westend wrote:
LarryJM wrote:
Hmmm interesting counter comments about my post and I'm surprised at all the folks that actually must keep track of everything they buy on the internet and take the time to comply with the LAW they are saying one must follow and send that yearly check to their state/local governments paying the "SALES TAX" that is required on all those purchases where they are not charged the state sales tax :W I understand the basic concept about getting a service and not paying for it, but the issue to me is that the city is basically at fault for having that apparant "LOOP HOLE" there and my post was based on this being the case which is not totally clear in the posts and information thus far and instead of closing it took the "KNEE JERK" reaction they did.
I guess I just expect our various levels of government to have laws/regulations in place to cover the cost of something like utilities if they expect to be compensated for what they provide. I don't feel it's a responsibility of the citizens to fix this sort of thing on an individual basis.
Now I see where she might be "thumbing her digits" with there bag in the bucket and her I agree she is in the wrong IMO and is doing herself no favors is getting much further support as it was from someone like me. But even here if she isn't "BREAKING ANY LAWS" who are we to impose our subjective standards on others. In my view the city/local government should pass a law that requires a minimum charge for both water and sewer if a home has that utility available and provided to it "REGARDLESS" of it's level of use ... sort of like a monthly "CONNECTION/SERVICE" fee.
Larry
Larry,
I'm pretty sure there is an ordinance in place regarding connection to City sewer and payment by a home owner. It may be that the City has the sewer fee linked to water use, I have no direct knowledge of that. She has chosen to take a confrontational attitude to anything administered by the City and is now getting her just desserts. I'm guessing but the next thing I believe would come into effect is condemnation from uninhabitability.
As I posted, I commend her for living "off grid" but the methods and location she's chosen don't fit the model of sustainable living. She would have been better served by selling her house and moving out into the country where she would be free to practice her off-grid lifestyle.
I obviously didn't consider all the "extras" here and should have read or paid better attention to the context of all that this covered. My comment was on one very narrow aspect and if all is as you say then I probably should have just kept silent.
