Looks like DV will get his wish, sewers on Hamburg St.  OK, not all that bad of an idea if businesses want it, and sure, it should be done at the same time as the rest of the project.

But the story says it will cost the residents (many on FIXED INCOMES) a WHOPPING $1,200 per year.    

I'm curious if it is an absolute mandate that private residences hook up to it.  A sentence says, "...for those to tie into it..." so maybe it's optional for private residential properties.   And it references possibly side streets becoming part of this sewer district.  

But if it's a mandate, an answer is required as to how homeowners, particularly those living on Soc Sec, can afford that.  Certain elderly get lavish pensions plus their social security that their income exceeds that which makes them NOT eligible for Senior STAR exemption, and rich enough that can afford close to a half million dollar mortgage; if they lived on Hamburg they would well afford such a cost.  But what about the normal elderly people?

Between Curry and the bridge on Hamburg St., there really aren't THAT many residences ... right?

Correct Harry, but if the side streets are added that will add a lot of residences into the mix and into the system. Is the towns municipal waste system able to handle that many more "hookups" I thought we were near or at capacity already. Also depending on how far down the side streets they go that could greatly expand the number of homes.

Knox
Fasula
Stoodley
Howell
Miller
Arlene
William
May
Campbell
2nd 3rd 4th and 5th
Argo
Cardiff
Careleon
Chepstow
Caldicott

I don't know this for a fact....but I thought that had to be brought up for a vote FIRST....yes?

isn't that what the high bridge residents did when time warner was moving in....and the folks voted it down.

I could be wrong....so anyone...jump in.

I'm not saying it's a good idea or not....I don't have a horse in the race.....but is it legal to MANDATE sewers?

Quoted from mikechristine1

But if it's a mandate, an answer is required as to how homeowners, particularly those living on Soc Sec, can afford that.

we know many folks who live in ROTTENdam who are on ss only.....they pay 'next to nothing' in both school and property taxes. we know a few that pay NO property tax and $200 in school tax.

so I don't know how this would effect them.

the folks at the 'senior gossip center' should have all the scuttle butt on that issue.

Quoted from RPEGCL

Correct Harry, but if the side streets are added that will add a lot of residences into the mix and into the system. Is the towns municipal waste system able to handle that many more "hookups" I thought we were near or at capacity already. Also depending on how far down the side streets they go that could greatly expand the number of homes.

Knox
Fasula
Stoodley
Howell
Miller
Arlene
William
May
Campbell
2nd 3rd 4th and 5th
Argo
Cardiff
Careleon
Chepstow
Caldicott

Last I heard, they increased capacity by 40% a year or so ago.  Don't know that for certain, so surely don't quote me.  Yes, IF the side streets were added - but that's an IF.  This looks more like a trunk line, a forerunner to a broader system later on.

Maybe after the trunk is in, the hookups and policy can be voted on.  Right now, to me, this looks like a huge gift from the state (as far as timing of the project) that could potentially save the town thousands of dollars (if not more) versus doing it later on.

I don't have a horse in that race either, but it's still the town .. and if you live here, it will affect your taxes - and if you live on Hamburg St (for now) - it'll increase your home valuation as well.  As an added bonus - it will also attract more businesses!

So, for me - this gets a huge thumbs up!

Quoted from bumblethru

is it legal to MANDATE sewers?

Is it LEGAL to MANDATE health insurance?

Quoted from bumblethru

I don't know this for a fact....but I thought that had to be brought up for a vote FIRST....yes?

isn't that what the high bridge residents did when time warner was moving in....and the folks voted it down.

I could be wrong....so anyone...jump in.

I'm not saying it's a good idea or not....I don't have a horse in the race.....but is it legal to MANDATE sewers?

I seem to remember something along that line too.  But were there sewers still put in for Time Warner?  

But yes, that's also why I think that the residents voted down being a sewer district because of the high cost to them.  So maybe every Hamburg St would have a choice, hopefully, and that's why I noticed the phrase in the story "if.....tie in.....cost....."

Quoted from bumblethru

we know many folks who live in ROTTENdam who are on ss only.....they pay 'next to nothing' in both school and property taxes. we know a few that pay NO property tax and $200 in school tax.

so I don't know how this would effect them.

the folks at the 'senior gossip center' should have all the scuttle butt on that issue.

The property tax is calculated based on the assessed value of the house, and those who are super low income get the low income exemptions and senior Star.   But then some people, like a air of 80 + year olds have such a HUGE taxpayer funded pensions and SS that they get no exemptions, not even the Senior STAR.

The sewer cost would NOT be reduced by the senior exemptions.  Sewer is a FEE and not part of any exemption program.  So the poorest seniors would still have to pay the $1,200.  AND while the property taxes are tax deductible, the sewer fee would not be deductible.  IRS rules are that the ONLY "tax" that is deductible is that which is determined based on the value of the property.   But flat fees are not.

So CLEARLY for residents, the cost is prohibitive for most.  People pay about $150 every 3 years or more to have a septic tank pumped out, but in those three years the people would be mandated to pay a whopping $3,600!!!!    Yes, again some rich elderly could afford it if they lived on Hamburg, thanks to living off the taxpayer dole (it's all public information by law so anyone can find out).    

And some people may have put new septic systems in maybe in the past 5 or 10 years, so, what, that would be a big loss of money, certain the town would not reimburse them.

I don't think sewers would make residential properties increase in value, just look at Schenectady, they have sewer fees (lower than this) and other fees and home values there have always been less than Rotterdam.   The expense of owning a house affects it's value.   If there is a mandated expense of $1,200 per year in a non tax deductible fee vs $150 cost every three years, are you willing to pay a higher price for a house if you have to pay exhorbitant fees?

Sewer lines can be mandated for a variety of reasons such as public health concern or environmental concern.  
However, I don't have any reason to think or believe that the town will require residents on side streets to hook up to a sewer line if one is built along Hamburg Street.
Personally, I believe that the person(s)/personalities that created this thread through out the "this is an unfair mandate" bloody flag just to cause trouble.

I can tell by the title of the thread that the person(s)/personalities doesn't actually intend to have an intelligent discussion of the topic.  It is another asinine cry for attention.  But for the record - I would NOT pay for any other homeowner/property-owner.  They should bear the cost of bringing their property into the 20th century in regards to infrastructure improvements.  I'll take care of my own properties.

Furthermore, I am extremely certain that being on a public sewer line will increase the value of a property - both commercial or residential.  If one has to have a septic system, one has to set aside an area large enough for the system --rendering that portion of the property virtually unusable for any other useful purpose.  I know for a fact that several parties were interested in purchasing the old bowling alley property on Hamburg Street and walked away because a septic system would "tie up" too much of the property.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Furthermore, I am extremely certain that being on a public sewer line will increase the value of a property - both commercial or residential.  If one has to have a septic system, one has to set aside an area large enough for the system --rendering that portion of the property virtually unusable for any other useful purpose.  I know for a fact that several parties were interested in purchasing the old bowling alley property on Hamburg Street and walked away because a septic system would "tie up" too much of the property.

You believe that higher taxes and fees makes a property worth more?   Proof you do not own ANY property ANYWHERE.  

And explain why a septic system renders space unusable?   People can set up a swing set for their kids on top of the septic system.  People can set up a trampoline on top of it.  People can erect those screen houses with picnic tables and outdoor furniture on top of the septic system.  We have large pool in our yard, we have a deck, a screen house, the kids had a swing set years ago.  Kids when young ran around and played on top of where the system is.  They put blankets down to lie out in the sun.  They even put up a tent a couple years.  Our yard is only about 75 x 75 We even had an outdoor clothesline on top of the septic system.  Again, your lack of knowledge is proof positive you are not and never have been a property owner.  Your lack of knowledge of the FACT that high expenses, fees and taxes, on a house does NOT increase the value of the house but causes the value to be lower.   Any one with a brain would know that two identical houses, one with a septic system and a cost of $150 every three year (i.e., $50 a year) would sell easier than a house which required a non-tax deductible $1,200 annual fee every year ($3,600 for the same three years of septic cost of $150).   Just like the FACT is the high taxes in Schenectady city cause home values to be much lower than places where taxes are lower.  

Quoted from mikechristine1

You believe that higher taxes and fees makes a property worth more?   Proof you do not own ANY property ANYWHERE.   No, I do NOT believe that higher taxes or fees make a property worth more nor did I say that.  I don't need to prove anything to you about my personal business.  You just prove over and over again that you are petulant troll.

And explain why a septic system renders space unusable?   People can set up a swing set for their kids on top of the septic system.  People can set up a trampoline on top of it.  People can erect those screen houses with picnic tables and outdoor furniture on top of the septic system.  We have large pool in our yard, we have a deck, a screen house, the kids had a swing set years ago.  Kids when young ran around and played on top of where the system is.  They put blankets down to lie out in the sun.  They even put up a tent a couple years.  Our yard is only about 75 x 75 We even had an outdoor clothesline on top of the septic system.  Again, your lack of knowledge is proof positive you are not and never have been a property owner.  Your lack of knowledge of the FACT that high expenses, fees and taxes, on a house does NOT increase the value of the house but causes the value to be lower.   Any one with a brain would know that two identical houses, one with a septic system and a cost of $150 every three year (i.e., $50 a year) would sell easier than a house which required a non-tax deductible $1,200 annual fee every year ($3,600 for the same three years of septic cost of $150).   Just like the FACT is the high taxes in Schenectady city cause home values to be much lower than places where taxes are lower. Legally - You can't have anything permanent over a septic system. Driveways, parking lots, storage sheds, decks, etc.  So having a septic system does decrease the useable area of a property -- which would certainly be of concern to a business person or developer as well as many homeowners - and would certainly decrease the value of the property.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

But see, you are NOT a property owner, you do not understand this.  In the CITY the home values are SUBSTANTIALLY less than in the town, because they have high sewer fees, but typically about $300 per year.  PUt sewers in the town and the news reports a whopping $1,200 per year.  That's vs emptying out a septic tank for about $150 every three years.

Gee what would YOU rather pay?   $50 a year or $1,200 a year.


Granted you're not going to put a permanent driveway over it.  Gee, there is NOTHING permanent about a garden shed.

And our tank and drywell takes up about 600 square feet out of about 14,000 of the lot.  We have TONS AND TONS of room in the yard for a deck, a pool, a garden shed, we did have a swing set when the kids were younger, we have the screen house with the table and outdoor furniture in it for the buggy nights.  We have two handsome trees in the yard too.  

Having a septic hardly takes away much space at all.  And some people have them in their front yards where a pool, deck, shed, and stuff would not be an issue.  

I can understand commercial business maybe having it, depending on the type of business.  A hair cutting place might prefer sewers because of all the chemicals going in there.  Might be more convenient for a large restaurant.  But a small business that uses little water, and may have a bathroom just for one or two employees, well, if they have space they probably won't want to pay so much a year.  Not everyone has high taxpayer funded pensions that render them ineligible for elderly STAR exemptions.

Just wondering how much it might cost per property for the sewer residences don't hook up and some small businesses don't bother because they barely use the septic but at least they can raise prices unlike homeowners, such as SS who didn't get any raise this year, and how many employers give out big raises.

Seems like a certain person wants to continue to make up lies about others and make his/her own definitions of the laws/rules.  The fact remains that NO permanent structures (including storage buildings) can be place over a spetic system.  The fact remains that septic systems do greatly restrict the ability for one (the property owner) to utilize all of one's property.  THAT is precisely why business owners and many property owners prefer to be able to hook into s public sewer system.

Furthermore, septic systems create other problems for the environment.  For example, build a hundred houses in an old swamp and hook up each house with its own dishwasher, washing machine, lawn sprinklers and  septic system -- next thing you know the neighborhood is swimming in a "brown sea."  Then the fix isn't so cheap and the neighborhood will demand that the town spend over a million dollars to clean up and fix the mess.  It would be cheaper (for all the town taxpayers) and healthier  (for all the town residents) if public sewers had been mandated and installed from day 1.  

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Seems like a certain person wants to continue to make up lies about others and make his/her own definitions of the laws/rules.  The fact remains that NO permanent structures (including storage buildings) can be place over a spetic system.  The fact remains that septic systems do greatly restrict the ability for one (the property owner) to utilize all of one's property.  THAT is precisely why business owners and many property owners prefer to be able to hook into s public sewer system.

Furthermore, septic systems create other problems for the environment.  For example, build a hundred houses in an old swamp and hook up each house with its own dishwasher, washing machine, lawn sprinklers and  septic system -- next thing you know the neighborhood is swimming in a "brown sea."  Then the fix isn't so cheap and the neighborhood will demand that the town spend over a million dollars to clean up and fix the mess.  It would be cheaper (for all the town taxpayers) and healthier  (for all the town residents) if public sewers had been mandated and installed from day 1.  

It a builder builds on a swamp then that would be a bad company, I wouldn't buy a house septic or sewer on a swamp.


Never heard of a garden shed being a permanent building!    


Taking away 600 feet out of 14,000 is hardly losing use of one's property.  Never new that you couldn't put a bbq grill on top of a septic system or a swing set or a picnic table, or a or an outdoor screen house.   There are NO SUCH LAWS preventing prohibiting people from having a picnic table and the other stuff mentioned, above the septic system.    We played with our kids in the hard, playing tag, football, badminton, croquet, etc ON TOP of the septic system - so you see, DV, NO one does NOT lose use of property.  Our neighbors the same way, kids and often parents played with the kids in the yard.  Many had birthday parties with a few dozen kids attending and they all played on top of the septic system.   But then, as you have not been a parent, you don't have the experience.  

One purchases a house and learns where the septic tank is and if it's right out of the back door then naturally one is not going to install a patio there, but if you owned a house and were knowledgeable about making such a purchase you would understand that people take these things into account.   If a septic system is directly outside of the door from the kitchen meaning no big patio, then you look at another house.  Even a house with public sewer might result in a buyer passing up the house because they want to put up a pool and they may not like that the leaves will fall in the pool, so they will buy a house without trees, without shade.  

With septic a property owner CAN UTILIZE ALL of one's property.  If we were building in a development with septic, we would probably have the septic put in the front yard.   Really DV, is ANYONE going to put a massive permanent storage building on their front lawn?   How about a garden shed?   Obviously you have a lot to learn about buying a house, what features it has, what you would want to do in the future, etc.