paying bills ahead (Oct 3, 2006)

Current mood: thoughtful

The following paragraphs were written back in August on a day when I wanted to pay my bills (which I do online) but one of the kids was using the PC, and anyway I had misplaced one of the bills I wanted to pay so didn't know the exact amount I owed. Then it occurred to me: I almost never need to know exactly what I owe on a bill.

*

Here is how I avoid two problems at once. Problem one is that I misplace utility bills. Problem two is that my income, while sufficient, is sporadic, so when a utility bill comes I might not have sufficient funds on hand to pay it on time.

The solution is to get a month ahead on each monthly bill -- telephone, electricity, natural gas, maybe even the quarterlies like water and sewer. Of course it's next to impossible for most people to make two months' payments on all utilities all at once. The trick? Throw in another few bucks or so each month until you're a month ahead.

They will not mind getting the extra money -- nor will you mind paying it, really -- as usage of any such utility is fairly continuous, even if the exact amount varies a bit from one bill to the next. They just want to make sure you pay your bill. You can always pay ahead. It's behind that you don't want to be. It's only if you get three or four months ahead that they might call you and inquire why you've sent them so much.

This is not the same as paying credit cards ahead. With credit, you already do owe everything on that "Balance" line. If you bought $1,000 of furniture, you owe the $1,000 all right now, and they're happy as punch if you take 10 years to pay it off, provided you make the minimum payments -- and still happy if you send them a check for the whole $1,000. Yeah they'd like their interest, since that's how they make their money, but there's nothing to lose by paying off credit cards in full every month.

Utility companies, though, get mad if you don't pay in full or if you don't pay on time. Commonly they'll tack on a Late Payment Fee, often a couple of bucks or a percentage of the bill. Do this more than a time or two and it shows up on your credit record, too. You really don't want that to happen.

Let's take a look at how I deal with one bill that is not a credit card bill, my phone bill.

Telephone Bill-At-A-Glance

Previous Balance $30.84
Payments -$75.00
Balance Before New Charges -$44.16
New Charges $68.44
----------------------------------------
New Balance $24.28

In prior months, I've paid ahead several dollars. The actual bill -- what I used -- what anyone else would have to pay -- is $68.44.

So here are the relevant numbers:

New Charges $68.44
Rounded to next 5 $70.00
Plus $5 more $75.00 <--pay them this

Doing what I did last month reduced by $6.56 the amount the phone company demands that I pay them. That's $1.56, the difference between the $68.44 new charges and the $70.00 rounded-up-to-the-next-five-dollar increment. That assures I get a negative balance the next month. To that, add $5.00 more in payments, to get that much further ahead.

So next month, assuming my phone usage is identical, my bill will be:

Previous Balance $24.28
Payments -$75.00
Balance Before New Charges -$50.72
New Charges $68.44
----------------------------------------
New Balance $17.72

At this rate, I will have a zero balance in about four or five more bills. Working from when I started, with a typical bill about $75, it would take about 15 months (75/5=15) to get a month ahead.

What getting a full month ahead means is this: If I misplace the phone bill and do not get it paid on time, that it will not matter. In essence I have an extra month to pay the bill. Of course I *do* pay it on time, and I *do* pay the full amount. Under no circumstances do I merely pay the "New Balance", or else I am right back where I was.

Once I do attain that "New Balance: $0.00", I *keep* it there simply by taking the next bill and rounding up to the next $5.00. In the examples above, I would send them $70 instead of $75.

This simplifies bill paying quite a bit. In my typical usage, the actual amount of calls I make may vary a bit, but the amount I need to send them rarely changes more than $5 in either direction.

Let's say I do misplace a bill, and cannot remember the exact amount. So long as I send them my usual $70 or $75, even if my actual usage would have required me to send a buck or three or four beyond that, I'm still OK because I am already ahead. If the usage was $77.61 and I send them $75, they're still happy. The next month I'd get a New Balance of $2.39. I just send them this month's probably-$75-used, plus the $2.39, plus the $5-round-up, write a check for $85, and then I've restored my buffer.

Of course, this has nothing to do with being behind on bills, or having $2,000 of payments each month to squeeze out of $1,000 in paychecks. It's simply a way to remove a potential headache or two.

the trouble you go to to recharge a laptop (Oct 1, 2006)

Current mood: aggravated

A couple of days ago I renewed my PA driver's license at one of the state photo ID sites. As usual, I took a bus to get to and from. From my point of view, I get a sardonic sort of snicker out of riding a bus to the driver's license center. It's also the fourth consecutive time I've done so -- 1994, 1998, 2002 and now 2006.

Also as usual, I had my trusty laptop with me. The batteries in this probably eight-year-old beast are getting a bit tired, so I only get maybe a half hour of useful work done on it between Point A and Point B, then I have to plug it in before I leave on the next leg of my journey.

Upon entering the license place, I ask if there's a seat in the waiting area near a 120-volt plug. There is; it was right there in plain sight next to the first chair. The guy at the desk, however, says "You can't recharge your laptop here. Those plugs are just for our use."

Say WHAT? It's a simple outlet! What's the problem here? Am I going to burn the place down? Am I going to plug in my bomb and destroy us all? Am I going to use $1,000 worth of electricity? Am I really in the way of the vacuum cleaner they're going to plug in there in about seven hours?

Note #1: I was not in the way. Fully 23 of the 25 chairs along the wall were not in use at that hour.
Note #2: Even if I'd plugged in for the entire time I was in the place, at 10 watts for 20 minutes and 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, that would be less than one-half cent of electricity. I ran up their utility bill more by drying my hands after using the toilet.

As it turned out, I got my photo taken before I could even think about locating a second plug. At least their service is quick there. However, since it was going to take five or more minutes to produce the actual license, I did what any other right-minded citizen with a healthy disrespect for chickenshit rules would do -- I found the next plug on the same wall, just far enough away that Mr. Rule Creator had a harder time seeing what I was doing, what with the big sweater and all the papers I was carrying. It was a cinch getting the thing plugged in, even w/o taking it out of the case.

So even though I only got maybe six minutes of plug-in time, I was able to get enough of a recharge that I could finish what I was doing on the bus ride home.

186 ways to live with only one car (Sept. 28, 2006)

Current mood: hopeful

I may change the title of this later; I only picked "186" out of the air; the initial post has only two. My point is, SO many people HAVE to have two, three, four, more cars in their possession. And for 12 or more years, my family of four in the middle to outer suburbs has lived with just one car.

The bone I wish to pick is that people bad-mouth public transportation, and would gladly fork over $5,000 a year (per car) or more to keep the additional car(s) on the road, while the cost of buying monthly passes (in Pittsburgh) runs well under $1,000 a year. I don't deny you need one car, especially in the suburbs, but if I can make do with only one, I don't see the necessity of having three or more. And I myself used to have four, for a three-year period, and three for over a decade.

So, here is a running list of methods I use to get along just fine with only one car. Note, the number an item has may change, as I add to or modify entries in the list; i.e., the numbering is automatic.

1. Use the telephone. For example, rather than drive to the hardware store to buy a new mop head, first find out if the store actually has that style of mop head.


2. Walk to the store. Sure, go to the store, but do so under your own power. Yes, even if it's a mile away. Every Point A (starting point) and Point B (ending point) is different, and not every A-B combination will work this way, but a lot would work better than you might think.


3. Spouse taxi. You don't have to get *all* the way home. Call a family member just before you get on the bus & say "I'll be at Such & Such Plaza at 7:50. Can you meet me there?" Better still, set this up in advance (e.g., "I'm not sure when I'm leaving, but it'll be somewhere around 7 or 8. I'll call you, OK?").


4. The shopping trip. Let's say Dad works, Mom has to make a grocery run, Dad takes the bus to work, Mom has the car, Mom doesn't have time to go shopping. Solution: Mom calls Dad at work, gives him the shopping list, Dad takes bus to grocery store, does the shopping, and Mom shows up with car and checkbook. It gives both some flexibility in travel time, and lets them both decompress a little in a neutral space. (Added 2006-09-18)


5. Half a taxi run. Junior needs to go to play practice or some such thing. Parent drives him there, to get him there on time. He takes a bus home since he doesn't know when he'll get done.


6. Halfway home with friend. Let's say that where you're going to or coming from has virtually no bus service, but there's decent service near a friend's house. Take bus to or from the friend's house (esp. if friend is going to the same activity), and ride with friend in friend's car to/from the activity's location.


7. The other half a taxi run. As above, Junior needs to go to play practice or some such thing. Parent is not available to drive him there, so he takes a bus. Parent has a pretty good idea when he'll get done, and is then available so can go to pick him up.


8. Park & Ride. This one may seem obvious to some, since Park & Ride lots exist in many communities, but for those for whom this is an unknown term, it works like this: You drive from your home (presumably with poor transit service) to a parking lot nearer to your destination (presumably with good transit service), and use the public transit system the rest of the way to your destination.


9. Get to know and like your neighbors. Not exactly a "duhhh", as a large number of my neighbors don't know a large number of the others nearby. But if you're going up and down the street on your way to/from a bus all the time, you get to be a familiar face. From time to time you strike up a conversation. You may even (I hope) get to know and like them, and they will do likewise. (Added 2006-09-22)


10. Reciprocal favors. Working from that, offer to run errands for them. They in turn may be able and willing to run errands for you.


11. The dual-departure time problem. It's "open house" night at the kid's school, but one spouse has to leave the school at a different time. One can take a bus from school, the other one drives. Or the non-driving spouse catches a ride from another parent in the same neighborhood.
    


12. Two commuters, one destination, two commute times. Granted, this one requires creativity. Spouses "A" and "B" work in the same place but different shifts. The short answer is that "A" buses to work and drives home, while "B" drives to work and buses home. Of course it's rarely that simple, and the specifics of each case make it maddeningly difficult to make any general suggestions useful, but you have to consider it try-able, and just make it work. (Added 2006-09-28)


13. Two commuters, one destination, slightly differing commute times. Again, spouses "A" and "B" work in the same place but their shifts overlap, so the previous suggestion is not workable. Absent other major factors (such as one having to get kids off to school), and dealing with just the commuter issues, the car's best use is to move the person where the transit service is the slowest or poorest, and let transit handle movement of the person where transit does the most general good due to parking costs or congestion delays. Probably this means some sort of mid-commute handoff.


14. OK, that's thirteen. I will add to this as time goes on.

Of course, as a final item, it is not acceptable to use the thought "I don't know when the buses run or where to get on/off" as an excuse not to use the bus. Learn!

the eagle in the yard (Sept. 11, 2006)

Current mood: excited

This isn't some patriotic, 9/11-related blather. It's about the huge bird in the yard. I have never seen a bird this big anywhere, let alone my front yard.

Sarah saw it first, Friday mid-morning as we were headed out. It had landed in the pine tree next to the street, causing the branch to droop easily two feet. A nearby squirrel was screaming in alarm -- not clucking and barking and scolding as if the cat were visible. For all I know it was becoming lunch. Anyway, Sarah yelled "My God, it's huge!!" I got outside in time to see it fly off the branch. Two flaps, and it was over and past the across-the-street neighbor's roof. With a couple of quick circles, it left the immediate vicinity, but not before I got a good look at it.

Being a frequent pedestrian, I often see crows, which are of a pretty good size, and other large birds at close range. There are a few turkeys that roost within a radius of a few hundred meters. Buzzards are also huge, with wingspans of five or six feet. I saw a live one up close at the Hinckley Ohio buzzard festival a couple of years ago.

Red-tailed hawks are a daily sight, too, both on lightposts along major highways and right here in 15237-land. I've even waited for a bus while a hawk was on the pole next to me, farther away vertically than horizontally (shudder).

And believe me, this was no hawk. It was not a turkey. It was not a buzzard. It was bigger. It had to be an eagle. I saw it from less than 75 feet away. Those wings would measure seven, maybe eight feet, tip to tip.

It made a brief appearance Saturday afternoon, flying by. But it was the Sunday night appearance that made believers out of the rest of the family. As with Saturday, I was just walking through the yard (burying compost, actually), when I saw it fly to the top of a tree across the street and perch in perfect profile. I dashed into the house, whereupon everyone dropped everything, chased outside, and followed my arm. They all saw it, too.

I even had time to grab my telescope and set it up, but it flew before I could get a proper fix on it.

A bit later, I called my sister and described it to her. She has a degree in forestry, and is no stranger to identifying wildlife. Her guess is that it is an immature bald eagle, not the golden eagle I was guessing it is.

From what I've gleaned over the years, eagles are rare. And to find one in a residential area is rare indeed. Granted my area isn't a clear-cut, heavily built-up development, and in fact there are at least three trees on my little quarter acre that stand 60 or more feet in height. I'm guessing that two of them, both oaks, are original forest canopy, and chances are good that maybe five or six of them would classify as such.

So if it's big, old trees that have brought this eagle into my midst, then I feel both proud and justified that I didn't take them down. Every other one of my neighbors has felled a large, live tree; I've only taken down little scrubby ones or large, dangerous dead ones. And I have an eagle in mine.

What a neat way to run up to September 11!

Lose the idea of a new Arena. Lose the Penguins, too. (Sept. 9, 2006)

Current mood:bitchy

I have no use for a new Mellon Arena. Keep what's there and renovate it.

More to the point, I have no use for the Penguins. And no, I'm not kidding. And no, I'm not worried about pissing off a horde of fans. Basically, too bad.

I lived through the demise of one sports franchise (Buffalo Bisons baseball, 1970), and guess what -- the town got not one, but TWO major league franchises in the next couple of years (Sabres NHL hockey, Braves NBA basketball). It was fun to lose a sports team! Even better, hardly 10 years later, they came back. By then, we'd also lost the NBA team, and lived through that debacle, too.

So, lose the Penguins. See what else we can come up with. Let me give you a couple of for-instances:
* An NBA team (we're close, with the Xplosion) [footnote: folded, 2008]
* A WNBA team [mentions a potential Pittsburgh expansion]
* How 'bout them Riverhounds, anyway? (they play soccer)
* Our already-here professional women's football team, the Pittsburgh Passion
* Didn't we have a lacrosse team in town at one time, too?
* Professional tennis, anyone?

Then we have all the many and varied non-sports things to do in town already. If we weren't dumping an eight-digit figure a year on one sports business, maybe we could drop a couple of dollars into the till at our symphony, our theatre troupes, our ballet, our shows and clubs and cabarets, any number of civic organizations ... Geez, just pick up the paper and look at the lineup of activities in the area.

The last time I saw a Pens game one ticket cost $38, and that was 1992, I think. Just in inflation that's over $50 today. How many seats to your kid's high school musical would that buy you? Back at the Igloo, the priciest Xplosion seat right now is only $25; the cheapest is $6.25.

But let's just say we somehow found yet another nine-digit sum to spend to build a new sports venue right here in town. Only not to spend on a new igloo. I have another idea.

A golf course. Yes, right here, right next to Downtown. A full-size, fully equipped, professional quality 18-hole golf course. And where do I propose putting most of a square mile of green space, pray tell? I thought you'd never ask. Answer: Directly over the Parkway North, between North Avenue and Milroy Street, maybe even up as far as the East Street overpass.

I can hear the hubbub in the room already (because I've proposed this before, in a couple of venues). So, let me take them one at a time:

* Can't do it; it's against the law to build over a highway. Laws are ink and paper. We hire legislators to write and change laws. It took a law change to allow Port Authority to have roof-mounted fuel tanks for its natural gas buses a few years ago. So, yes, it can be done.

* It'd slow down the Parkway and make traffic a nightmare. The road's already there; it's not like we're squeezing it into the side of a hill like we do east and west of town each day. We're just sticking a roof over it. Done properly, there would be no impact. None.

* Construction would make the road impassable. A valid question, one that would be a lot more difficult to answer were there not streets on both sides of 279 most of that distance already -- East Street on the east, Howard Street on the west. But once the supports are in, all the work is overhead.

* Not worth it. Who'd use it? Um, duhhh, name one golf course around here that doesn't attract a crowd. And name even one city in North America with a world-class golf course five minutes from Downtown.

* Noplace to park. Duhhh again, we're creating usable space. It's a blank slate. Plus, there's zillions of existing bus routes that go right past the place, and since they're so close to town, they'd (a) pay for themselves, and (b) be an easy ride for anyone coming from town. You wouldn't need a second square mile just to park cars.

* What about accidents on 279? What indeed? Accidents don't already happen in enclosed spaces? So you fireproof the underside of the structure, and ensure that ladder trucks can work if they need to. Not a problem!

* Technically too difficult. Bull. My original motivation for this was in 2000 when, from my desk at 200 Hightower on Steubenville Pike in Robinson Township I watched The Mall At Robinson be constructed. It took them over a year, but they took a hill, shoved it in a valley, flattened the whole thing out, and constructed a large building on it. Separately, I used to work in the Expo Mart in Monroeville, essentially a large building on stilts. (The parking lot is at ground level, below. Much of CCAC Boyce Campus is on stilts, too. Granted there'd be some engineering involved, but it's not impossible. Heck, just look at any skyscraper. This would just be wide instead of tall.

It's also not that new an idea. One of the 1968-era proposals for what became Three Rivers Stadium had the entire structure positioned above the Allegheny River, near where PNC Park is now.

So, say we actually do build the thing. Think what else could go along with it. There used to be several thousand homes in the valley where I-279 now sits. While constructing the roof, we could just as well add a couple of floors of residential to the mix. There's all kinds of vertical space available. This could be money-making real estate. Parts of it could even be a public park. Wouldn't that be a cool idea? Live right under the golf course!

We also wouldn't have to plow or salt that part of the big road when it snows. It would also help with storm runoff.

Public money should be spent on public projects. A new igloo primarily benefits one sports franchise. If we have a quarter-billion that we can spend, it should be to enhance our infrastructure, not merely trade up.

The existing building already does anything that its replacement would. Yank out the fancy scoreboard, and then maybe we can use that opening dome again -- which hasn't moved since a 1979 Olivia Newton-John concert. That is a truly cool device, which we'd trash simply because we don't know what we already have. And that's plain stupid.

So, back to business. Yeah, Penguins, go to Kansas or Tucson or whatever town that would have you. We lived without you somehow for most of a season just a couple of years ago. We can do it again -- and for most, we would neither notice the difference, nor care.

my public comments on Allegheny County's proposed smoking ban (Sept 6, 2006)

Current mood:awake

Allegheny County Council (Pittsburgh, PA) has proposed a ban on smoking in workplaces, and took testimony from any interested parties at a public hearing on Tuesday.

I was one of about three dozen people who registered to speak, and was placed #29 in the list. Despite being so far down, I ended up getting a couple of lines in the Post-Gazette's coverage (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06249/719327-28.stm).

Anyway, here is the text of my testimony, directed to members of Council.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I thank you for the opportunity to speak. [deleted ID-boilerplate text]

Let's get a couple of things straight here.

First: This isn't about smokers. It's about workers. Nobody should have to work in an unsafe environment, in this case one full of poisonous air. If, instead of smoking restrictions the plan was to reduce workplace exposure to radiation, or to industrial chemical pollution, there would be no opposition. Well, this is about reducing workplace exposure to chemical pollution. And while cigarettes themselves do not emit radiation, the cancer that comes from second-hand smoke is very real indeed.

Second: Smoking is optional. Breathing is not. Workers have to breathe. Customers do not have to smoke. In fact, most people do not smoke. And even if they do, they do not have to smoke there, in someone's workplace.

Third: OK, in fairness, let's talk about smokers' rights. There are three: Being first-class citizens, smokers have the right to speak out about their opinions, as well as vote and do everything else a citizen has the right to do. Smokers have the right to poison themselves. And smokers have the right to suffer the consequences of their own addiction. But this does not give smokers license to put other people in danger. Just to be clear, there is no such thing as a right to smoke, any more than there is a right to punch someone.

Fourth and lastly: There is no reason at all to fear economic harm from this legislation. There have been hundreds of studies published about law changes like this -- including and especially affecting taverns and casinos -- and virtually every one not published by tobacco interests has found negligible or positive financial impact. On the other hand, most studies published by or with support from tobacco interests found just the opposite.

But let's cut to the quick: It's simply the right thing to do to restrict smoking. Please pass this legislation, in as tough a form as possible, and as soon as possible.

*

Comments

Comment #1: PittsburghStorm (Male, age 28 [in 2011])

I diagree with your position. I feel that it is not government's responsiblity to govern businesses. If you or I decide to start up a restaurant or bar...WE are the wants providing the initial capital...WE are the ones taking the risk...so WE should have a say of our business. Not Uncle Sam.

Bus, if you start up a business and want to prohibit smoking...that's fine. And you should have that choice to. If any bar, restaurant, etc wants to have a smoking ban...that's their choice. And if the customer doesn't like it...they can easily go somewhere else.

But don't go around forcing other business owners what they can and can not do. Many taverns will lose business if people choose not to come. Why pay all that money to go to a bar if you can't smoke?

And, in regards to bars and restaurants, if their is such a demand for "smoke-free" enviroments, why aren't there more non-smoking restaurants.

In regards to work places, other than restaurants and bars, I don't know of any employers who allow their smoking employees to smoke on the job (other than MAYBE a construction company...if even that's skimpy). Again, other than bar employees and restaurant employees, I am not aware of any other issues.

I respect your rights not to smoke. I ask that all people please respect the rights of smokers.


Comment #2: Stuart Strickland

Documentation on my fourth/last point can be found here: http://www.hebs.scot.nhs.uk/researchcentre/pdf/InternationalReviewFullReport.pdf
Note: This is a 140-page PDF file, about a 45-minute download on a 56K dialup line.

Briefly, it's a review of about 500 studies -- a study comparing and summarizing studies -- and while there are a couple of them that found a negative financial impact, NONE of those passed scientific scrutiny. Meanwhile, ALL of those which passed scientific scrutiny found a negligible or positive impact.

So it comes down to three things:
a) The Surgeon General has concluded that the case is closed on the scientific side of things; i.e., there is absolutely no question that second-hand smoke causes harm.
b) The International Review study explodes any myths about financial harm.
c) This is about protecting paid employees from harm on the job.

This applies to anyone who holds any sort of legitimate employment, whatever they do, and wherever that is, including private clubs, and taverns, and casinos. It's not government intrusion, it's government making sure people are safe on the job, and it's government making sure that customers are not harmed by other customers. Both are within the legitimate jurisdiction of government, and both are legitimate concerns. I do not see how either of those points is arguable to the point of exclusion.

Regardless of how smokers feel about it, they have to first set aside their habit before discussing the topic, because as I said in my first point, it isn't about them, it's about workers.

Decision: Porting the old MySpace blog

January 16, 2011: I have made two decisions. First, I will begin to port my entire bus15237 MySpace blog to this location. I am doing this since I do not trust MySpace to survive. This morning's news mentioned that MySpace is laying off half its staff.

I have put too much work into writing all those hundreds of blogs and comments over the years to just lose it to what would amount to a warehouse fire. I'm not thrilled with having everything I've ever written online placed under the blogger/blogspot roof, either, but at least this one is healthy.

I will attempt to capture any comments, links, photographs, special text effects, and so forth. I'm guessing I will not do it all at once, either, probably no more than one or two a day until I have a rhythm going. Just making that list took most of a day's work.

Second decision, a reversal of an earlier thought: I will use bus15237.blogspot.com for my transit and transportation posts, and either this or another bit of cyber real estate I have staked out for posting all other topics. Some renaming of things may also have to occur.

I have no timeline for all this. Many other things in my life take priority at the moment. Once complete, though, I will likely have brief posts on bus15237 and elsewhere about the other entries, in case anyone is interested. I'm sure many other people have multiple personas, but it's new to me. Bear with me; I'll get it all under my belt eventually.