First published in the Dec. 31 print issue of the Glendale News-Press.
Glendale’s proposed changes to solid waste collection charges and rate restructuring effective Feb. 1 seems to be an “offer we can’t refuse.” I protest!
Arguments for a significant increase in rates over an extended period have only been partially communicated to the public. One has to be an avid follower of city politics to be aware of what is actually happening and the reasons thereof.
Which alternatives or options exist? Some must exist; what are they? Which have been tried and how effective are/were they? This proposal seems to be a “take it as is,” or “just take it and like it.”
The process of protest seems both too prescriptive and hurried. It’s stated that without a written protest in the proscribed form, no oral or non-property owner “stakeholders” inputs are desired.
Who all is involved and in what current and expected capacities? (City employees, city officers, contractors, other “stakeholders,” et al). What duties and roles have they played and are expected to play over the term of the proposed increases? (Who gets laid
off to “save money”? Who profits? What is the relationship between savings and income — “benefits and costs” as estimated? What is it worth, a net gain/loss, or is it to be a “breakeven” set of transactions?)
How will protests received be judged? On their quality or quantity? Will such a “decision” be final, or is it subject to appeal and/or revision? Or will it be which group or persons who protest or those who do not prevail? My objections are with the “draconian process of protest” that you require, the communications disclosure and brief period for disclosures and discussion of alternatives.
All stakeholders should protest this proposed action.
E.N. Friesen
Glendale
