Transfer Station funding (moved from new forum...)

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Postby RBarnes » Thu Feb 19, 2004 8:39 am

Dennis King wrote:I have noticed her posts on the school budget and it seems to me she has been belittled and atttacked for asking questions.


Dennis, have you ever heard the term it takes respect to get respect? Think about it.

You and Jeannine both have continued to post "fact" which when questioned are NEVER backed up and when proven wrong are not acknowledged as wrong. People get feed up have to explain again and again why you are wrong when you make absurd comments like saying we will only be paying $27 a year in taxes for the transfer station. If you were explained to once why you were wrong and accepted it that would be one thing but to look at facts which prove your claims to be incorrect and continue to make them anyway is why you are "attacked".

Jeannine has made a number of claims that we are over spending on our schools. It has been shown that Merrimack is BELOW average on spending for teachers salaries and BELOW average on it's per student spending. When questioned further about her comments she never responds. Same with her comments about her willingness to support Fran. She was given a laundry list of reasons against Fran and her response of why she would support her was it upsets people. If you outright say you will do things JUST to upset people then that alone says you aren't a nice person. Hence no respect.

And for the record there were a NUMBER of statements Jeannine posted that I have agreed with and I have pointed that out in my responses.

Dennis King wrote:People have different frames of reference and that is what makes life interesting. If I disagree with someone, I will try to reason with that person and if that is unsuccessful, I simply agree to disagree.


Dennis, you need to reread you posts, you have no problem implying someone is lying but then play victim when someone PROVES you to be wrong and in turns points you out as the liar (since you continue your claims even after being proven wrong).

Dennis King wrote:I also see the word LIAR plastered on this site in an atttempt to discredit my analysis of the numbers, even though I used the same numbers as Norm Phillips, only with different cost comparisions.


Dennis, you use SOME of the numbers posted by Norm and then incorrectly either pull up other wrong numbers or use incorrect math. It has been explained to you countless times why you are wrong in much detail and yet you continue to make the same claim. That is the textbook definition of a liar.

Dennis King wrote:Since the inception of this forum, I have been belittled because I wanted a mutual respect for each other. I have tried to respect others and find it is just not worth posting when I know that once again I will be attacked over an over again.


Dennis, your inability to back up your wild claims is why you are "attacked". For the record I have NEVER made any personal attacks on you. I have pointed out why you were incorrect and why after being shown you were incorrect your statements were lies. That is a statement of fact. If I made comments about how you look or such then I would say you have merit to your comments but the only thing being attacked are your incorrect statements. If you feel you should have the right to spout out right incorrect lies without someone calling you on them then I'm sorry I just have to disagree.

Saying we will only be paying $27 a year in taxes for the transfer station for instance is out right foolishness. It was explained in detail why you were wrong and yet you continued to spout again and again $27 a year in taxes. How else do you define someone who was proven wrong yet continues to make the same claim? And when called on it you play victim.

Dennis King wrote:I have often wondered what the forum would be like if a small number of posters were removed from the site. It might actually be a positive force for good in this town.


In other words what would it be like if you were allowed to spout lies and no one who ever called you on your lies were allowed to post?

Dennis, when I see you call out LT or DA when they start saying they hope the Lawrence Rd people can smell their trash or call the LR group names then I'll actually believe your sincerity but until then I don't by your martyr routine for a minute.

Dennis King wrote:I now expect a whole bunch of attacks from the "usual suspects" for simply speaking my mind.


The fact is Dennis, you are allowed to speak your mind. You can say whatever you want here, correct or otherwise.

Dennis King wrote:If you want to know my heart, watch Merrimack Matters on channel 22. I am trying to make a postive impact on this town and that is more than most of these naysayers can say.


Dennis, you remind me of one of those super religious people, do you know the ones I'm talking about? They go to church EVERY week. The get involved in their church groups. And yet they are the most hate filled people you could meet. They are the first to practice intolerance of anyone they disagree with. They are the first to attack and then just as you do, play victim when called on what they actually claim.

Dennis, if you actually backed up your statements and tried to show some level of proof to what you claim I would have a lot more respect for you but you don't. When shown why you are incorrect about something you either ignore it or play victim claiming you are being attacked.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Dennis King » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:13 am

Just this once I will respond to you RBarnes,

I recall using your numbers and simply adding in the revenue we were to get from the haulers to get this figure (frankly I'm not sure that is right but I just don't have the time to look it up), Anyway, I repeatedly insisted any numbers this year were only guesses and relied on the actual numbers for last year to make my analysis.

When new information such as the multiyear contract came to light, I adjusted my figures downward and expressed my displeasure that the former BOS did not represent the facts fairly.

Only after being baited over and over did I come up with estimated numbers for this year which I later dismissed when it became evident that the haulers were not going to use the TS which was MY EXACT COMMENT BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENED.

This is why these theorectical discussions make no sense. Still it does not prevent you from using parts of my comments to continue to brandish me a liar.

In your mind, a person who does not accept all of your viewpoint and then has the gall to see it another way is a liar. How sad for you.

You are now implying I am some religious holy roller and judgemental. Well, part of that is true. I do have values that I hold dear and they are based upon faith. I allow for each person to have his own opinion but that does not obligate me to share your opinion on things; I guess in your mind, that makes me "judgemental".

I find these posts to be tiresome as you clearly get some joy out of the attacks you make along with Mr. Fitzgerald. I do have to say that lately, Mark seems to have toned it down a bit (for him), and I do see that as a beacon of hope.

I am forever at the ready to engage in rationale discourse, unfortunately for you, I simply will not engage a person who will not debate but just calls a person a liar.

I wish you well.

Dennis
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:24 am

Believe me Dennis, the last thing on this planet that matters to me is your opinion of my "tone". When you finally crawl out from under that rock and admit that $1,000,000 are going to be needlessly spent in YOUR town to get rid of garbage, which totally contradicts your erroneous statements of a year ago, then maybe whatever else you have to say will be taken seriously. Until then it is all just white noise.

You now have the distinction of being the biggest supporter of the worst investment of MMK's public money in the last 30 years. Every, and I mean every, prediction that was made by CS supporters relative to what the solid waste marketplace would look like post-closure has been born out in only the first 60 days of operation. Your only hope was that the town would agree to operate the facility at a loss, but, to borrow your own egotistical line..."it ain't gonna happen". Imagine, a solid weaste program in the state's 7th largest community that only services 1/3 of the residents......absolutely idiotic.....and EXACTLY what you supported.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby Dennis King » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:28 am

I stand corrected on my comment of improved demeaner.

Dennis
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Postby Wayne » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:28 am

Dennis King wrote:Only after being baited over and over did I come up with estimated numbers for this year which I later dismissed when it became evident that the haulers were not going to use the TS which was MY EXACT COMMENT BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENED.

Dennis, could you please post your thoughts (over in the Solid Waste Topics section) on how to deal with the fact that the haulers are not using the TS? I know you are strongly against PAYT, lowering tipping fees just necessitates raising taxes, and funding the TS via taxes is unfair to those who don't use it at all. I'd like to hear your solution. Thanks.
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby Tom Williams » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:34 am

While I disagree with Dennis King's position regarding trash, I tend to agree with him that the way he is treated by Messrs. Barnes and Fitzgerald is over the top. Dennis' side of the discourse seems much more civil to me.

My opinion.
Tom Williams
"Treating businesses and affluent people as prey, rather than assets, often pays off politically in the short run-- and elections are held in the short run." -- Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Tom Williams
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:42 pm
Location: Merrimack, NH & Dunwoody, GA

Postby Dennis King » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:41 am

Wayne,
Funding the TS with taxes is unfair? How about the people who pay for the schools and don't have kids. How about the people who don't use the library, senior center, town welfare, and other such services. How about the inequity that a person in a condo may pay half the taxes of a home in town due to the higher values of those homes.

My point is we all pay for things we may never use in this town for the betterment of the town as a whole.

We simply do not have the numbers to determine the specific cost of the TS yet as labor cost will certainly decline if the usage does as well.

It may just be a lower cost alternative for those people in town (1/3 of them) who choose to self haul. We have people who have lost their jobs and other that live in trailer parks. Many senior are on fixed incomes and this certainly gives them a way to stretch those meager funds.

Lastly, this TS could serve us for 40 years or more (I have been told that just this thought is "hate speech").

Anyway, we just don't know what the future will hold and we may find our town ten years down the road praising the wisdom of the BOS.

For now, it is just too early to tell.

I am reminded of "Seward's folly",,, We now call it Alaska!

Dennis
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Postby Dennis King » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:46 am

Tom,

It can get lonely on this limb sometimes,

your kind words were most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Dennis
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Postby RBarnes » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:49 am

Dennis King wrote:I recall using your numbers and simply adding in the revenue we were to get from the haulers to get this figure (frankly I'm not sure that is right but I just don't have the time to look it up), Anyway, I repeatedly insisted any numbers this year were only guesses and relied on the actual numbers for last year to make my analysis.


Wrong Dennis, I pointed out the $110 the haulers pay does not cover the $125 per ton it costs the town. You took the figure 88% of which the haulers cover of the tons they bring in ONLY and used it against the FULL cost of the transfer station. I explain why the 88% of their own costs does not cover their FULL costs plus some countless times but you continue on with your incorrect statements. People can only listen to someone who's been corrected a dozen times for so long before frustration kicks in. I have been far more patient with you then I feel many others would have based on the claims you make even after being corrected.

Dennis King wrote:Only after being baited over and over did I come up with estimated numbers for this year which I later dismissed when it became evident that the haulers were not going to use the TS which was MY EXACT COMMENT BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENED.


Dennis, you claims of 88% covering not only 100% of the costs but costs BEYOND have nothing to do with the correct fact of the haulers not using the station.

Dennis King wrote:This is why these theorectical discussions make no sense.


Dennis, theory or not, 88% does not cover OVER 100% of the generated costs as you tried to claim.

Dennis King wrote:Still it does not prevent you from using parts of my comments to continue to brandish me a liar.


Dennis, to claim paying 88% of the cost per ton will cover not only that ton but additional costs as well is lying. If you really believe what your saying then you are ignorant but I don't think you are that stupid. I believe you have the intelligence to understand that 88 cents will not cover an item that costs a dollar and allow you change back. So that leaves only one other choice, you know your claim to be wrong and you say it anyway which would be definition make it a lie.

Dennis King wrote:In your mind, a person who does not accept all of your viewpoint and then has the gall to see it another way is a liar. How sad for you.


Dennis, it has nothing to do with my viewpoint. 88 cents doesn't add up to over a dollar. Nothing in the world will ever make such a claim true.

Dennis King wrote:You are now implying I am some religious holy roller and judgemental. Well, part of that is true. I do have values that I hold dear and they are based upon faith. I allow for each person to have his own opinion but that does not obligate me to share your opinion on things; I guess in your mind, that makes me "judgemental".


Dennis, you apparently didn't understand the point I tried to make.

Dennis King wrote:I am forever at the ready to engage in rationale discourse, unfortunately for you, I simply will not engage a person who will not debate but just calls a person a liar.


Dennis, when you can actually back up the claims you make and stop trying to make claims that 88% covers 100% plus some then I will stop referring to you as lying but until then I see no other way to define someone who claims 88 cents is MORE then a dollar.

If you would like me to supply a like to your exact quotes I would be more then happy since I do back up what I say with FACTS.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:50 am

We simply do not have the numbers to determine the specific cost of the TS yet as labor cost will certainly decline if the usage does as well.


This is an incorrect statement. The labor costs are fixed and are not impacted by usage.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:52 am

It may just be a lower cost alternative for those people in town (1/3 of them) who choose to self haul. We have people who have lost their jobs and other that live in trailer parks. Many senior are on fixed incomes and this certainly gives them a way to stretch those meager funds.


Translation: Its a welfare program.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby Wayne » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:53 am

Let's move this discussion to a solid waste topic please.
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:57 am

Tom Williams wrote:While I disagree with Dennis King's position regarding trash, I tend to agree with him that the way he is treated by Messrs. Barnes and Fitzgerald is over the top. Dennis' side of the discourse seems much more civil to me.


Tom the harshest claim I have ever made to Dennis was that he was lying. I never once attacked him on a personal level.

The reason I pointed out he was lying was when shown that the tipping fee cover 88% of the cost per ton generated ONLY by the trash taken in by the haulers he turned around and tried to claim the revenue from the haulers would cover 88% of the TOTAL cost. I explained why this was wrong and again he came back with the same claim that it would cover 88% of the TOTAL.

If an apple costs $1.25 and you have $1.10 your money will not allow you to pay for the full cost of your own apple AND that of someone else’s. Dennis made such a claim again and again.

How else would you personally describe that if it isn't lying? The only other explanation would be that Dennis truly believes that $1.10 would cover not only the $1.25 but allow him change back which would make him an idiot and I do think he is a above that. Since you view my comments as being “over the top” I would appreciate you’re explanation of how else Dennis’ claim can be viewed if not a lie.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:22 pm

For the record under the solid waste thread topic called “Transfer Station is now OPEN” you will find the following…

Jan 2nd 9:56am Dennis posted:
If we use the 125/ton figure just quoted and take the total TS budget and factor out the 88 percent that is paid by tipping fees at $110/ton, we get a net figure of $271,200 which is applied to taxes.

Now if you divide that by the number of households (based on 2001 SWAC minority report) the total single and mutifamily was 9,070 households; the total paid by the tax payer is $29.90/year or $2.49 extra per month. Now that is something to cheer about.


At 10:36 I asked Dennis to explain how if the haulers were only covering 88% of their OWN per ton cost how can he claim it covers 88% of the TOTAL cost.

At 10:41 Norm Phillips posted to Dennis regarding his claim:
This is not the whole truth, Dennis, and you must know it.


At 1:40 PM Dennis posted again after being explained why his logic was wrong by at least 3 different people:
Well now we know the tipping fees and based upon this we can now estimate a 1.5 million dollar savings in taxes over the CS.


At 2:10 I corrected Dennis yet again
“Dennis how do you come up with a 1.5 million dollar savings when we are paying $125 a ton and the $110 tipping fees aren't even covering the total amount due to the trash collected via haulers and then we have an estimated 7,500 tons from self haulers on top of that.

Your numbers are getting further and further from any reality and here you are once again claiming them to be factual and wonder why people call you a liar.”

Once again at 4:18 Dennis made the claim yet again:
The tipping fees pay for 88 percent of the costs.

The taxpayers only need to make up the 12 percent difference.

Compared to the CS option, we save 1,500,000/year.


At 4:38 I pointed out after Dennis was explained to a number of times why he was wrong that for him to continue saying this is a lie:
“LIE!!!!! The tipping fees pay 88% of the per ton amount brought in by haulers only. $110 is the per ton rate haulers pay. $125 is the amount per ton the town pays to transport the trash. Self-haulers pay NOTHING. Are you that ignorant that you think haulers paying only $110 per ton an a total cost of $125 per ton covers their share as well as the share of trash taken in by self haulers? Oh wait you are the same guy who things 2.26 million for the TS is 1 million a year cheaper then 1.8 million CS.”

“Dennis, if you really are this ignorant then I truly do feel sorry for you... if you think our having to pay 100% of self haul costs AND 12% of haulers costs subsidizing their businesses via our taxes saves us 1.5 million a year then I don't even know what to say to you any more other then I'm sorry, your wrong.

I doubt you’re this stupid though and the only other logical explanation is you are a bold face liar who cares nothing about the truth.”

And yet again he makes the SAME claim at 5:04pm
We pay only 12 percent of the cost.
12 percent of 2,260,000 is $271,200.


7:14pm I corrected Dennis yet again…
“For ever ton of trash taken into the TS regardless of it's source (hauler or self hauler) we pay an estimated $125 a ton. The town estimates to collect 18,000 tons (which I think is way to high but we'll use that for the math regardless).

We charge the haulers $110 per ton while the town has to pay $125 per ton even for those tons we only charge haulers $110 a ton for.

That's where your 88% came from... we pay 12% of the cost the hauler generate AND we pay the FULL COST of any trash taken in from self haulers.”

“For this town to collect $1,568,800 at $110 a ton tipping we would have to collect 14,261 tons from the haulers.

Face it Dennis, your wrong.”

“Dennis you basic calculation of 88% percent is way off based to begin with so your getting further and further from any factually claims.

2.26 million for the TS will NEVER be less then the 1.8 million we would be paying with CS no mater how wild you get with your lies.”

Dennis at 7:27 claims once again:
The TS tax impact is less than 300,000 so the 1.5 million savings came about when it is compared to the CS cost of 1.8 million (the first year).

I have already posted my analysis.

I expect most people understand it.

The TS saves us 1.5 million a year in taxes, it was a great choice.

It produces 88 perent of its revenue so we taxpayers only pay 12 percent of the costs.


7:46 I posted back:
“Dennis, if you fail to understand that $110 per ton when we as a town pay $125 per ton does not cover the first ton much less additional tons then you are a lost cause...”

And now today in this thread he once again acts as if he was correct even claiming that he was using my numbers.

Tell me, how else do you quantify such a person? I see only two options… either he’s completely ignorant and really thinks 88% of the per ton cost can actually be applied to the TOTAL cost or he does understand he’s wrong and continues to claim regardless which would be a lie. I don’t think Dennis is that stupid so I label him a liar. I’d be willing to change my opinion if someone can show me otherwise.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Tom Williams » Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:22 pm

RBarnes wrote:Tom the harshest claim I have ever made to Dennis was that he was lying. I never once attacked him on a personal level.


Rick, in my book calling someone a liar (in all caps, no less) is an attack on a personal level.

This debate about trash is, at the end of the day, a political debate. While I mostly agree with you, not Dennis, about the meaning of the numbers, I view the argument which won the day at the last election as nothing more or less than "spin", which is repeated over and over in political debates at all levels.

Is it lying? I think not. But even if you think it was, publicly calling someone a liar is clearly a personal attack. In my opinion, your side of the argument would be strengthened by attacking the issue instead of the man. Were he a gentleman of two hundred years ago, he would be compelled to challenge you to deadly combat (a duel) to settle the issue.
Tom Williams
"Treating businesses and affluent people as prey, rather than assets, often pays off politically in the short run-- and elections are held in the short run." -- Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Tom Williams
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:42 pm
Location: Merrimack, NH & Dunwoody, GA

Next

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron