I’ve been hearing AmerenCILCO commercials on WMBD radio all the time lately telling me that electric rates are going to go up dramatically in 2007. I finally checked out their website, www.post2006.com, just to see what it was all about. Here’s the summary from their home page:

Ameren’s Illinois utilities are part of a competitive marketplace for electricity that began in late 1997, when the Illinois General Assembly joined a national movement and passed legislation to create an open and competitive retail marketplace for electricity.

Separate electric delivery rates were established under that legislation, and the regulated utility companies were encouraged to spin off or sell their power generating assets to expand the market for buying and selling energy. Today, selling electricity has become a competitive business. Illinois consumers have the right to choose a power supplier other than the utility. For those customers who choose not to select an alternative supplier, Ameren’s Illinois utility companies will continue to provide power at their actual cost, without mark-up.

Now, Ameren’s Illinois utilities own almost no generation. With the end of the transition into competition coming on January 1, 2007, we need to buy electricity in the open wholesale market to serve our customers.

This all sounds great, but what competition do we have in Peoria? “Illinois consumers have the right to choose a power supplier other than the utility,” the website says. How? What other power suppliers? By “Illinois,” do they mean Chicago? With the deregulation of telephone companies, I’ve had no shortage of marketing mail and phone calls asking me to switch carriers, yet with the power competition I haven’t heard anything.

If there’s no competition, it looks like we’ll be over a barrel when electricity rates go up 25-30%, as predicted. And when that happens, the Howerters of Canton won’t look so crazy for disconnecting from the power grid completely.

I was catching up on Bill’s blog today and read his post, “Gettin’ while the gettin’s good.” In it, he advocates two things: (1) he would like to see city-wide WiFi (short for “wireless fidelity,” a wireless local area network that would be used for internet access), and (2) the city should at least start it, if not run it — it “should be considered infrastructure, and hence a legitimate government fuction,” according to his post.

I agree with his first point. City-wide WiFi would be a plus for the MedTech district and be one more feather in Peoria’s cap for attracting high-tech business to our fair city. But to say the city government should run it is a mistake. I’m seeing a trend here… First he’s for the water company buyout, now city-run WiFi… Pretty soon we’ll have the city owning phone service (wired and cell), electric/gas service, and cable television! Then maybe they could take over gas stations and grocery stores, too. The city that does it all!

Internet service is a profitable industry. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have private companies provide WiFi service to Peoria? In fact, isn’t that the very kind of business we want to attract to the MedTech district? Considering they wouldn’t have to string cable to everyone’s house, the overhead should be considerably lower for such a business, making it easier for them enter the marketplace. Then we’d have a company that buys land, pays taxes (property and sales), and employs people — and we won’t have city resources tied up in something that should be privately run.

I understand the increasing role the internet plays in our business and personal lives, but I don’t think it’s an essential service right up there with police and fire protection. And it’s profitable enough that it doesn’t need to be subsidized by the local government.

I was listening to WMBD this morning before work, and Greg and Dan were grappling with a question I’ve heard several times now about Hurricane Katrina and now Rita. I’ll paraphrase it here: “Are these hurricanes God’s judgement on the sinfulness of the people living/partying there?” That’s a pretty heady question to tackle on the radio between Apple Blossom Farm commercials and and CEFCU Traffic One updates.

But I’ll take a stab in the blogosphere at answering this question from a conservative Christian viewpoint: I don’t think these hurricanes are specific judgements from God.

First of all, judgements from God are generally supernatural, not natural disasters. If New Orleans were to be destroyed by fire and brimstone falling from the sky, or if an angel of death were to smite the firstborn of every family there, then I’d say it was God’s judgement. But I don’t believe God was the direct causitive force behind the hurricane.

Secondly, something similar happened in Jesus’s time. In Luke 13:1-5, it says this:

Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Isn’t that interesting? I think it’s completely in keeping with this scripture to imagine this conversation with Jesus today. It would go something like this:

Someone reports to Jesus about the people who were killed in the hurricane down in New Orleans, and Jesus says, “Do you suppose that these Americans were greater sinners than all other Americans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or do you suppose that those 3,000 on whom the World Trade Center fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in New York? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Jesus asks that penetrating question that people have been asking for centuries whenever disaster strikes: Did this happen because those people were worse sinners than everyone else? Was this divine vengeance on these people?

And Jesus, who often doesn’t answer questions directly, gives us a direct answer to this one: “I tell you, no.” I love the simplicity of that answer. “No!” By implication, “No, it’s not divine vengeance, and no, they’re not worse sinners than you. You’re just as sinful as they are.” And he follows that up with the ominous words, “but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Jesus is exposing a judgemental attitude here. He’s saying, in essence, “stop judging those people just because they met a tragic end. Take a look at yourselves! You’re not any better than they are. You are the ones who need to repent.” It kind of reminds me of that other verse that is so often quoted, “Judge not, lest ye be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” (Matt. 7:1-2)

So, I don’t think the hurricanes are a specific judgement of God on New Orleans or even the United States in general. But, the hurricanes do remind us of our own mortality and that life is short. That should give us pause to consider what our own fate will be when we die: is there life after death? Is there a God to whom I’m accountable? Am I ready to meet him?

The City Council will be voting on a new fee a week from today (it’s actually on tonight’s agenda, but with a motion to defer until next Tuesday). Here’s the background information from the “request for council action”:

BACKGROUND: While reviewing the process for towing private vehicles, it was determined the Police Department had a considerable amount of time invested in processing vehicles from the initial tow to the release of the vehicle. In an effort to cover these costs, it was determined that an administrative fee of $25.00 per tow should be assessed. The Tow Operator will collect the $25 City administrative fee for each rotation tow the tow operator receives compensation for. The Tow Operator shall forward on a quarterly basis all City administrative fees collected, along with an accounting setting forth the number of rotation tows performed during the quarter, the number of rotation tows for which the operator was paid during the quarter, and the amount of City administrative fees forwarded. Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the new administrative fee would go into affect October 1, 2005.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Estimated new revenues of $75,000.

IMPACT IF APPROVED: Estimated new revenues in the amount of $75,000 would be recognized in the General Fund to support Police Services.

IMPACT IF DENIED: The City would recognize no new revenue relating to towing of private vehicles.

First of all, what exactly is a “considerable amount of time”? And secondly, if time spent is the justification of this new fee, what else will the police want to charge us for in the future? Helping an elderly person change a flat tire? Calling an ambulance at the scene of an accident? Helping a lost child find his parents?

I’m sorry, but I just don’t think it’s asking too much to have the police call you a tow truck. I mean, isn’t that a basic service? Isn’t helping citizens part of their job? Aren’t they looking out for your safety and the safety of others by assisting you in this manner?

If time is such a problem, why did they just agree to be truancy officers for District 150? I like the idea of them being truancy officers and cooperating with the school district, but if their time is so crunched, why are they taking on additional responsibilities?

Now, if this passes next week, when your car breaks down and you need help, instead of getting help from police, you’ll essentially be assessed a fine. It’s kind of like getting a ticket for breaking down, only it doesn’t go on your record. I mean, if it’s not a punitive fine, what is it? A deterrent? Are we supposed to wave the police off if they come by offering “assistance” like you’d wave off guys with squeegies who want to wash your windows at stoplights?

Another thing that bugs me is that this is only going to mean a measly $75,000 extra per year for the city. Compare that to all the money they’ve squandered looking into the water company buyout every few years. Or compare that to the money they’re throwing away to give away the Kellar Branch to the Park District instead of selling it to Pioneer for $565,000. You’d think the city had money to burn.

And who is this policy going to affect the most? Who is most likely to have a car that breaks down and needs a tow? Someone with an older car, perhaps? People who can’t afford a new car, so they keep driving the same old beaters to their minimum-wage jobs? Oh, let’s just come right out and say it — the poorer among us, right? I doubt anyone on the north end with their new Mercedes and AAA Motor Club membership is going to need the police to help them out. But the poor guy on the south side with an ’81 Buick trying to scrape by whose car breaks down on the way to work is going to get “help” from the police, for a small fee.

The council should shoot down this proposal. There have to be more equitable ways for the police to raise revenue.