An elderly neighbor told me she had written a letter to Pacific Power that will be cc’d to the Public Utilities Commission to explain that she’s paying the smart meter opt-out fee “under duress.” Making such decisions is not “choice” but coercion or extortion, should PP decide to disconnect her power if she doesn’t pay the fee.
Pacific Power doesn’t seem to care about the poor or disabled when it comes to their “opt-out” penalties in their smart meter policy. So far, they’ve made clear how they will not “discriminate,” per the last PUC meeting on Nov. 6 and a town hall meeting with them here. They have openly stated they will “make no exceptions” for anyone, not even in “cases of medical risks.” So people now have to face a cold winter and threat to their health and safety if they lose power.
PP claims the muscle and sophistication of smart meters, boasting about the “highly encrypted” and complex monitoring system, yet they apparently can’t or won’t have enough technical savvy to provide in their billing for the infirmed or destitute, who are afraid of the meters and will now have to worry about their health and safety.
Know what you’re getting
Regarding recent cannabis studies and discussions, these make no differentiation between the sativa (mental high) and indica (body high) dichotomy. Some folks don’t think or know the difference, and this is a huge loss.
Legalization means it’s not mixed with other street drugs, greatly improving quality, and allows for explicit identification: Now you know what percentage sativa, indica, THC, CBD, etc., you’re getting. All of these elements are important in determining the success of the individual experience.
Different combinations work for different people, different combinations do not work for different people, discretion is advised. Most folks have better results with indica-dominant cannabis.
Within the cannabis community, sativa is known to cause mental issues; this is something everybody should be aware of now. Some advocate for abstinence, but not everyone is going to stop using any given substance, so let’s educate them about their intricacies whenever possible.
Which is it?
The city of Ashland wants it both ways — at least they say they do. For instance, the much ado about affordable housing.
For decades there has been no “affordable housing” in Ashland. Lament all you want; minimum or service-industry wages make it difficult to afford an Ashland home sans outside financial help. The city forces developers to include “affordable housing” in projects, then imposes fees and restrictions defeating the objective.
The same Ashland officials concerned with high housing costs are about to slap an additional $1,000-per-unit systems development charge on new construction. That will really help.
Remember the concern about high rents from Ashland officials? The voter-passed, $100 million school bonds will add about $20 monthly to the rents paid by all tenants in Ashland.
School bonds that address real needs are legitimate. But the purpose for said new bonds appears to be largely cosmetic. You’d have to be on cloud nine to believe the quality of education will improve.
So, which is it, Ashland?