Fee for street lights

**eastland** · April-19-10, 09:26 PM

Would you pay $6 a month on your water bill to keep your street lights on?
That's what Harper Woods is proposing.
Here is a link from the Free Press:
http://freep.com/article/20100419/NE...-street-lights

**Trumpeteer** · April-19-10, 09:37 PM

Hell, been paying a monthly fee added to our water/sewage here for the past 15 years! Street lights are always on AND in great shape.

lilpup · April-19-10, 11:38 PM

Ann Arbor is starting to experiment with LED streetlights. While the initial expense is a little higher they expect good savings on future energy and maintenance costs. I think they got a little grant money to put toward the project. Detroit should try to find grant money to put LED lights where lighting is needed - the LEDs don't burn out like conventional lights and are less expensive to power. I suspect they are also harder to break.

**rid0617** · April-20-10, 02:06 AM

Honestly that is a good deal. Here in the rural south if you want a street light the electric company installs it on your property. It remains their property and we pay $9 a month. The other problem is all future property owners also pay this $9 because the power company will not remove the light.

**wazootyman** · April-20-10, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by rid0617

Honestly that is a good deal. Here in the rural south if you want a street light the electric company installs it on your property. It remains their property and we pay $9 a month. The other problem is all future property owners also pay this $9 because the power company will not remove the light.

It's possible I'm recalling wrong and/or it might not be the same everywhere - but I feel like street lights are already a line-item on either my summer or winter taxes for the city of Livonia. We have them about every 3rd or 4th house on my street. It amounts to a similar amount [[less than $10 as I recall), and yes, it's well worth it.

Seems strange to have it show up on the water bill, though.

**Trumpeteer** · April-20-10, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by rid0617

Honestly that is a good deal. Here in the rural south if you want a street light the electric company installs it on your property. It remains their property and we pay $9 a month. The other problem is all future property owners also pay this $9 because the power company will not remove the light.

Don't know if you're on Duke or a local EMC but what usually happens is that you sign a term agreement with the utility to have a light installed so they can at least have you pay the monthly energy/equipment charge to recover their investment. After that term, you can have service disconnected. The reason utilities are reluctant to actually remove an installed security light is that just as soon as they do, and you move, the next occupant wants a security light installed.

Retroit · April-20-10, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Trumpeteer

Hell, been paying a monthly fee added to our water/sewage here for the past 15 years! Street lights are always on AND in great shape.

In Detroit [[as your profile indicates)?

I wonder if it would be feasible to make streetlights motion-sensored? It's kind of a waste having them on all night if no one is around.

neighbor · April-20-10, 10:31 PM

Add a fee here add a fee there. Fires some people here cut some pay there. Where does it end?

I would not pay this fee.

It is time to address the real problem killing city budgets. RETIRED WORKERS!!!!

I know you did your time and are only getting what has been promised to you but it is time for every retired worker to take a pension cut when active workers do. Active workers co-pays go up so do retirees.

Step up and give up a little something so your kids and grandkids and their kids might have a chance at getting a good job.

The pensions the "greatest generation" started and the boomers were all too willing to take too are killing private businesses, states, and cities everywhere.

I know they will all cry about being on a fixed income but who isn't these days?

Retroit · April-20-10, 10:42 PM

Maybe they should charge $6 for retired workers.

**REL** · April-20-10, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by neighbor

...RETIRED WORKERS!!!!...

I know you did your time and are only getting what has been promised to you but it is time for every retired worker to take a pension cut when active workers do...

Step up and give up a little something so your kids and grandkids and their kids might have a chance at getting a good job.

Ummmm, you mean, like giving your kids/grand-kids a good job where they're promised a good pension after they put in their time?

**Baselinepunk** · April-21-10, 10:08 AM

If we take this as a "fee", which it isn't -- it's a tax, then I assume that my city services that I pay for with property tax are available ala carte.

Therefore, I would like to itemize my services and demand that the city provide this information in a clear form without all that gooblety gook. Then, I'll prioritize which ones I do think I need. Perhaps drop my city fire coverage and form a co-operative among my neighbors. Hmmm, perhaps I should drill into the aquifer and procure my own water. Combined with using gray water system to flush the toilets I'm sure it would be far less money than the 600.00 + per year I'm paying now. And, I wouldn't have to pay all those little nasty fees the city attached to the operation of my water meter.

Hmmm .....

You know, I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff I could do around here that would lower my property value and I could pay less tax; like take out that extra room, do I really need a garage? ....

**Kevgoblue** · April-21-10, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by neighbor

It is time to address the real problem killing city budgets. RETIRED WORKERS!!!!

I know you did your time and are only getting what has been promised to you but it is time for every retired worker to take a pension cut when active workers do. Active workers co-pays go up so do retirees.

The pensions the "greatest generation" started and the boomers were all too willing to take too are killing private businesses, states, and cities everywhere.

I know they will all cry about being on a fixed income but who isn't these days?

Great point!
Unfortunately no one is going to address your concern. The people who would have to address these problems in your local municipality are elected officials. And the primary concern of most elected officials is getting re-elected. Asking the retired workers to share in the sacrifice would be political suicide. Even if lots of people agree with your position, the younger people don't take the time to go express it on voting day. Check out the numbers, especially in non Presidential election years. The 45 to 64 yr olds outpace the 18 to 20 yr olds by a 3 : 1 ratio.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0406.pdf

I've also wondered why the older generation shows so little concern about the plight of their grandchildren.

They're out in force at the "tea parties" denouncing any increased government spending on health care [[other than for themselves). Seems like it may be more that they're concerned that if more people are covered, then they'll have to share some of those scarce resources. Can't have that. F*** you! I've got mine.

bartock · April-21-10, 12:25 PM

To me, lighting is a core tax expenditure in HW and should be one of the last potential casualties, not one of the first. It is really a safety issue in a place where the reputation is worsening overall [[and with three distinct areas, one of which - Beaconsfield to Kelly - is rapidly deteriorating). It seems that this is a fear tactic and a backdoor way of raising taxes. A Headlee Amendment issue, perhaps. Harper Woods does a good amount of tree cutting and other services that would make more sense to address first. I'd be more willing to pay $12 a month for one year only to update all of the lighting [[which I don't find to be that great anyway), go to LED, or whatever, but I don't think it will fly. My neighbors are not happy with this at all, and it will be interesting to see what comes out of it.

Stosh · April-21-10, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Kevgoblue

Great point!
Unfortunately no one is going to address your concern. The people who would have to address these problems in your local municipality are elected officials. And the primary concern of most elected officials is getting re-elected. Asking the retired workers to share in the sacrifice would be political suicide. Even if lots of people agree with your position, the younger people don't take the time to go express it on voting day. Check out the numbers, especially in non Presidential election years. The 45 to 64 yr olds outpace the 18 to 20 yr olds by a 3 : 1 ratio.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0406.pdf

I've also wondered why the older generation shows so little concern about the plight of their grandchildren.

They're out in force at the "tea parties" denouncing any increased government spending on health care [[other than for themselves). Seems like it may be more that they're concerned that if more people are covered, then they'll have to share some of those scarce resources. Can't have that. F*** you! I've got mine.

That would apply if they actually LIVED in the city. Most workers I'll bet are long gone to greener pastures. so really, the local pols literally have nothing to worry about. Only problem is, most of these former workers are friends and family, so they may catch hell in other ways.

**Novine** · April-21-10, 10:03 PM

Public pensions are protected in the state constitution. There are plenty of communities that agreed to pension benefits that they can no longer afford. But legally, there's little those communities can do to undo those agreements.

**rid0617** · April-22-10, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Trumpeteer

Don't know if you're on Duke or a local EMC but what usually happens is that you sign a term agreement with the utility to have a light installed so they can at least have you pay the monthly energy/equipment charge to recover their investment. After that term, you can have service disconnected. The reason utilities are reluctant to actually remove an installed security light is that just as soon as they do, and you move, the next occupant wants a security light installed.

Duke. Didn't know the explanation. Thanks.