The amount was for $1.91. To me that is really $1.91!!!
having spent almost 28 years with 'the phone company' I fielded more than my fair share of questions regarding phone bills, especially in the surcharges area.
It still seems odd to me that whoever created what amounts to this particular tax on my phone bill needs to be reminded that there sure are far too many 'dead areas' where my Verizon service is not up to par.
I understand that my phone is wireless and the peninsula is dominated by The Hill. Perhaps the powers that be might want to revisit this particular charge and realize there are others living in our city that have pretty bad cellphone service in their homes and neighborhoods and maybe that tax or charge should be lowered.
I like and honor Mayor Ken Dyda. He is a gentleman and has vast knowledge of the history and workings or our city, in our city.
I was saddened to open his most recent mailer and see among his promises, should he get elected is the following :"Oppose city tax increases and unnecessary proliferation of fees".
The part about opposing "unnecessary proliferation of fees" is something we all should work towards, I believe.
However, stating that Mayor Dyda would "oppose city tax increases" is very problematic to be because of many very important needs we still have to deal with, in our city.
I am very pleased that is appears that R.P.V. will receive a grant of State matching funds for the permanent repair of San Ramon Canyon.
That matching funds grant might be matched with Federal dollars coming from an infrastructure stimulus package no reasonable and respectful American could possibly object to.
Those monies could go almost all the way to repairing the Canyon's drainage issues and landslide problems, all perhaps, without any large amount of spending from any current city funding streams.
But there still are major infrastructure issues our city leaders need to tackle as soon as possible.
Please separate out "The Storm Drain User Fee" now charged to SOME residents in our city.
Instead, please look at the issues revolving around the city-owned SEWER systems and understand that our city owns them and must maintain them.
I happen to agree with outgoing Councilman Steve Wolowicz when he characterizes 'fees' as being 'taxes'.
There could be a need for a necessary fee or 'tax' to provide maintenance and/or upgrades to our city's infrastructure, including the SEWER lines and systems.
When a candidate states on their literature they would oppose city tax increases it illustrates a type of unwillingness to even discuss the possibilities of increases taxes or fees.
I do appreciate Mayor Dyda's opposing 'unnecessary proliferation of fees' and I do hope he does not mean he would not remain open to a new fee or 'tax' to be used for infrastructure purposes, including any new possible tax or fee for our city's SEWER system.
I capitalize 'SEWER' because I have heard far too many of our residents consider The Storm Drain fee associated with our SEWER system. They are different from each other.
I feel every candidate must remain open to the possiblity of having to discuss and even pass a new tax or necessary fee. That openness needs to carry through if they take a seat in December, on the new Council.
Marymount College administrators want you to know they have spent "$7 million in facility construction, renovation and development to the San Pedro residential communities located on Palos Verdes Drive North and West 24th Street".
This was done to allow more students living in San Pedro and all of it was done without any renovation dollars spent on the already approved Phase in which the parking lots at Marymount's main campus must be renovated and enlarged.
The mailer from Marymount also included the information that the College's administration has requested that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, approved by our City Council should extend The Project's timeline out to a 20-year period. That's two and one half times the approved period of The Projects.
Marymount officials also wish to add more than 21% to the current student body count currently approved for the campus.
I can almost bet that Marymount officials want to add to the student totals before any of the facilities expansion approvals have been finished.
As it currently is factual, the increased student-resident count at Marymount's Palos Verdes North off-campus housing facility has or will negate the Traffic and Parking portions of the approvals granted for The Project and would have negated them had The Marymount Plan been approved.
I continue to support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and Marymount's wonderful moves into downtown San Pedro.
However, in Marymount's case, the horses are having a very difficult time searching for the carts.
No comments:
Post a Comment