|
Post by Mary on Aug 30, 2007 15:17:05 GMT -6
I just can't wait to see the telephone service. How on earth did the parish ever pass an initiative that would allow them to gamble $ 100 million of our money and try to compete against companies like Cox and AT&T. There is no way this endeavor can be successful and actually make money without a cross subsidy of income from the utilities sales. We must be crazy to allow this. Where will Terry Huval be in 10 years ? Retired I'm sure. Who will get the blame for wasting money on fiber optic cable when wireless can be instituted so much more cheaply ? Durel will be gone as well. Who will deal with this white elephant ? Us taxpayers, that's who.
|
|
|
Post by Concerned taxpayer on Aug 31, 2007 6:23:02 GMT -6
The fact of the matter is AT&T and Cox can cut their prices to the bone. The rates set by the PSC for phone service ( and has LUS gone to the PSC for phone service to establish rates?) are for maximum rates. They could, I imagine, drastically cut rates for an extended period of time, where LUS could not as thier rates they are financed by bond holders.
AT&T and Cox could easily bury LUS if they decide to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Dorothy on Aug 31, 2007 21:07:43 GMT -6
I am not sure, but I think the whole LUS operation gets to avoid the Public Service Commission as far as rates because LUS is a government enterprise. They can charge whatever they must, and because of that inept court ruling, LUS can subsidize the fiber cable with our electric bill payments. That would seem to be a complete violation of the "fair competition" laws.
I do not think this is the same program that was sold to the public and passed so "overwhelmingly". If I had the money, I would sue and try and stop this debacle before it gets rolling downhill.
|
|
ij
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ij on Sept 4, 2007 7:50:24 GMT -6
Huval was saying that he wasn't ready to discuss hwat services LUS was planning to offer. I guess it's real secret techie stuff brewed up by the super dooper braintrust of durel and stanley. Now that is scary. Petshop boy and a news reader.
|
|
|
Post by zoe10850 on Sept 4, 2007 10:44:32 GMT -6
No, Huval simply thinks the public is too stupid to comprehend. Our water rates are going up already. Question: Does LUS not already make more money than the cost to provide water to the parish ? Why an additional profit ? Must we assume a rate hike on electricity is in the works ? I noticed the building to house the new phone company was about a million dollars over projection. It is safe to predict that that trend will prevail throughout the course of this ill advised venture.
He is actually blaming the hikes on people watering their lawns. Shouldn't you water dying plants or perhaps we should just let things go? Maybe we should only bathe every second day.
|
|
ij
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by ij on Sept 5, 2007 13:13:15 GMT -6
Now that we can sell booze next door to churches and schools why not open up a booth on school grounds? DLU might make a few bucks more. Isn't that all our LCG is interested in? making a few dollars more? Kids Alive would have whole new meaning then.
|
|
|
Post by zoe10850 on Mar 11, 2008 23:21:17 GMT -6
What is with the Parish Council ? Today Conque says parish is going broke. Did they not just tell us sales tax collections were up over 20% over the last year ? Why should the Sheriff give the parish a nickel from his budget when the jail building belongs to the parish. The parish does not even take care of the courthouse. Of course both buildings are in a state of disrepair; let your house go for 20 years without preventive maintenance and see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by ronnief on Mar 12, 2008 15:32:13 GMT -6
I am not a big defender of Doc Neustrom, but I say he is correct for a change, the Parish is responsible for the building, not the sheriff's budget. Cut out a little pork and let the parish honor it's responsibilities before they enter new ventures like fiber, cameras, pay hikes etc.
|
|
|
Post by ronnief on Apr 8, 2008 18:04:08 GMT -6
I read the editorial in today's Advertiser by our Sheriff. I was amazed at how he brushed off his surplus of $9 million and said if you wait until December it would only be $4 million. Glad he did not go to school in math.
I still agree that the jail is the Parish responsibility, not his, however, I know several deputies and most could use a raise from that money. That is what the taxpayers give it to him for.
|
|
|
Post by Dorothy on Jul 30, 2008 21:11:35 GMT -6
I am still boiing over that weditorial in the Daily Advertiser wherein the paper goes on and on aboput why we need a jail and how efforts to "reduce" jail populations through "work release" and other programs by the sheriff. Excuse me, but aren't those inmates sleeping in the jail and aren't they wards of the state and aren't state inmates they real cause of overcrowding ? I read that the new sheriff in Iberia plans on sending inmates back to the state. He just took office and figured that out already. What is the deal with our sheriff ?
And changing subjects, I heard on the radio a speech by Barry Hussein Obama that as Americans we should check the air in our tires and get tune ups for our vehicles. That will save energy and OFFSET any gains made by additional drilling offshore or in Alaska. Well, thank god for Obama. The energy crisis is caused by Americans driving around on under-inflated tires and cars that require tune ups. I am so glad someone has the intellect and insight to resolve that issue. I just made my husband go to the station and pump those puppies up. I can't wait to see the savings and the price of things plummet.
|
|
|
Post by ronnief on Aug 12, 2008 19:55:03 GMT -6
Well Dorothy, I too am happy that Obama has solved the energy problem and apparently he has the hot air available to fill the tires. What do you want to bet he tries to get a congressional subsidy for tune ups ?
And speaking of hot air, I was in the parish courthouse canteen the other day and watching some guy fighting with courthouse security because they made him undress to get in building. He calls the clerk of court and little pudge comes out and gets him in building past security, cell phone and all. Turns out, the guy is the clerk of court from Crowley. If you are a wheel, evidently rules do not matter.
I agree that the security is pretty useless and meaningless because all the officials park outside the courthouse in the same spot every day (when they actually go to work) and could be assaulted right there. Explain why the officials can bring in a cell phone and the owners of the building (us) cannot. What law is this and where did it come from. I am pretty sure there is no such authority to ban phones or cameras except maybe a courtroom.
|
|
bunny
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by bunny on Aug 23, 2008 23:37:09 GMT -6
Ronnie, we couldn't agree more in that favoritism ranks high at the courthouse. While some indignant officials are allowed to bring in their phones, the general public are either having to go back to their vehicles to place the phone there or they're hiding them in the bushes so they don't have to make that walk. And that general public includes some well known & respected attorneys who also have to pretty much strip & not have their cell phones on their possession. Bottom line, those who make the rules are the ones who break them & this is your answer, Ronnie. Furthermore, do the sheriff deputies work for the clerk The clerk takes possession of his indignant friend's phone - what kind of security is that - even the security guards do not take possession of ANYONE'S phone. Is the clerk an honorary sheriff's deputy??? So, what kind of authority does the clerk have over the sheriff; correct me if being wrong here, but it is our understanding that the sheriff deputies work for the sheriff.
|
|
|
Post by LisaS on Aug 27, 2008 17:30:14 GMT -6
Well Bunny; Favoritism is a little perk that one gets when one holds elected office. I suppose I do not have a problenm so much w/that, but I personally resent the fact that cell phones are not allowed in the Parish Courthouse or the City court. What is the deal, and I wonder exactly what law prevents a citizen from bringing in a phone. As for the camera telephones, is something going on that must be hidden from the public ?
I hope someone with a few dollars forces the issue and sues whoever stops phone entry. I believe there is a right to carry communication device except possibly in a courtroom. I would love to hear the excuse for the ban, especially in city court.
|
|
bunny
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by bunny on Aug 27, 2008 23:23:30 GMT -6
Lisa, I'm w/you on the right for people to carry a communication device such as a cell/camera phone in the court house perhaps w/the possible exception of the court room...I'm totally w/you on that. It's ridiculous that people cannot have them on their possession in the court house. People need to make phone calls. I'm fortunate in that my office is nearby but have seen other attorneys from out of town rushing out of the courthouse having to run to their vehicles to make an important call - just absurd, really !!!! What if a bomb threat would occur - hello? I've seen the courthouse employees escorted out of the bldg in such a case, whereas, the general public have no recourse because most often the parking lot is blocked off at this time...so, how are they going to call anyone to make an alert that their lives may be in danger? But the point is that since having a phone is against the rule, then the rule should apply to all (even though I am adamantly against this rule). And, as we know, the rules bend w/the wind for some dignitaries which makes people wonder what the hell is going on over there. Everyone is monitored w/the ceiling cameras recently installed at the courthouse .. so said for security reasons...yeah, right !! So, everyone is being watched, but then "everyone" is not allowed to bring in a phone to place a call. Something VERY wrong w/that picture !! It's time to start now for folks to get serious about the next election. How long can we, the public, allow this to continue. It's past time for people to quit complaining & do something about this.
|
|
|
Post by Dorothy on Aug 29, 2008 19:12:59 GMT -6
I think you girls are too fussy.
I think that the elected officials should have a doorman at the rear exit in a uniform so they do not have to open the door themselves. I think we should also spring for a thick red carpet so they do not have to walk on the hard surface of concrete. And whilst the clerk's employees are bowing, perhaps they could lay in the street so the officials can step on them and not the street. Once they are in the building, I think a deputy should escort them to a private elevator so that they do not risk an encounter with a irate phone-less citizen who would no doubt be in a poor mood because of undressing at the front door and being harassed by some burly deputy. Then, they could retire to the depths of their office, sheltered from the annoyances of ringing cell phones and complaining citizens. That is how it should really be. There is no justification for subjecting officials to the same treatment they exact on citizens; how irresponsible of us.
|
|