|

09-03-2009, 11:16 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Omaha Nebraska and dreamland when I am sleeping
617 posts, read 408,325 times
Reputation: 54
|
|
Satellite Dish Owners Targeted in Omaha city Budget
|
|

09-03-2009, 01:20 PM
|
|
Senior Member
Status:
"In Exile"
(set 7 days ago)
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
4,907 posts, read 1,638,037 times
Reputation: 1664
|
|
I love this line:
"It’s not a tax, but an inspection fee to check satellite dishes."
What a bunch of lying manure-slingers! 
|
|

09-03-2009, 04:45 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Papillion
2,426 posts, read 2,268,509 times
Reputation: 597
|
|
|
Why does the City even have a role in inspecting a dish???? Its not a public interest or public safety issue - can't they just stay out of it?
|
|

09-03-2009, 04:48 PM
|
|
Senior Member
Status:
"group think = group stink"
(set 11 days ago)
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Here
413 posts, read 144,505 times
Reputation: 154
|
|
|
I'm not one that typically get's mad about proposed ordinances. But this is completely ridiculous. I wonder if this councilman got dinged in the head by a satellite dish...
|
|

09-03-2009, 04:51 PM
|
|
Senior Member
Status:
"In Exile"
(set 7 days ago)
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
4,907 posts, read 1,638,037 times
Reputation: 1664
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsrich98
I'm not one that typically get's mad about proposed ordinances. But this is completely ridiculous. I wonder if this councilman got dinged in the head by a satellite dish...
|
Not YET.
|
|

09-03-2009, 07:38 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Omaha Nebraska and dreamland when I am sleeping
617 posts, read 408,325 times
Reputation: 54
|
|
|
I am wondering if cox cable is involved in this
BTW: maybe we should tax cox cable of omaha
for allowing channels 13 or 20 or 61 to never be used
|
|

09-03-2009, 08:23 PM
|
|
Not a member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Reputation: 13
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by billiefan2000
I am wondering if cox cable is involved in this
BTW: maybe we should tax cox cable of omaha
for allowing channels 13 or 20 or 61 to never be used
|
I'm guessing there's a good chance they're at least giving input.
But what do you mean about "not allowing" channels to be used? So what if they don't want to broadcast on 'em?
|
|

09-03-2009, 10:29 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
96 posts, read 56,673 times
Reputation: 28
|
|
|
Have they taken into consideration the money they will need to pay the attorney's to fight the 2 Sat companies that will sue their butts off? How about the money they will pay when they lose?
This councilman, Chris Jerram might be the stupidest man in Omaha, followed closely by the guys he convinced to vote with him.
|
|

09-03-2009, 10:42 PM
|
|
Not a member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Reputation: 13
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by altajoe
Have they taken into consideration the money they will need to pay the attorney's to fight the 2 Sat companies that will sue their butts off? How about the money they will pay when they lose?
This councilman, Chris Jerram might be the stupidest man in Omaha, followed closely by the guys he convinced to vote with him.
|
How so? Stupid "fees" are big money-makers for a city. I doubt Omaha is the first.
|
|

09-04-2009, 12:01 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: West Omaha
950 posts, read 959,506 times
Reputation: 308
|
|
|
This one is beyond me. I do not know for sure as I don't have satellite, but don't the customers actually own the dishes? Further, for those people who own their houses the city would be charging a mandatory inspection fee for a person connecting object A to object B, both objects owned by the person.
This will almost definitely be challenged by the satellite companies. And if not then some customer will challenge on the satellite companies' dime.
I am not completely sure the city has the authority to do this, or at least there is a colorable argument that they don't. First, what is the objective? They seem pretty unclear. Is it aesthetic reasons or safety reasons? Further, is there a rational basis (which would likely be the legal standard applied) between "inspecting" the satellites and how they look? They're pretty uniform in shape and size and where they're located are limited by availability of free space on the south side of the property. Nothing the inspector does can really do anything about the way it looks. And is the inspector more qualified than the installer in terms of safety? Further, do city inspectors come and inspect my Cox connection (which sucks)? I will guarantee this will end up in court, whether the plaintiff is successful is another question, but the city will spend quite a bit of money defending it. Who dreams this crap up?
I also find it interesting that the council asked Cox Cable for an estimate of satellites?! Really?? Why wouldn't they ask the companies that are actually in the business of providing satellite service? There is certainly something going on, and I'm not one who is big on conspiracy theories.
Last edited by mattpoulsen; 09-04-2009 at 12:10 AM..
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
|
|