6.1. SR 06-09-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

should we decide to sell, in fact, it will decrease the value of our property because we would have to pay off the assessment at the time of the sale. I did not hear any mention of having better water or increased flushing power, either, so I am struggling to see what advantage there would with this, so called, "improvement". The only thing mentioned was the cost of a failed septic repair, which we would not have to burden if we had city sewer and water (I will discuss this argument in point 3). As for the homeowners who have failed septics: my home is on the comer of Concord and Mississippi and I have two neighbors with failed septics so this is a concern for me. There are laws regarding failed septics and these people should be required to make these repairs, at their own expense. One ofthe homeowners on Boston or Concord Street stated (in the public meeting) that they repaired their septic recently and did so without approaching the city to bail them out and assess the rest of the neighborhood for city sewer and water. I do not feel it is my responsibility to bear the burden of other people's problems. When my roof needed to be repaired, I did the repair without asking the city to take over roof maintenance in the entire neighborhood, at the cost of $20,000 to each homeowner. This may sound unrealistic, but there are neighborhoods that are run under a covenance that would require repairs to be performed in a timely manner or the covenance board members will hire a contractor to do the work, at the owner's expense. In my eyes, the motion that was brought to the City Council is along the same lines of proposing a covenance to govern the maintenance of each home in the neighborhood. You are looking to _impose a forced "improvement" to my home. Furthermore, this "improvement" has not been proven to be an improvement, where re-shingling or repairing of a fence