Seriously, Massachusetts, what in the hell are you paying taxes for?
"Pay or stay in the dark; Street lights going out in Concord" by Peter Schworm, Globe Staff | June 14, 2010
CONCORD — Like a number of cash-strapped communities, Concord is taking down hundreds of street lights to save electricity. But here the belt-tightening comes with an option: Residents can pay to keep their street lights on.
This after three quarters of economic grow... oh, never f***ing mind!
Plans call for removing some 500 of the town’s 2,000 street lights, primarily in residential neighborhoods. Lights will remain downtown and at intersections or turns in the road considered dangerous. But on side streets and rural roads, many will be removed unless residents agree to pay $17 a month per light, a demand that has sparked a controversy that extends to the very role that government should play in providing services.
They DO NOT SEEM to be providing much outside of tossing the tax loot into their own pockets and those of well-connected friends.
“It takes people aback to see basic infrastructure taken away,’’ said David Ropeik, who learned of the program after receiving an automated phone message from the town about the move last week. “This is a symbol of a community breaking apart. Does this mean only rich neighborhoods will have street lights?’’
*******
Some praise the town for cutting costs while also reducing its carbon footprint by lowering power consumption. But a surge of opposition has caught town officials off guard....
That is what happens when your head is buried deep in the s*** pile.
Supporters see that choice — giving residents a chance to pay to keep their own street lights on — as a neat compromise between the town’s financial needs and residents’ desire for well-lighted streets.
Un-flipping-real!!!
The monthly payment of $17 per light can come from one resident, or be collected from several, officials say; as long as it is paid, a given light stays on. For someone who really cares about the issue, “it doesn’t seem like very much money,’’ said Bob Kusik, chairman of the town’s light board.
In other words, if you oppose further looting of the taxpayers you don't really care.
Concord would not be the first community in which residents pay for street lights. In several other communities, residents have stepped forward to assume the cost.
So WHY are you PAYING TAXES again?
In Barre, residents have adopted 16 lights, and in Plainville, they’ve taken on 10, according to National Grid. In Webster, which shut off 950 street lights in May, residents have adopted 35. Customers are responsible for the cost of electricity and maintenance.
I'm sorry; I'm sick of the disgusting and insulting terminology and word choices from the agenda-pushing s***-bags at the BG.
But to those who keep a close watch on local government, shifting the cost of something as basic as street lights is a clear sign that town budgets no longer cover what they used to and that residents are increasingly being asked to pick up the slack.
Yeah, because the TAX LOOT goes for INTEREST PAYMENTS to BANKS, CORPORATE WELFARE for the WELL-CONNECTED, and INTO POLITICAL PENSIONS and PERKS!!!
NOT MUCH LEFT after that!
Public schools have also moved steadily in that direction in recent years, charging separate fees for sports, other extracurriculars, and bus rides....
Yeah, eventually government will be FUNDING NOTHING but what I stated above, taxpayers!
And they wonder why we are furious.
on Tuesday voters decisively approved $1.3 million for a high school feasibility study.
Talk about tossing away money!
Yet public opinion remains sharply divided. Some hate the glare in their bedroom window, or what they perceive as waste, and want them gone.
That will change the FIRST TIME on of those people gets mugged, beaten, or raped.
That is how liberals become conservatives.
Others point to rising tax bills and insist that street lights are the least the city can do....
One would think. You know, the PUBLIC SAFETY!
Mary Baker Eaton, a longtime Newburyport resident who has written about the plan on her blog, said street lights should rightfully be the government’s responsibility. But if they pass the burden to her, she will pony up.
“It would be much cheaper than all my neighbors getting floodlights,’’ she said. “We’re a walkable community, and you need to see to walk on the sidewalks. A sense of safety and well-being, you can’t quantify that.’’
Apparently, you can.... to the tune of $17 a lamp.
Concord officials say they are confident that fewer lights will not lead to more crime.
Usually what happens, yeah.
And no video surveillance in the dark to help the cops solve the crimes, either.
Over the years, the town installed many lights by personal request, leading to a profusion of lights....
Yeah, it is TAXPAYERS FAULT for ASKING for SERVICES from THIS GOVERNMENT!!
C'mon, Globe, STOP INSULTING your readers!
