tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5741412946805763929.post3720588652170048324..comments2024-03-29T07:38:37.621-07:00Comments on Shoreline Area News: OP-ED: Shoreline Mayor McGlashan responds to Ronald Wastewater District mailerCarl Dinsehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03741982015985286521noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5741412946805763929.post-20075655874144123912012-11-02T15:17:51.943-07:002012-11-02T15:17:51.943-07:00While the mayor complains about Ronald Waste Water...While the mayor complains about Ronald Waste Water spending money on a mail piece, he fails to mention that the City Of Shoreline has spent the past 6 months using the Cities mailing permit to advocate in favor of the vote! This is our tax money spent to advocate for an election. I recently received a mailing from the local control people mailed from a mailing permit(Seattle Wa US Postage Permit 937) that belongs to Snohomish County Fire District 1. Who paid for this? The State Public Disclosure Commission needs to investigate and find out how this supposedly independent group is paying for their expenses.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5741412946805763929.post-29221521845477657902012-11-02T12:30:49.912-07:002012-11-02T12:30:49.912-07:00I disagree with one thing the Mayor said. I don’t ...I disagree with one thing the Mayor said. I don’t think the “Caution” sign was subliminal at all. I think it was blatant. It was a blatant warning from a utility that is sounding the alarm over what they view as the City of Shoreline’s intentions and goals. You notice that Mayor McGlashan didn’t deny that the City will levee a new utility tax. He just said “There could be a utility tax ”. Does anyone believe that the City won’t levee a utility tax if they can? And how much will it be? Thank goodness Ronald Sewer is speaking about these issues. Somebody has to, and it sure won’t be the City. Also the Mayor says that the article left out the fact that Ronald Sewer pays the City a 6% franchise fee, but I re-read it and it states it very clearly that they do. Perhaps the Mayor was to upset over the Caution sign to notice. It sounds like this newsletter really touched a nerve. Hmmm...I wonder why?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5741412946805763929.post-58626693946782868082012-11-01T18:06:55.439-07:002012-11-01T18:06:55.439-07:00The Mayor missed another element in how SWWD appar...The Mayor missed another element in how SWWD apparently operates. Last October, when Mr. Lind was up for election and had an opponent, Mr. Ransom, the SWWD sent out a publication a week or two prior to the election. In the publication was a bright yellow slip that stated how the SWWD had held the line on rate increases, that they recognized the state of the economy, etc. Prominently displayed were the then-three commissioners, with "Arnie Lind" the first name displayed. I saw it as a subtle political piece. That's why I wasn't surprised when, following Mr. Lind's defeat at the polls, the two he served with found a way - and they had the majority of a three-person board to do so - to get Mr. Lind back on board. Very clever, and outside the reach of accountability and voter scrutiny. But, it's the kind of thing that rubs me the wrong way.<br /><br />Re: Proposition 1, the City bemoans the 15% + the 14% going to Seattle. There's also the (I think it was) 24% that's reinvested into the SPU-west system. Yet, the City can only promise that rates won't be more, when in fact they should be less unless they plan to more than double Seattle's investment in the system (adding the 15%+14% to the 24%)! It also doesn't make sense: (1) why Seattle would give up a "cash cow"; and (2) why the City could run a water utility better than a water utility, such as Shoreline Water District.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5741412946805763929.post-86974369018994492112012-11-01T13:07:30.545-07:002012-11-01T13:07:30.545-07:00I'm am strongly opposed to Prop 1 because the ...I'm am strongly opposed to Prop 1 because the entire process the City has used to justify their plan is wrong. The team the City created to analyze it was denied access to information for the task assigned them - I think that should cause us, as tax payers to suspect there is something very wrong in City Hall.... Seattle hasn't agreed to sell nor have they agreed on a price; and there is a better option available should an honest evaluation ever come to pass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5741412946805763929.post-22002102086588309232012-11-01T10:43:11.035-07:002012-11-01T10:43:11.035-07:00I am with the RWWD! The council seems to be courte...I am with the RWWD! The council seems to be courted by people that will benefit from their vote and the council benefits by the courting. Until I can see exactly how much it will cost I do NOT trust the council to have our best interest. You wouldn't walk into Fred Meyer and pick out a patio set and then let the checkout guy pull a price out of the air! Also who says that Shoreline won't put their own fee on the utility, they certainly have with all the other utilitiesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5741412946805763929.post-59049005894955458582012-11-01T07:06:59.372-07:002012-11-01T07:06:59.372-07:00I totally agree with Mayor Keith McGlsshan. I vote...I totally agree with Mayor Keith McGlsshan. I voted last week and voted to support the change as I feel the City has proven their ability to make wise decisions and been up front about the issues. I have found the Ronald Water District to be underhanded (tossed my mailer from them in the recycle immediately) and have wondered about their underhanded methods in adding to the commissioners numbers. I hope the way they have done things, alarms others and makes them suspicious about their actions.<br />VOTE YES ON PROP 1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com