I'm having a tough time dealing with Conneaut's new street lighting assessment.
All governments, like all of us, are going through tough economic times and are trying to add to their treasuries where they can.
For Conneaut, it is assessing everyone $2 per month for street lights. So as not to have to send out another bill, it is merely tacked on to our water bills. We got our first assessment the other day and because it took awhile to get the process going, we owe $4 for two months.
To be honest, this shouldn't be any big deal. Heck, our water bill can vary up to $20 per month anyway, with no change in our water use.
But I am bothered by this street lighting assessment. We live in the rural, southern section of town. We have no street lights.
That I don't mind, although our first year out here I had to adjust to no trick or treaters. But the other night, driving home from work after midnight, there was a big old quarter moon hanging there in the clear sky like a painting, with no street lights to distract. It was rather nice.
Yet others 'in town' have street lights all around them and pay the same as me, sitting in the natural darkness.
I've been thinking about driving into town at night and sit under the street lights and watch them. But there are many problems with that. First off, it is boring. Second, I often don't get home until late in the evening and the last thing I want to do is hop back in the car and go somewhere.
Also, I would probably end up in somebody's front yard, looking at the lights. How long before somebody calls the cops?
Now the argument is even people who don't have street lights benefit when they go into town. That is pretty, pretty lame. My guess is 98 percent of the time I don't go into town at night. I am getting far less benefit than others.
And what about people who don't live in Conneaut at all but visit the city at night? Here I am, a city resident already buying locally to help create jobs, already paying taxes. Some schlump (my word) from Boise comes into town and can enjoy those fancy street lights for nothing? I suggest police stop them swarmy out-of-towners and assess them 7 cents for an evening of street-light service, the approximate rate I'm being charged for nothing.
The city's plan could cause a trend.
I pay roughly $20 per month for a Netflix subscription, getting DVD rentals by mail. Suppose I invited a friend or neighbor (if he or she could find our house in the dark) to watch a movie. That person would benefit from my Netflix account without paying. So using the great Conneaut Street Lighting plan, Netflix should charge everyone $20 per month, membership or not, in case a neighbor happens to watch a Netflix movie.
Attention Internet providers: Suppose you have Road Runner, Windstream or Suite 224 Internet and hook it to a wireless transmitter but don't password protect it. Suddenly your neighbors have free wireless Internet. So Internet businesses, better start sending a bill to everyone.
Heck, I've actually had guests with laptops and allowed them to hop on to my password protected Internet connection. (Don't tell anyone.) I pay. They didn't.
Attention National Geographic, Newsweek, Consumer Reports or even the Star Beacon: Is it not possible when a subscriber is finished with your magazine or newspaper, that person might give it to a neighbor to read? Wouldn't that neighbor then benefit without paying? Better send bills out to everyone, just in case.
Wow! The city of Conneaut could spark a real trend and help businesses improve their bottom lines. Of course, the people end up getting ripped off, but we are already used to that.
But Conneaut isn't the only city that may be starting a trend. Consider Ashtabula, where some employees who already are making up to twice what they would get in the private sector now want a $450 per month clothing allowance. Maybe, just maybe, this has all been misinterpreted. Maybe these people are having a hard time budgeting their money and want the city to do it.
So yes, they want the clothing allowance, but maybe it is so they know how much to spend each year on clothes. Then they would get a food allowance, a housing allowance, a utility-bill allowance, a car maintenance and fuel allowance, a leisure and recreation allowance, an emergency allowance, a miscellaneous allowance, a savings allowance.
And they get all of this in lieu of regular pay.
I've been told (I don't know from actual experience) that when you budget your money, you find you have more than enough. You just don't go beyond the budget. Without a budget, when you just pay as you go, you come up short.
So by compensating these people with "allowances" rather than straight pay, maybe City Auditor Michael Zullo wouldn't need $76,000 per year to live on and Council Clerk LaVette Hennigan wouldn't need $53,612. Paying her with "allowances" should cut that down considerably. Compare her salary to Conneaut's clerk at $5,500 per year. Yes, Ashtabula is a bit bigger, but not THAT much bigger.
Hey, in these hard economic times, we are told to think outside the box and that's what it looks like these communities are doing. If these ideas catch on, maybe they will some day be referred to in an economics textbook as the Ashtabula Model or the Conneaut Plan.
Why not take this column over to your neighbor to see what he thinks? Just charge him 50 cents for reading it and send me a quarter.
Lebzelter is special sections editor. E-mail him at bobleb@starbeacon.com, only if you are using your own Internet connection.
