Re: Waste diversion issues
When it comes to waste diversion, I’m not opposed to pay as you throw. But, I am tired of the people who drive by and dump everything from TVs to their daily trash. I am thinking they don’t want to fill up their own trash bins or maybe they are from out of town. I also share with a four-plex that does not pay trash or water; the landlord does.
So, if I could have my own dumpster (like my recycle) to roll in my garage and have control of what’s in it — great! I keep my recycle bin by my garage and have already stopped rogue dumpers.
Narrowing networks, increasing costs
Re: Health insurance
Insurance companies create “networks” of doctors and hospitals. If we see a doctor that’s “out of network,” we pay more for that visit and the doctors, paradoxically, get paid less. Insurance companies happily pocket the difference.
It’s hard to believe such a scheme is legal, but it is. It’s called “surprise medical billing” and it gives insurance companies every incentive to narrow their networks in order to maximize their profits at the expense of patients, doctors and hospitals. The problem is especially bad for rural hospitals and doctors that are already on financially shaky ground.
Congress should eliminate this practice entirely, financially protect patients and insure the survival of hospitals and doctors in communities that need them most.
Modern-day western movie
Re: City administrator fight
Good for Mayor Roger Miller asking for a special election concerning the city administrator. Over the past 12 years, former mayors, city council members, business interests and powerful nonprofit organizations have lobbied for a city administrator form of government. Why?
The current city council has gone against the election results of the 2008 special election, and two additional general elections, which did not support a city administrator and decided to move forward with this form of government. The council has now run its course with a new Charter Ordinance 2202, strengthening the city administrator position and removing the check and balance of power that existed between the mayor and city council. This leaves Sheridan in the position of having an unelected bureaucrat who responds to the private interest of business leaders, powerful nonprofit organizations and the majority vote of four members of city council.
It is as if I am watching a modern-day version of an old western movie, where the powerful bring in a hired gun to subdue the people in order to protect their own personal interests.
The issue hopefully will soon be in the hands of the citizens of Sheridan, once again. The electorate must take up its right to decide whether it wants an elected mayor to be accountable to a citizen-run government or corporate-private interest influenced government.
As a personal friend of Mayor Miller, I have watched him fight this issue out of principal and integrity. I know from being present with Mayor Miller on many occasions over the past three years that many people in the community support him on this governance matter. He won his election in a landslide on this specific issue. I’ve witnessed people we know and citizens and business people we don’t know come up to Mayor Miller and tell him how much they appreciate and support his stance on this matter.
There is no doubt there is tension between the city council and the mayor when this issue arises. When I watch Sheridan City Council meetings online and in person, I have witnessed the city council members vote the opposite of what Sheridan voters have clearly stated over the past decade, even though several council members campaigned on the very promises of eliminating the city administrator.
Sign the petition to bring Charter Ordinance 2202 to a public vote, then demand that the council respect the will of the voters of Sheridan. It’s your government. It has fundamentally changed its method of governance over you and your family. You should have the right to decide that change.
Boston, Massachusetts (former Sheridan resident)