[Durham INC] INC-list Digest, Vol 101, Issue 40

Thu May 30 13:38:05 EDT 2013

Many thanks Senator Woodard.  I'll look here for an update from you when you all communicate again.    

Myers

-----Original Message-----
From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On Behalf Of inc-list-request at rtpnet.org
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:00 PM
To: inc-list at rtpnet.org
Subject: INC-list Digest, Vol 101, Issue 40

Send INC-list mailing list submissions to
	inc-list at rtpnet.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	inc-list-request at rtpnet.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	inc-list-owner at rtpnet.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of INC-list digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re:  Mailbox Question (Mike Woodard)
   2.  FW: No Garbage Fee (Pat Carstensen)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 22:39:13 -0400
From: "Mike Woodard" <mike at mikewoodard.com>
To: "Interneighborhood Council" <interneighborhoodcouncil at gmail.com>
Cc: mike.e.king at usps.gov, INC <inc-list at rtpnet.org>
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Mailbox Question
Message-ID:
	<8664e3fd5684ec8653878e0883024505.squirrel at webmail04.register.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I finally got to talk with a higher-up at the regional office in Greensboro this afternoon. Wayne Sayer, the regional manager of delivery services, was surprised that this was still an issue. He said to me, "I dealt with that eight months ago. I thought it was over." My reply:
"I've been dealing with it for eight YEARS, and it is never over." As I relayed the stories to him, especially about the bogus letters that are clearly not USPS document, it was clear that he was not happy this was going on.
?
He promised me that he and the regional
Operations Manager will be working with Postmaster King to assure that the policy gets communicated to the route carriers. I will follow up with him next week to see how that communication is going.
?
We have their attention in Greensboro, and we won't let go now... Stay vigilant in case some route carrier goes rogue in the meantime.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mike Woodard
NC Senator
mike at mikewoodard.com
919.599.5143

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: [Durham INC] Mailbox Question

From: "Interneighborhood Council" <interneighborhoodcouncil at gmail.com>

Date: Wed, May 29, 2013 10:35 am

To: inc-list at rtpnet.org

Cc: mike.e.king at usps.gov

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Good Morning,

>

> I have sent this out before, but I will send it out again, 
> particularly in

> light of Leslie Page's experience with the station manager in West Durham.

> The post office, contrary to Gloria's statement, does* not *get to 
> decide

> where the mailbox goes.

>

> The postal operations manual is available in PDF form at the National

> Association of Letter Carriers website :

>

> http://www.nalc.org/depart/cau/pdf/manuals/POM/POM_9--12_08.pdf

>

> The relevant section is Section 631.6, titled "Conversion of Mode of

> Delivery," and it partially reads: "Customer signatures must be 
> obtained

> prior to any conversion. In single family housing areas (including

> manufactured housing and mobile homes) where the residences and lots 
> are

> owned, each owner must agree to the conversion in writing. Owners who 
> do

> not agree must be allowed to retain their current mode of delivery. 
> When a

> residence is sold, the mode of delivery cannot be arbitrarily changed 
> prior

> to the new resident moving in. The existing mode of delivery must be

> retained."

>

> It is beyond frustrating that the local postmaster and station 
> managers do

> not enforce their own regulations despite repeated complaints.

>

> John Martin, President

> InterNeighborhood Council of Durham

> _______________________________________________

> Durham INC Mailing List

> list at durham-inc.org

> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20130529/dc1467b1/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 10:17:12 -0400
From: Pat Carstensen <pats1717 at hotmail.com>
To: Frank Hyman <frankhyman at liberatedgardener.net>, inc listserv
	<inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Subject: [Durham INC] FW: No Garbage Fee
Message-ID: <SNT134-W21B0A06973B6C412E12189D9910 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

I am forwarding a electronic copy of the PA position on the budget; a paper copy was passed out at the meeting on Tuesday.  
Regards, pat

From: Frankhyman at liberatedgardener.net
Subject: No Garbage Fee
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:26:12 -0400
To: pats1717 at hotmail.com

Hello all INC delegates and others, here's the text of the People's Alliance's position opposing the the city staff's proposed regressive garbage fee (that also does nothing to promote recycling).
I hope you can bring this before your neighborhood association board for consideration or at the very least share it on any email listserve that you think is appropriate. This proposal only came out in the press a few days ago and the council will likely make a final vote on the budget on June 17th. So time is short to protect middle class and working class neighborhoods from a fee that boosts income equality by favoring corporations and the wealthy (under the cover of helping the poor). 
The handout below is only two short pages. If you have any questions or would like someone to attend a neighborhood discussion on the issue, I would be happy to hear from you and answer your questions or find someone who could do that. 
My name is Frank Hyman, I'm a People's Alliance member  and work with our organization's Economic Inequality Team. You can learn more about this issue in an op-ed that will run in the Durham News this Sunday. And you can reach me at my cell 919-824-2239 or email at frankhyman at liberatedgardener.net.   
thanks ! Frank
Durham
People?s Alliance Opposes Garbage FeePeople?s Alliance has a long history of opposing regressive solid waste fees since at least 1993. City Manager Bonfield proposes to add an $18/year flat fee to raise about $1.2 million/year. The fee would appear on water bills of homeowners, home renters and occupants of small apartments (and likely small businesses) that use garbage carts picked up by city trucks. Corporations, businesses and larger apartments that use private contractors would not pay the fee. Bonfield says this would be ?fair? since those entities don?t depend on city trucks.But
there are five things wrong with this proposal.1)   It?s
regressive. A half-cent property tax increase would raise the same amount of money ($1.2M) but cost the owner of a $100,000 house only $5/year (vs.
$18).  Have a home valued above $360,000? You pay less with a fee; anyone below that pays more. Large corporations also win: a fee spares Southpoint Mall, for instance, from paying an additional $85,000 a year to keep our city clean. The fee undermines working families. It rewards the wealthy and
corporations.2)   It?s
a case of the regressive-fee-camel getting its nose under the working-family?s-tent. The proposed fee only covers replacing worn out city trucks. Doesn?t that imply it won?t be long before they bump up the fee to pay for recycling trucks? Solid waste salaries? The whole department? The
parks department too? Corporations don?t use that either.3)   It?s
not really a service fee. Someone who dumps tons of garbage pays the same as someone who generates little. So it doesn?t even create an incentive to
recycle.4)   Businesses
shouldn?t help pay for residential garbage collection? That begs the question:
?why should homeowners pay the cost of the fire department?s ability to manage tall building fires?corporations should cover that with a fee.? But we all benefit generally from city services and pay into a general fund for that
reason.5)
The idea that it?s ?fair? because only people that use the service are paying for it, is akin to taxing only parents for schools, since other people don?t have kids in the system. I don?t think this is a tax philosophy that we want to see grow.And a small property tax increase to cover the cost of garbage trucks could also be stretched just enough to cover the unfortunate hike on monthly DATA bus fares that the city manager has also put in this proposed city budget. People?s Alliance asks the City Council to turn down this regressive garbage fee proposal and cover the costs with a modest and fair property tax increase that saves working families a lot of money over time. Citizens can weigh in by writing to the council at council at durhamnc.gov and write in all caps in the subject line (so they see all the responses easily) NO GARBAGE FEE. Even just scrolling over their messages they'll pick up on that. If you can, please write them before Monday, June 3rd, when they will have a public hearing on the budget. Thank you.www.durhampa.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20130530/64060342/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

End of INC-list Digest, Vol 101, Issue 40
*****************************************