Comments for Fort Wayne Politics

Comment on I&M and the City Light Lease by Mark A.

Mark A. — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:50:01 +0000

William,

Just where do you live that I&M is not your provider? In a co-op covered area?

Comment on I&M and the City Light Lease by William Larsen

William Larsen — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:48:30 +0000

I&M does not provide my electricity so it really does not affect me. However, since I was annexed into the city, then I guess it now affects me because they have spent $300K on legal fees and I am sure this comes out of my new higher property taxes I pay for less services. I now get woken up every Wednesday at about 5:30 am by the garbage trucks. You would think they could have different starting points each morning so the same neighborhoods do not get noise so early.

I guess I&M if they truly own the equipment can tear it out when they leave and use it elsewhere.

Comment on The Government of California is out of control by Robert Enders

Robert Enders — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:25:19 +0000

This is my prediction:
Californians will be paid back in full next year, but the withholding increase will be made permanent. California will eventually default in the next few years, and a whole lot of people will get hosed.

Comment on The Government of California is out of control by Phil Marx

Phil Marx — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:16:47 +0000

If a company declares bancruptcy, it’s debts are lowered or eliminated. This is the reason credit is often restricted for companies who appear to be on the verge of filing.

So, let’s say California takes extra money from it’s workers, as a temporary measure of course, with the stated intention of paying back this debt at a later time. If they declare bancrupty, could this debt be lowered or eliminated?

I think this is just a ruse for the state to take more money from the people (permanetly), while claiming they never raised taxes.

Comment on I&M and the City Light Lease by Steve G

Steve G — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:37:42 +0000

There is no economic advantage for the city to start up their own power services again. Although, if US Congress were able to decide, they could run the utlities cheaper. NOT!!

They would be better to sell off rights.

Comment on I&M and the City Light Lease by Paul Morrison

Paul Morrison — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:59:25 +0000

just trying to be supportive of the Mayor in his final two years in office. If a referendum on a casino is good, should not one for electric service? or the location of public safety offices?

Comment on I&M and the City Light Lease by Mark A.

Mark A. — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:23:30 +0000

Paul,

Why? I&M’s rates are 14.4% lower than the statewide average, and 37% below the national electric rates.

Henry’s just being his usual control freak, and either he has a brother in the electric business, or his pal Win Moses does.

Comment on I&M and the City Light Lease by Stephen Parker

Stephen Parker — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:20:03 +0000

William Larsen wrote: “I am not sure I care about their community philanthropically. What I care about is service and cost.”

With Indiana Michigan having some of the lowest rates around, what’s your point? And what kind of service problems are you having? When was the last time you had to call for a service issue besides the ice storm?

Also, William, the state law changed in the 80s, at the bequest of Indiana Michigan, to give utilities territorial rights to areas they served. That plays into this as well.

Paul - what sort of referendum?

Comment on I&M and the City Light Lease by Paul Morrison

Paul Morrison — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:33:05 +0000

Being too lazy to do my own research… would it be possible for the citizens directly affected by the I&M lease termination to call for a referendum?

Comment on I&M and the City Light Lease by Mark A.

Mark A. — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:29:42 +0000

William,

I&M in fact owns the equipment they replaced, (some 85+% of it) and the terms of the contract state that the city has to pay for it.