Archive

ShareThis Page
Totally unjustified | TribLIVE.com
News

Totally unjustified

Tribune-Review
| Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:00 p.m.

The 63-percent increase in sewage rates for the residents of Unity is totally unjustified and a disservice to the township.

The Unity Township Municipal Authority did not explain well enough why it approved such a huge increase, other than to fund new projects. I believe it is also funding a budget shortfall. I feel the authority board has been irresponsible and has not planned or budgeted wisely.

I spoke to Mike O’Barto, Unity supervisors chairman, and he also is very upset about this increase. I called the authority office and spoke to Doug Pike, operations manager, who could not provide much of an explanation for the increase.

I feel the authority owes its customers more of an explanation as to why there is such a shortfall in its budget and what the costs are of the proposed projects that this increase is funding. There are approximately 7,200 residents in Unity; this amounts to over $1 million per year in increases.

Also, is the authority having meetings at 3:30 p.m. so it faces little opposition from the community? Why were residents given one month’s notice of the increase — so the authority would have less time to hear complaints?

It is very disheartening that these appointed officials appear to be so irresponsible. Perhaps it is time for new members to be appointed.

Angela C. Bumar

Unity

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.