But the overwhelming reason to oppose this deal, was the extra cash. Period. Citizens is OK…they need reigning in, on marketing expenses, especially.

Another concern I've got is the documents. if City CorpCounsel had anything to do with any of this, given their quality of work, we're in for a screwing. I'm only hoping that all the lawyering we paid for, went to a good cause.

The unLibertarian part of this whole fiasco is the overpayment by $435 mil, and using that money for a non-related expenses. It's checkbook politics, purely and simply. On a Pentagon scale. Who do you think ultimately pays that money? And we're told, simply, that we're avoiding future rate increases. That's our mayor's response. Tell me–what's Libertarian about the extra cash, Chris?

Did you check your Libertarian credentials at the door?

Brian Williams may have dropped out of the race, but that doesnt mean he has no opinion and can not be used as an expert unless someone threaten him or paid him to go away with favors/promises/hush money.

Pay your bills and THEN buy your toys with what's left over. And don't float it all on your credit card(s).

Williams dropped out of the race and endorsed Kennedy.

I guess I'll just put this here as well. I put this on Chris Spangle's Fan Page for his blog, so as with TA, here are my final thoughts:

Can't say I agree with you, Chris. Citizens will have a huge, if not impossible, challenge to meet in finding efficiencies with the contracts that force them to keep Veolia and United Water on, as well as having to pay the city $263 million… AND keep rates the same for 2 years after the deal goes through.

No one on the right side of the political spectrum is against Citizens Energy Group taking over, at least as far as I've read (though many on the left side in the local blogosphere might have that view). The issue that stops me from supporting it is the $263 million price tag. The transfer of debt makes sense, since the city racked up the debt providing the utility service. But this money would be more wisely used to go back into the water/sewage utility needs to further mitigate rate increases (or even, and this is an original thought, PAY OFF THE DEBT). Using it for infrastructure is just moving money from Column A to Column B. I'm even more against the “sale” aspect of it since not all utility customers are also taxpayers/citizens of Indianapolis. And unlike other aspects of the market place, it's not like you have a choice in who your utility provider is.

Second, the contracts for Veolia and United Water. I've heard almost nothing good about Veolia's customer service, but even if it was good, Citizens, as the new owner, should find the best people for the job. And if those people are Veolia and United Water, they should be able to re-negotiate the contract on their own terms.

Third, I've been disturbed at the amount of legal fees Baker and Daniels has been charging to the city. I find it hard to believe that no other law firm was available for a cheaper rate. I'm sure the local GOP probably loved having the presumed D nominee for the mayor's race virtually silent on this issue, but some things need to go before partisan politics.

Fourth, Ryan Vaughn's continued actions on the council of not only voting on this issue, but helping push it through, have been disturbing in an obvious conflict of interest.

As for the perceived need to fix roads, sidewalks, etc…, this should be a separately discussed and separately financed issue. We could hold several public forums to see what us regular folk think needs to be cut in order to repair and add “dry” infrastructure, or discuss a need for a specific tax, or do a combination of both. But what's done here is similar to when an unrelated amendment attaches itself to a bill in the US Congress and it gets passed. It seems like our city leadership is adopting how the feds do business, and that just seems wrong to me.