit Traverse City Record-Eagle

Today there is a $1 Million  grant being awarded the county by a special interest group which hopes to use the removal of our dams as leverage to get 2500 more in Michigan alone destroyed.  The process in which this entire affair has been rushed over a period of 5 years (believe me, that is too fast for such measures) leaves a lot of folks scratching their heads about a government which claims to want green energy sources but quickly douses the possibility of restoring the dams (at a lower cost to the county than removing) to a state that might provide a basis for future hydro electric retrofitting.

I realize the decision has been made to remove already, but it would be interesting to know WHY and who is benefiting from this. Justification MAY have started with the taking over in the mid 1980’s by Traverse City Light & Power, where TCL&P had lost nearly $5 million on Dam operations to 2005. Only Brown Bridge Dam made money – an average of $32,000 per year.

Given TCLP’s recent plans to throw $500,000 down a hole in a solar panel scheme, it doesn’t surprise me.

I am for full and open transparency. We need to look deeper.

Government running business might seem bad enough, but what about deciding which services you buy?

Are you ready for Peninsula, and East Bay, officials to determine WHICH garbage company gets your business?  You better be.  The city is already moving forward, and expects the townships to follow suit.  While the debate rolls on a 60-40 AGAINST opinion may not be enough to stop this type of government intrusion into your affairs.  It is being justified on two things:  Cost to the user and road damage.

Immediate cost.. to the user.  I wrote to the city commissioners hoping to encourage a little deeper thinking on this issue:

I disagree with the idea of ‘selecting’ a winner for the purpose of exclusive trash removal.

If nothing else has been made very clear this year, its that there is a dislike for elected officials who while trying to do ‘the right thing’, overstep their charge.

My father who sits on this commission would argue that the aggregate damage to the streets is enough to pass this and limit the choice of your voter to secure their own trash removal service. If this is the case, there are a number of other activities that you can limit your constituents to as well that might have the same moral equivalency..

Perhaps only one trip to the store each day by car?
Fedex and UPS and the postal service compete.  Why would they be allowed to clutter the roads with multiple trucks?
Toms has some of the same customers as Glens market.  Sometimes those customers ought to be limited as well, it would save quite a bit in road traffic and repair.  you might also apply this to any storefront destination.
Why on earth would you allow multiple power lines to exist in the same neighborhoods?  Consumers, and TC light and power? one has GOT to go.

I did receive replies from two of the commissioners essentially taking on the two justifications mentioned above.  They are not bad folks.  They are simply wrong.  I should note I disagree with my father who sits on the city commission, and is likely one of the smartest folks there.  Our differences are that of pragmatism and policy. I do not think it appropriate for government to determine who the winners are in free markets, and to lock voters into ONE service comes at a grave moral peril.

Even as seemingly insignificant this thing appears, in my opinion it has decidedly adverse effects on the nature of who we are as free people.

Ill post more updates as I can.  Thank you for being there, and thank you in advance for your input.