• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Jack
    July 02, 2010 - 13:25

    Since St. John's area residents are already paying record high taxes, especially water and property taxes, the city should be paying for the water/sewer upgrades, and not burden taxpayers anymore.

    Otherwise, the city will turn into another Halifax and councilors are becoming more obsessed with how to get more tax revenue as opposed to listening to the people they serve.

  • Philosopher
    July 02, 2010 - 13:17

    The coalition of geniuses: Hanlon, Hickman, Hann and toothless Paul Mackey.

  • William Daniels
    July 02, 2010 - 13:14

    This just in,
    Voters to debate on whether to vote for Hanlon, Hickman, and Hann in next election .

  • chuck
    July 02, 2010 - 13:14

    Let those who are getting the extra income from city council along with their income from their big businesses pay their own way but everyone is not as fortunate as that so it is unfair for some councillors to be voting for this. Consider the poor senoir citizens and those homeowners taking in middle or low income who are just making ends meet when you decide your vote.

  • Newfie Gal
    July 02, 2010 - 13:12

    I can understand charging the homeowner if this is something that they have requested be done and there is not another reason for the city to do it. I do not agree with the city charging for the repair or replacement of something that should be their responsibility. These pipes (if I am thinking right) are the ones going in on a persons property from the road, right? There is no difference in these, than in electrical, phone, or cable lines. The city is charging for the service of water, so these should be included.

  • Randy
    July 02, 2010 - 13:10

    The City really needs to get it's Ducks in order.To make a long story short I had one only house rented for two years while waiting to move back in the City had to replace all pipes including about 20 ft. of what I consider City pipe under the street at a cost of 12000.00 dollars our City called it commerical and would not pay a cent towards it! Typical!

  • Jack
    July 01, 2010 - 20:11

    Since St. John's area residents are already paying record high taxes, especially water and property taxes, the city should be paying for the water/sewer upgrades, and not burden taxpayers anymore.

    Otherwise, the city will turn into another Halifax and councilors are becoming more obsessed with how to get more tax revenue as opposed to listening to the people they serve.

  • Philosopher
    July 01, 2010 - 19:58

    The coalition of geniuses: Hanlon, Hickman, Hann and toothless Paul Mackey.

  • William Daniels
    July 01, 2010 - 19:53

    This just in,
    Voters to debate on whether to vote for Hanlon, Hickman, and Hann in next election .

  • chuck
    July 01, 2010 - 19:53

    Let those who are getting the extra income from city council along with their income from their big businesses pay their own way but everyone is not as fortunate as that so it is unfair for some councillors to be voting for this. Consider the poor senoir citizens and those homeowners taking in middle or low income who are just making ends meet when you decide your vote.

  • Newfie Gal
    July 01, 2010 - 19:49

    I can understand charging the homeowner if this is something that they have requested be done and there is not another reason for the city to do it. I do not agree with the city charging for the repair or replacement of something that should be their responsibility. These pipes (if I am thinking right) are the ones going in on a persons property from the road, right? There is no difference in these, than in electrical, phone, or cable lines. The city is charging for the service of water, so these should be included.

  • Randy
    July 01, 2010 - 19:46

    The City really needs to get it's Ducks in order.To make a long story short I had one only house rented for two years while waiting to move back in the City had to replace all pipes including about 20 ft. of what I consider City pipe under the street at a cost of 12000.00 dollars our City called it commerical and would not pay a cent towards it! Typical!