Translated: Every one will be billed monthly whether we use the service or not. No more “bundling” with neighbors. Two huge containers to clutter up our properties. Like it or not.

The continuous reference to “focus groups” made me wonder the reason for the public meeting. Once again, secret small cliques running the show in back rooms. The gentleman that called out about “we don’t trust the government” pretty much said it all.

Council members continue with their holier-than-thou approach of “we know what’s best” are clearly the problem and not the solution.

Nearly 500 people have signed a petition against city controlling our garbage pickup. The results of the Red Rock News poll indicated 71% were not in favor. And it seemed the poll taken at the meeting reflected even a higher percentage against.

And yet the royal highness’s will deny the petitions and RRN poll as not being official which is OK as long as they include their own phone survey. It has no more validity than the other two methods of public outcry if they want to be so analytical.

Point being: the public has already spoken and this lunacy of continuing to educate us (brainwash) should cease and desist. Why must this drag on for another month?

And what’s with the ongoing attacks on Robert O’Donnell? What’s the beef versus where’s the beef? Your attacks might serve better on a city council that is attempting to hold us all hostage to their way of thinking. Keep that in mind when they force you be be a vegan unless, of course, you already are one.

You keep saying that you are a smart guy well what’s it going to be boy, what’s it going to be???

The gentleman leading the meeting (that the City paid $20,000 to) talked and talked but said nothing with no facts. When asked by a lady (I don’t remember word for word) ‘now that we have paid $20,000 for this phase, what are the future costs?’ the answer was ‘there would be future costs that have been given to the city’. When asked if people not living here full time could call off the service and not pay for time not used, the answer was ‘it’s to early to look at that yet’. When asked if people sharing the service with a neighbor would be made to pay for individual service, the answer was ‘it’s to early to look at that yet’. This was the answer to many important questions.

While continuously referring to Queen Creek, a person asked why the gentleman’s figures were from 2007-8 and not more recently. The answer was a bit stumbled, but He said that He could call and find out. At which time I laughed and thought of Judge Judy yelling “Where did You think You were coming today!”

All in all from meetings, polls, etc. it appears that the Residents are telling those that work for Us that We are 75-80+% against the City controlling Our trash services.

I love how you’re into everything but feel that you’re wasting your efforts around city hall. Quite honestly, because of your keen financial observations and great wit, you should redirect your energy to the school board. Don’t you agree?

For someone who says that they went to the focus group you certainly came away without absorbing too much.

I went to the evening meeting and while I wasn’t happy with entire plan, many of your items above were addressed.

Wow, you’re still sharp as a tack, yes you are.

My own suggestion is to divide the city into districts, such as using 89A, uptown, chapel area, or whatever to create maybe 4 or so districts. Then put out bids for each district and not allowing any one company to win all bids. They claim Sedona is too small to divide and used Phoenix as an example where they suggested to them to use no less than 30000 homes for one division.
It appears they want to bill every resident for service, unless maybe they might have an exclusion for seasonal residents that might not be here for 6 months straight. This will create a burden to those that do not contract pickup now because they share a service with a neighbor or relative and have little trash to warrant weekly pickup. I suggested any contract be based on the number of houses currently getting trash service, not on the number of homes.

They claim their may be more jobs with the added recycling service but had no response when I asked about those that would lose their jobs from a company who did not win the contract. They only said they could probably get a job from the winner, but no concern over lost benefits, seniority, or change in travel time to work. Who is to say they could still get a job with the other company?
Overall, go to the large meetings, hear what they want to plan to do, express your opinions (including in a survey of questions about mostly recycling but also trash service in general, but they only have 100 survey machines).

a person who makes frequent complaints usually about little things Synonyms baby, bellyacher, crybaby, fussbudget, fusser, fusspot, griper, grumbler, kvetch, kvetcher, sniveler, whinerRelated Words bawler, bleater, moaner, ..

crybaby
Someone who CRYS over the smallest thing out of SELF PITY

heres another one for you which seems to fit well

Hypocrisy

a pretense of having a virtuous character ,moral belief, or principals that one does NOT REALLY POSSESS.

Doesn’t seem to me like you last post is correct .

Bullying!!!!?????

I think WSR. Made thier point ….. You sound like a crybaby

Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict.[1] Behaviors used to assert such domination can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion, and such acts may be directed repeatedly towards particular targets. Rationalizations for such behavior sometimes include differences of social class, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, appearance, behavior, body language, personality, reputation, lineage, strength, size or ability.[2][3] If bullying is done by a group, it is called mobbing.[4]

Bullying can be defined in many different ways. The UK has no legal definition of bullying,[5] while some U.S. states have laws against it.[6] Bullying is divided into four basic types of abuse – emotional (sometimes called relational), verbal, physical, and cyber.[7] It typically involves subtle methods of coercion, such as intimidation.

Bullying ranges from simple one-on-one bullying to more complex bullying in which the bully may have one or more “lieutenants” who may seem to be willing to assist the primary bully in his or her bullying activities. Bullying in school and the workplace is also referred to as peer abuse.[8] Robert W. Fuller has analyzed bullying in the context of rankism.

A bullying culture can develop in any context in which humans interact with each other. This includes school, family, the workplace, home, and neighborhoods. In a 2012 study of male adolescent American football players, “the strongest predictor [of bullying] was the perception of whether the most influential male in a player’s life would approve of the bullying behavior”.[9]