Letters to the Editor

Service savings?

September 17, 2011


To the editor:

After reading commissioners’ comments concerning changes to the citywide trash collection practices envisioned, I wondered, “Why is it that each ‘progressive’ idea/program put forth by the city ends up costing its residents more money?”  The new proposals for trash pickup and recycling are expected to increase monthly bills by $5 to $8 or more. Where are the savings from automation, reduced staff needs and reduced landfill costs? Where is the inclusion of existing services?  Where is the city providing a competitive product?

It seems as though the city is trying to create a monopoly, where it can charge what it wants. I guess it needs the extra funds so that it can transfer them to other departments that have overspent their budgets.  Mind you, those funds never get returned. I recycle with two groups and don’t need the city telling me what to do about it.

Having gone through my utility bills lately, I find that some of them carry charges as high as 35 percent in fees (taxes).  I need another fee (tax) to help balance my budget.

With home values (a main source of income for the city) not expected to show any increase for the next two to three years because of the glut of foreclosed properties on the market, the city should be looking to economize, as its residents have, and not be so eager to dip into their pockets again and again.

P.S.  Every charity should line up for its $100K from the city and county. Their needs are more pressing than the “community theater.”


cher1 2 years, 7 months ago

What was their reason for refusing to print your letter? Seems very informative to me.


Les Blevins 2 years, 7 months ago

Ken and Lawrence are residents.

Here below is a letter I submitted the Journal World seemingly refuses to print.

Aug. 19, 2011

To the Editor;

The US has tied its yearly record for billion-dollar weather disasters with over four months of the year remaining and the cumulative tab from floods, tornadoes and heat waves has hit $35 billion, according to the National Weather Service. Add to this the losses from things like oil spills and we can begin to see about how much it’s costing the U.S. to avoid creating millions of new jobs in the clean energy industry, jobs that could be created if we simply declared war on the human induced climate change that weather scientists say tends to either produce or make stronger many of the extreme weather disasters. So how much is it costing the American economy not to declare war on climate change and create those several million jobs? I estimate, although I have little data to back up my conclusions, that it is costing the American economy around $50 to $60 Billion annually to avoid the economic recovery we all hope to see coming and that if realized could pump another $50 to $60 Billion into the U.S. Treasury that could be used to reduce our national debt. So I say that would amount to about $100 Billion to $120 Billion annually it’s costing the American economy to put off what we need to do. Why do we do this? Because the monopoly fossil fuel and power generation industry holds our elected representatives in Washington and in Kansas in the palm of their hands with the power of all the money they extract from the American public. Les Blevins 1207 N 1800 Rd. Lawrence, Kansas 66049 785-842-1943


Les Blevins 2 years, 7 months ago

Thanks for this well written positin/letter Ken.

Garbage is finally receiving recognition on a global scale. More so, municipal garbage, the formidable stuff few of us care to talk about at a cocktail party, unites for the common good the renewable energy and the sustainability camps. For the most part, renewable energy advocates focus their attention on power generation via solar, wind, hydro- and geothermal, and are less concerned with improving energy efficiency within the current infrastructure. The latter was the primary mission of the sustainable energy movement. Now here comes a copious nuisance and potentially harmful by-product of everyday living, with its ability to be incinerated or gasified to generate steam, turn a turbine and generate electricity and when it’s recycled for this purpose has true economic value and societal benefits. And the best place to convert low value materials into higher value materials is as near where they are generated as is practical and feasible.


Commenting has been disabled for this item.