City bill policy not business-like


Recent issues of The New Era have had excellent citizen and editorial input and statements regarding the slamming of landlords for errant renters whose water/sewer bills become past due.

Since it is deemed “right” to demand the landlord pay the bill past due, it begs the question: Why did the City of Sweet Home allow a home dweller to go past 30 days due on an unpaid bill in the first place?

Every knowledgeable, well-established business negotiates a contract with a failure-to-pay-clause, in doing business.

Is the City of Sweet Home not a business? Are not the citizens of the City of Sweet Home the owners? After all, they pay the bills of operation.

All the City Council are the representatives of those owners.

What is the Sweet Home City Attorney, being paid by those citizens, doing to ensure the well-being of those same citizens?

This is still the United States of America; people being allowed to ride roughshod over the taxpaying citizens is something expected out of Washington D.C. or maybe even Salem. It is not something the United States Constitution supports.

As citizens we do have a legal standing; perhaps we need to contact our state representatives in Congress and ask some questions.

Is it possible The City Council of Sweet Home has decided your taxes are for their personal use, the funds are being allocated unjustly?

What appears to have happened is a well-meaning group of citizens who give their time to establish law and order, have reduced themselves to the chaos of government rulings that seriously punish their own funding system for infractions they caused in the first place!!

This is how injustice gets momentum and from there on the downhill slide of abuse through greed. Do we really want Sweet Home to show up as a group of citizens being used by sloppy government?

Bonnie J. Neal

Sweet Home