How Would Revenues From Higher Water Bills Be Used in Greensboro?

There was a good article on the front page of the News and Record this morning about the proposal to increase water bills by nine percent in the city of Greensboro.  The article reveals that water rates have been approximately doubled in our city since 2004. 

The prophetic voice of Mike Baron continues to resound.

OK, here is the mystery.  If water consumption has not risen significantly over the last fifteen years or so, as Mike has amply demonstrated, why is there a need for water rates to increase nearly every year? 

Yes, higher water rates have likely diminished consumption to some extent.  But when will the rate increases end?  At what point will the city stop seeking these increases almost every year?

Is there any chance the city will take the water revenues, and divert them to pay for other budget items unrelated to water?  Remember, for instance, that Andy Scott--Robbie Perkins' favorite city staffer--was recently seen to be discussing the possibility of using affordable housing monies to pay for the Nussbaum Center.  How easily can money be moved around like that?

Can city staff be trusted with regard to what they are seeking?

What is likely to happen if we do not increase water rates?

I think city council needs to understand the answers to all these questions.  And they ought not accept the recommendation of city staff uncritically.

Comments

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

"The prophetic voice of Mike Baron continues to resound."

Indeed Joe. Maybe we should ask some of our blogger-journalists who is "criminally insane" now?

[buzzman]

Seems like it wasn't too long ago that Trudy Wade's questioning finally resulted in the water manager admitting that the department has a fairly large reserve fund. He recently stated that the reason for the increase is to repair and replace infrastructure. Isn't that the purpose of the reserve fund?
This is just another ploy by city staff to deceive city council and the public.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks, Mary. Mike told us that we would be paying for the dam, which we may not really need. But the question now is when the annual increases will stop.

Buzz, that is a great question about the reserve fund. I think city council members need to look at all the numbers very closely.

[Don Moore]

Raise Fees so that they can say that TAXES were NOT raised. Folks need to take a Head Count on this for 2011.

[Joe Guarino]

That is one of my concerns also, Don. Thanks.

[Mick]

I would like to know to what extent co-mingling of funds is allowed. Is the water fee system designed to be self sustaining or does this moola disappear into a general fund? If there is a reserve I cant think of a better time to use at least some of it than the worst of eceonomic times in a few decades.

[Val Wiggin]

Mike isn't, and never was, a prophetic voice speaking in the wilderness. He was never the Water Conservation "Manager" because he never made it past just being a supervisor over one other employee. What got him fired was his crass attitude and just being a general self-promoting blowhard. So he gives away a few showerheads and suddenly he's blabbing about some "Lake Ephemera" he created. Try drinking that. It's easy to critize projections looking backwards. If he's that good, he should've been able to make millions on the tech market collapse then millions again on the housing market collapse.

People should be thankful that Mr. Williams actually had the gonads to push for the things he's gotten over his tenure. Greensboro was hurting during the droughts and without the Winston-Salem, Reidsville, and Burlington connections, they would’ve have been screwed. Does anyone realize that the final stage of the water conservation plan is to evaculate the City. Do you want to be transported somewhere and leave everything behind to the scavengers. Without the connections and big lakes, there would be no other choice.

Of course the rate increase are necessary. The utility (as all other utilities) have been out of sight / out of sight for so long that the core infrastructure is falling apart. Unfortunately, there's been a rash of capital spending that had to be done as well. Where do you begin? Latham Park Sewer Replacement, Lake Townsend Dam Replacement, TZO BNR Project, Bledsoe Drive Pump Station, . . . . . . . . . . .

Transfers do happen, of course. There's annual transfers to pay for "services" that general fund departments provide W&S. Things like IT, human resources, and other things. They’re priced well above market-value, but they are transparent.

The sneaky transfers happen with the developers and their real-estate oriented council members. The big ones are famous for the old line that "we can make this work if W&S puts the lines in for us". Money that could be used to get water and sewer to people in the City that want it and don't have it (hard to believe, but true), repair/replace old pipes, and put towards overall maintenance of the existing system is used instead to improve certain developers "return-on-their-investment".

So before you question the profession staff, go talk to the department. Look at the needed projects, learn about the regulatory requirements from the professionals, ask to spend a 1/2 day riding with a crew to see the actual field conditions, etc rather than relying on the word of a "has been".

[bubba]

And the reasons you know all this to be true are...........?

[Joe Guarino]

Val, you sound like you know what you are talking about, at least at some level. And you seem to be confirming that water revenues can be diverted toward non-water purposes. I do not doubt your assertion that council members representing development interests manipulate the system to help certain developers.

With respect to the drought a couple of years ago, Mike Baron made the assertion that making connections with adjoining jurisdictions like Reidsville and Burlington are precisely the right thing to do. It got Greensboro through the crisis. And I know it worked out very well for Reidsville. Mike made the point that it is better to do those things, and have contingencies in place to utilize those kinds of resources-- in combination with ongoing conservation efforts-- rather than to make huge expenditures to expand capacity.

I would also point out that Mike's conservation efforts apparently worked very well, notwithstanding your apparent displeasure over perceived personality-related issues and the internal politics. Conservation efforts were largely abandoned after he was terminated. He argues the city has wanted to sell water for profit; and says that the dam was part of that design. He says it has not wanted to conserve.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Val, Joe's points are all well-taken (and he can make them without calling people "blow-hards" and "has-beens").

I know who Mike is. And what he is.

WHO are you?

[Mick]

Why do people only ask that question of posters they dislike or disagree with?

But the name calling criticism of Val is quite on point.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Mick, as I pointed out, I don't know who "Val" is.

Ergo, I don't "dislike" him/her.

I also would submit that perhaps some of us who have been on the receiving-end of a good portion of the ugly names (because it gives those dishing it out some kind of sick/warped thrill or sense of superiority) are a little more sensitive to the abuse - and less inclined to sit by and watch/say nothing when the punches thrown in the blogosphere are unnecessary, cruel, unwarranted and should be pulled.

[Mick]

You are a well known hard line supporter of Mike. I just skipped to the end a bit.
As I stated above, you are right about the name calling, etc. Doesnt matter to me about your history but I get your point.

I am pretty confident you wouldnt have asked the question if Val had been praising MB. Ergo..... why ask now?

[Brandon Burgess]

Mick, when folks appear to be an authority on an issue (and when they hurl insults), it helps to be able to properly identify yourself as an authority by stating your name, credentials and qualifying experience.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Mick, I'm pretty confident you wouldn't be here if you didn't have your own agenda.

You're absolutely right. I would not have asked the question if "Val" had commented in support of Mike . . . because a comment in support of Mike would not have included the character-slams and put-downs.

Mike has put it all out there on his blog. So again, the question begs, WHO is this person and what are his/her credentials to trash Mike? Where's the beef? It's a legitimate question, yes?

OBTW, my "history" and Mike's SHOULD matter here. Both of us came to the blogosphere because the journalists in it said this was THE place to come to get our stories (relevant to the public good) told. Yet it hasn't worked out that way.

It seems like every news headline coming out of everywhere lately supports that what we've been saying all along . . . about the virtually non-existent local/state/Federal overesight in so many areas of our lives . . . is TRUE (the point Val makes about things being out-of-sight-and-out-of-mind is well taken).

Call me "hardline" if it floats your boat, but some of us "skipped to the end" long before those flinging the names knew what the end was.

So give the snark a rest.

[Mick]

The name game is well played out. I find it comical when folks wear their "real name" like a badge of honor or something. Though I agree with your statement in general, this only seems to come up when folks go against the grain. I have never seen anyone ask the identity of someone who "toes the company line" (here or elsewhere).

Many folks dont want their real names, etc in the discussion or in cyberspace. I am sure they have their reasons and it is their right and priviledge. Does it go to credibility? Absolutely. But personally, I care not one bit. Some folks use their real name, some nicknames, some full blown and/or multiple psuedonyms. More power to em.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Chuckle, we're getting a little off-course here (again, that speaks to agendas), but Mick, you're talking to one of the folks in our local ether who has the MOST practical/real life experience "going against the grain" and "not towing the company line". I got fired for it. I got sued (unsuccessfully) for it. Moreover, I've taken a lot of what can only be called abuse from some of the big guns in our local blogosphere - who have played by a double standard and not applied the same "hardline" tactics to those I've accused of wrong-doing that they have to me. And I'm still looking for justice from a legal system that is beyond corrupt.

I sign my name not as a "badge of honor", but because I came to the blogosphere for a reason and that reason requires credibility.

The point I'm trying to make is that when the bile is hurled, perhaps you SHOULD care about who is hurling it - and why. "Rights and privileges" come with responsibility. I'm simply asking "Val" to own what he/she has said.

[Mick]

Fair enough. We all are well are aware of your past Doc. Maybe then you should understand why some folks do not use their real name. Again, I get the point about the name calling and other BS. I get the point about credibility? And agree whole heartedly. It is just blatantly obvious that "who are you" questions only EVER pop up when someone goes against the pack. Particularly a newby. Psuedonyms are common to the blogs including this site. Anyone ever ask Stormy or Buzzman who they REALLY ARE?

[bubba]

"Mick, I'm pretty confident you wouldn't be here if you didn't have your own agenda."

We found that to be true about him during the swim center bond nonsense.

He's part of the "business as usual" brigade that favors the bad government we endure locally, particularly as represented by certain people on city council and by those whose money funds said bad government.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Mick, yes, given "my past" and the institutions I've challenged I do understand why some people feel they cannot use their own name. Sometimes it's about protecting a career - or their personal safety. I most certainly DO get that. But if you're going to hurl the bile in this ether - especially against someone who is signing their name - someone who I do support, I'm gonna wanna know what grounds YOU have to do it . . . what's in YOUR PAST that justifies your point of view.

It's NOT BS to ask. It's part of critical thinking. It's also what our journalists are supposed to do, but haven't.

I would also argue that, in civil discourse, you actually do NOT have the "right" to fling the monkey-poo and hurl the nasties and expect not to be challenged. In Court, people have the right to face their accusers - and cross examine them.

I also don't think it's exactly accurate to say that the ONLY time these questions pop up is when someone goes against the pack. When I was a newbie myself, I had a lot of questions about who people really were - I did ask (other bloggers) - and it took a long while to sort it out. I now know who some of the people behind the pseudonyms are. And (of course) it does lend them more credibility.

I've been thinking about the "blowhard" description. It seems to me that the City of Greensboro hired Mike Baron to BE a "blowhard" (just like Randolph Hospital hired me to "clean up" Pediatrics) . . . a front-man for their water conservation program . . . a program that won awards and became a hindrance to the bottom line behind building a dam that the powers-that-be really wanted.

So Mike got fired for doing his job too well.

I understand that too.

We've come forward and we've told our stories. You wanna ask questions? Fine. Ask. I'll answer. Mike will too. But you wanna call names and then hide because your skin is too thin to take what you expect mine to absorb? I'm gonna call you out.

[Brandon Burgess]

Mick, how can I trust someone's claim of expertise on an issue when I have no idea what qualifies them to speak on the issue?

Also, I use my real name to keep me from insulting people online. It makes me think about what I am about to post. To bad it doesn't motivate me to edit for spelling/grammatical errors.

[Mick]

Mary, Brandon, et al the credibility issue is legit. No doubt. IMO, the use of one's real name is a personal choice .... period.

Tremendous commentary Bubba. A lot to add as always. So, what is your opinion of the use of real names? You know nothing of me so please dont pretend you do.

When some here start calling out folks who toe the line I'll change my tune. I guess the rule is it only matters when it matters. So how come no one has called out One Who Remembers in the First Pres thread? Can some one explain the diff other than the obvious that is?

It's a double standard. I can live with it. Too bad no one has the guts to at least acknowledge it.

Maybe I'll become the "What's your real name Crusader! That oughta spur some real good discussions. You know like this one.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Mick, I think I've countered your arguments fairly thoroughly here (and unfortunately, that's allowed the thread to drift away from the post's original focus . . . and that would be that Mike Baron DID, in fact, tell us so).

It has been a good discussion. But at this point your horse is dead.

In terms of calling out folks who "toe the line", I would submit that it's an "eye-of-the-beholder" thing.

And the thing about that is since my arrival in the blogosphere, and having not "toed the (party) line" say at Robinson's or Cone's, I've been the recipient of some EXTREMELY nasty (livelihood-threatening) stuff . . . more vindictive and more "mean" than anything I've seen dished out here at Joe's (except by people Bubba calls "the usual suspects"). As you know (if you really wanna talk about "guts"), I'll be in Court over it on Monday.

And, if it becomes an issue (again to detract from a blogger-who-shall-not-be-named did . . . and not just to me), I will be more than happy to defend my "hardline" support of Mike - who, at the time, had just gotten out of the hospital with a life-threatening condition only to be able to read that he was a "petulant child" and "criminally insane".

It ranks right up there with calling a woman with a brain tumor "batshit crazy" and not having "the guts" to retract the statement and FULLY apologize.

Of course, I myself been banned at John Robinson's (he only had to do it once) for the horrible sin of criticizing the way he's done his job, and I don't read Cone anymore unless I'm led there by something/someone I do read.

So I know all about double-standards and hypocrisy . . . about saying one thing (regarding transparency and accountability and civility in the blogosphere) and doing another/looking the other way.

I don't really consider myself at "what's your real name crusader" UNLESS someone is hurling the insults and "invective" against someone who has had the courage to sign theirs.

I'm gonna ask WHO are you to say these things? Grow a spine or reign it in.

[bubba]

"You know nothing of me so please dont pretend you do. "

I know you have revealed that you are exactly what I described in my earlier post. You are part of the problem we need to correct, and not part of any solution we seek.

Your values and judgment are, at best, suspect.

[Mick]

The phenomenon is certainly not confined to this site as I noted above when I said "here or elsewhere". The horse isnt dead. You guys are just blind to your own minor form of hypocrosy. Are you saying that NONE of the psuedonymed regulars here have EVER "attacked" or "abused" ANYONE? Ever publically demand a real name from any of them?

As to "eye of the beholder". No doubt that is somewhat true as the whole "what is your real name" thing is a pet pieve... peeve ... peive ... peve? of mine. Here and elsewhere.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Well, Mick, the "real name thing" is one of my pet peeves as well - for all of the reasons we've discussed here.

I've asked a legitimate question. It's not been answered. Or maybe it has.

[Brandon Burgess]

Mick I honestly don't recall, here or elsewhere, anyone buying in to someone's claims of proficiency or expertise in a field without questioning their credentials. I believe Joe has posted about rumors from anonymous sources before and he has been challenged on that.

[Mick]

Brandon, I get that but you are kinda missing or side stepping my actual point. It really has little to do with expertise or whatever. No one challenges "homers" with pseudonyms about their real names regardless of topic. Have you ever challenged buzzman, stormy, one who remembers on their true identity? But let an unknown newby cross the locals and all of a sudden "who is this guy. what is your real name. what is your favorite color" Like I said... it only matters when it matters. I dont disagree with you and Doc on many of your points around the periphery.

Doc, are you actually insinuating that I am the poster in question. That is just plain silly. See, you guys crack me up with this crap.

[Joe Guarino]

I am not sure this is getting anywhere, or that it has much to do with the original post. Let's cease and desist.

[Mick]

No tangents allowed. Got it, Joe. If that is your real name.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

No Joe, it isn't going anywhere and that's because (as I said before) the horse is way-beyond-dead.

But the objective of those determined to divert attention from (and commentary about) the point of your original post is accomplished.

Cudos Mick.

[Mick]

BS MARY. I had no agenda amd no goal to divert attention from anything. Your thinking is way too deep on this one. WAY WAY TOO DEEP.

Perhaps there are other reasons there was little commentary.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Well Mick, again, SOME OF US HAVE GOOD REASON TO THINK DEEPLY (not exactly something to be ashamed of) and consider our words BEFORE we type. As Brandon pointed out, that what happens when you sign your name (or people know who is behind the pseudonym).

I am well aware of the "other reasons" . . . the most glaring one being that there are several prominent bloggers in this ether who cannot admit that they were/are wrong and/or have been WAY OUT OF LINE as they liberally (get it?), verbally eviscerated people (like Mike, like me) who have IN NO WAY deserved it.