Comments for LCG to change funding mechanism for NGOs at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 21 out of 20 comments http://www.theind.com Mon, 20 May 2013 12:04:56 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8161 Holeinthedonut-- "community wants to offer services like help for the needy, cultural and educational services, medical assistance etc." You are making the classic leftist/socialist/fascist mistake--the community is not the government. The government is often a detriment to the community--a necessary evil. You see a "service the community should offer", and immediately assume that government should coerce its citizens to provide that service through force of law--a classic non sequitur. Unempirical Observer-- So the government used tax dollars to build this utilities infrastructure--phone poles everywhere in this case. Then they charge people for the services provided on those poles. Then they charge telecom companies for the privilege of providing telecom service on those poles, which ends up as another line item on the person's bill. Cox is ultimately charging you the "fee" assessed by your government, to use the poles that the city taxed you to build in the first place. You don't see a problem here? And that is exactly the kind of "prudent, pragmatic, modern thinking" that has given government a bad name with free men for centuries now. What you call "social, economic and environmental progres" is just modern drivel for the same old corruption that has hobbled free societies for thousands of years now. - ragin_cajun Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:39:50 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8137 replying to written by ATP-Pollster , June 07, 2010 Since you seem to know me why not check my answer it for me. As for my opinion or pro and cons on the issue. I think those services will be offered. Who pay depends on how the community wishes to operate. Some empower government, some empower churches, some empower NPO;s, some let criminals have their way. So I think Lafayette wants to provide those services. The fact that you think something criminal is afoot doesn't really address the issues does it. Please check yes or no to my survey. Do you agree that our community wants to offer services like help for the needy, cultural and educational services, medical assistance etc. If yes, which crooks and cronies do you want to deliver those services, the crooks we have now or crooks you choose? as you certainly know, they're ALL crooks. - Holeinthedonut8 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:05:47 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8134 NGC,Ten, you can go on assuming all you want, but all the presuming in the world won't bear your assertion to be correct,I have no priviledge, access or stroke with anyone. My palms and fingers could be no more teflon than they are. Ooops, do I owe Dupont money for using their brand name anti-stick coating product as a reference? Dangit. As for this talk about funding and percentages, as holeinthedonut pointed out, the Franchise fee, is basically a tax/fee, it's a rental charge for using public property right of ways rather than utility companies having to find their own right of ways to run services. (that's why LUS regular has an ILOT contribution to COL general fund) These telecom outfits are assessed a fee based on subscriber purchases, hence the percentage on yo' bill. Durel is just showing his inclination as many elected officials do, to create dedicated funding sources for expenditures. To be honest, I think we should honor our intentions annually to everything out of a general fund. Elected leaders tend to go the other way to stop the politicization of these issues. That's exactly what's happening here. When the conservatives of the dark ages actually mount a comeback and take over the Mayor's office, the you can slash and burn all you want, but as our record in Lafayette has shown for decades, we have been open to a certain amount of prudent, pragmatic, modern thinking towards the role of local government in being the instigator for meaningful social, economic and environmental progress despite what all the grinches say, no matter how strong their desire to go back to a 2-bit horse and buggy town, (though the modern paradigm would a conservative contractor paradise land of endless freeways down johnston around, looping everywhere, so all could drive out to their 2 acre estate subdivision lot in the "small" towns in only 5 minutes flat!) Again, I say ARGH! - Unempirical Observer Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:25:23 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8130 Ben. Just make sure when you pass out the money, they know who to thank at votin time. Never forget to remind them who ta thank. Keep ya man with votes and ya will always have a job. - Mista Edwards Tue, 08 Jun 2010 18:46:00 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8126 The funny thing is, the lackeys laugh all the way to the bank, As Unempirical Observer says " Only wing-nut isolationists, know nothing tea-totalers seem to be unhappy with him across the board on just about every issue he engages in "........ That is undisputed Mr. Know-nothing Observer , and i assume you are one of the priviledged few with your sticky fingers in the same basket as Joey and his business Cronys, for every Parish project,the skim fills the bill, right Sticky Fingers ? - NOTORIOUS GENTLEMANS CLUB,TEN Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:05:26 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8118 you would be surprised - what they say - - whisper Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:10:01 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8116 written by Holeinthedonut8 that's 5% but LCG only charges 3% because somehow your cable bill is lower because cable company pays lower rent. I didn't notice. -------------- That is the problem, a little here, a little there, and it adds up. - Get out of my pocket Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:45:15 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8114 All 9 councilmen are brand new as of 2009. 8 were new electees in 2007, with the remaining member elected in 2003 and 2007 choosing to resign mid term. So all 9 are 1st termers. Durel had no opposition because the Democratic Party in Lafayette is rather weak in party development and candidate recruitment for local elections. Many people applauded Durel's performance, across the political spectrum. Only wingnut isolationist, know-nothing tea-totallers seem to be unhappy with him across the board on just about every issue he engages in. - Unempirical Observer Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:36:07 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8107 How do Durel and the council get elected? Durel ran unopposed? What about the council? How many of our council members are new, and how many were re-elected? Just curious. - ragin_cajun Tue, 08 Jun 2010 08:49:57 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8101 Oh Goody - now it will be even harder for the public to find their money. And the council will be able to blame all that spending on Ben. ;-) That's called changing the process for sure! Ben (who's not elected) gets to pick 5 (who are not elected) and spend all that taxpayer money. The added bonus is they never run the risk of getting voted out of office! This is a very smart plan. - Yep that's smart! Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:17:01 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8098 "social service costs typically engage in other externalized societal costs incurred"--Huh? At least the people who are grumbling are doing so intelligibly--well, most of them anyway :) - ragin_cajun Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:53:02 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8095 Argh Argh Argh, grumble grumble grumble. Is that all people say on here? A bit of perspective... once upon a time, the Franchise Fee collected by Cox Communications and it's predecessor, TCA, was turned over to City of Lafayette, Parish of Lafayette, later LCG (and maybe the small towns too), which then became dedicated funding for the other AOC (Acadiana Open Channel). As the franchising authority, these entities had required and allocated PEG channels, Public Educational and Governmental channels. AOC received at one time I understood, the full amount collected. Former councilmen about 10 years ago disliked this arrangement, having specific problems with the nature of the free speech being offered on AOC programs submitted by persons in the community who were engaging in critical political commentary. All dedicated funding for AOC was stripped, necessitating the current process whereby AOC gets funding annually, and cable tv subscribers are encouraged to call and request the option to pay 50 cents extra to support AOC, who is currently as I best understand it, the non-exclusive licensee of PEG programming. AOC has a longstanding role in the community since about 1982. We have seen that it occupies the former Lafayette Public Library which it shared with the Arts Council for years, and it is now as this paper has reported I believe, preparing to relocate downtown as the former Central School site is to be razed for new private development. At any rate, I'd like the commenters on this article to consider that ROI on social service agencies should be considered, not only ROI on cultural resource agencies. It may be harder to quantify than the arts, but social service costs typically engage in other externalized societal costs incurred, essentially negated costs returning on investment rather than proceeds returned on investments from the arts. Ultimately, both sets of institutions are conservers of society and culture, social and economic stability. Many of these agencies take on roles with greater liberty for decision making and techniques with greater flexibility than would public agencies, with perhaps a more familiar personal touch than a weird austere bureaucracy could effect. - Unempirical Observer Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:07:22 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8094 "Holeinthedonut, thats one more hole you have, than the norm ! You Have To be A Career NGO'IST, you blow a-lot of Smoke, and never say much of anything, nor do you offer your mind-set, to the subject matter at hand.....Do you have any Pro's / or Con's, regarding the tax-payers funding Joey and his cronys pet NGO's: Please take the time to fill out this, Acadian-Tax-Payer sponsored mini-questionaire...... Please Check__ yes/__NO. Please do not offer any personal-biased opinions. this is a formal tax-payer funded study. - ATP-Pollster Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:46:07 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8093 The fact remains that all, every do-little-neer honestly, employed NGO Administrator, comes from a long line of, " Old-Name Family easy riders on TAX-PAYER funds, " Durel sure caved in to his cronys demands to share the wealth with their inbred familias " and for Durel to allow the inbred social-lilys to continue gorging as always with the assistance of the present Parish Administration making room for all the Couillion Couzans, and Spouses of Council Members, their Children, their Brother-In Laws, sister-in laws. Ay, similar to Conrad Comeaux's Family's case with the endowments just gushing from the Parish Administrators for lil conrad layin-down and rolling over,"Oh How Sweet It Tis !!!!! Durel the only DA's you polled on their acceptance of the Parish Tax-payers carrying these, " Old Family-tied NGO's are your Lackeys, and Groveling Inbred NGO's ADMINISTRATORS, BOOK THAT! - MR. & MRS TAX PAYER-Full Employed @ 75 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:12:16 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8092 Just for the record, Franchise Fees are paid by cable companies, among other users of public property. You could call it rent if the lobbyist hadn't been able to spin it as a tax. The cable company will charge the maximum the customer will pay...period. This is not a strict "mark up from expense" business. IF they pay "rent" or franchise fees that money at least comes back to lafayette. If you don't charge the rent the cable company still charges mom and pop the max and pockets the "free rent" You'd be fool not to make this as high as the law allows---that's 5% but LCG only charges 3% because somehow your cable bill is lower because cable company pays lower rent. I didn't notice. - Holeinthedonut8 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:03:21 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8091 There is a reason why it's NON GOVERNMENT. - No No No Non Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:42:05 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8087 I Noticed some folks seem pissed-off!! - I Noticed Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:32:25 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8085 Ben Berthelot seems well qualified for this task. He's served as a butt-kisser to Durel and the Lafayette elite crowd for the majority of his professional life. Gets a pretty nice salary for such a position. - Boondoggle Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:52:25 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8083 NGO's should get nothing, nada, zero. These funds are used to support the personal hobbies or incomes of the worthless. Millions for potholes but not one cent for NGOs. - Know Weigh Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:50:44 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/6360-lcg-to-change-funding-mechanism-for-ngos#comment-8081 Nice try, Joey. "Franchise fees" on Cox and LUS Fiber are ultimately passed down to the consumer. It might even end up being a line item on your bill, like all the federal taxes you see on your cell phone bill. So although it looks a little different, it's still taxpayers paying for charities that are, by definition, not part of the government. This just makes Cox and LUS Fiber the tax collector instead of City-Parish govt. And there's a "panel", appointed by Berthelot, which promises to further muddy the waters--not a good idea, either. Now, instead of the annual NGO debate in open, public council meetings, there will be NO debate in obscure panel meetings. I'm sure the council will welcome this opportunity to squelch discontent from their constituents. How about if Durel and the council get together and come up with some spending cuts to pay for this line in the budget? Pass a resolution that says that the franchise fees will be cut by $450,000 per year, the $450,000 NGO spending will be paid for by cuts in the City's budget, not the parish budget, and every increase in NGO spending in future years will be balanced by additional cuts to the administrative budget. Or better yet, just cut the budget and outlaw spending city-parish tax dollars on non-government organizations. - ragin_cajun Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:19:13 +0100