They need to consider the public interest
I’m confused. Is it the Public Service Board or the Private Utility Bureau? Governors appoint members to the Public Service Board. I thought the board served the public interest.
Case in point, Jim Porter, telecommunications director for the PSB, serves at the pleasure of the governor. Mr. Porter is quoted more on the GMP/CVPS Smart Meter issue than company officials. I guess it’s his job to be spokesman for the company; after all it is communication.
The PSB approved the plan to bail out CVPS ($21 million) with requirements to pay back the bailout to customers. Then the PSB finds or creates a precedent to allow the company to keep the money and dole out a few bucks over time. This is supposed to implement so called energy saving programs. A sweetheart deal to say the least.
GMP/CVPS serves 80 percent of Vermonters, yet the utility is controlled by a Canadian company and we buy most of our power from Canada. Thank you, PSB.
Vermont Yankee -- still open -- sells all of its power to other states;, we just get the risk and runoff. Thanks again.
Wind power generation threatens property values (lowering). The PSB says we can apply for compensation -- who rules on this -- PSB? By the way, who will the Win Power Companies sell their power to, China?
I applaud the efforts of Sens. Bob Hartwell, Ann Cummings. Randy Brock and other members of the Finance Committee, Reps. Cynthia Browning and Tony Klein, who all worked hard to eliminate the $10 opt-out fee. Thank you, one and all.
The ACLU fought to require warrants for power bill data on customers.
On July 9, a New York Times front page article confirms drastic expansion and rubber-stamping of police requests for cell phone usage data in the last five years. Smart meter data will surely follow suit.
I strongly urge all to opt out of smart meters now. Save a Vermonter’s job. Come November, vote out politicians who appoint cronies and spokesmen.
RICHARD A. DAHM
Private landlords don’t receive the funding RAHC gets
Regarding the Banner’s article on the RAHC’s housing projects and the outrageous statements made by Mr. Broderick. It would do Mr. Broderick well to remember who funds his pet projects -- private property owners.
He bemoans the fact that private apartment rents are higher than his taxpayer-subsidized apartments and are not in as good condition as his taxpayer-subsidized units. Well, guess what, if private owners did not have to pay sales tax on every purchase, our rents would be lower too. If we had government grants to pay for improvements the properties would be in much better shape.
The rental property business is a brutal one. Between the never-ending stream of government regulations and a legal system that heavily favors the tenant over the property owner’s rights, it is amazing that anyone would choose to get into the business. Most of us try to provide clean, safe, affordable housing for medium- and low-income renters but the economics are tough. Every time the school boards and the select board spend money like drunken sailors, the landlords and tenants suffer economically.
Speaking for myself, I can’t raise rents fast enough to keep up with the tax and fee increases that our local boards pass each year. So I eat the difference. It sure would be nice to have a fat taxpayer-funded grant to do some improvements with.
I would like to note that all the purchases I make to improve my properties are made in Bennington. I don’t go to Brandon to look for help. As to Mr. Broderick’s claim that they used local contractors: Well, I sure saw a lot of non-local license plates on Benmont Avenue the last few months.