Head Honcho
Many of our members here are not part of the Facebook community and miss much of what goes on in fairly limited number member areas of that forum.

I had a request from Kevin Malinowski when I offered to supply anyone who wanted the legal documents associated with the Jerry Manegre water meter court case against the city of St. Albert to contact me.

I sent the documents to Kevin and after seeing them I assume, he decided to write a letter to the mayor and members of council regarding the matter.

I am offering his Facebook post here to allow our members to see Kevin's response to the situation to council, as I believe it to be a fair and reasonable set of observations and suggestions to council on how this whole issue has been, in his opinion, mishandled from the beginning.

Thanks to Kevin, council has some soul searching to do in this matter and if this letter accomplishes that, salute him for his efforts.

The Facebook comments are as follows on Sunday November 4, 2018:

Kevin wrote: Smart water meters in St. Albert are causing a stir. As a member of the now disbanded St. Albert Smart City Steering Committee I completely supported their mandatory deployment. However, this is the email I sent council this morning.

Good morning council members,

I have been following the smart water meter debacle since the issue arose.

I completely support council in the decision they made to not have the opt out option. However, I do have concerns with shutting off of the water of a resident. Potable water is important and it is essential life. 

I have considered that a resident could opt to have a cistern installed or possibly a large tank in their basement as an option and have water trucked in. This would bring up questions of wastewater and stormwater charges, but I will leave that for now. However, as the City provides the service that the resident has made the choice not to use should still be liable for the flat rate and the capital contribution amounts. They just won't have a consumption amount.

All of the above stated, I am now leaning towards the Council and the City conceding to an opt out program. If an employee of the City were required to go out to the opt out address, take a reading, then return to their office to enter the manual reading into the system. I would not accept a residents phoned in readings. This time I estimate to be 1 hour per opt out resident per month. The opt out charge per residence should then be $50 (this number may be low) per month to completely cover the costs for the time of the employee and all benefits (CPP portion, EI portion, WCB contribution, other benefits, etc). Also, the resident must agree to have a completely shovelled and accessible path to wherever that touch pad is located (at the expense of the resident and execution by the city, the touch pad could be moved to a location of easier access).

The optics of this situation are bad, sometimes one has to be the bigger person even though they are not wrong and concede.

The City may or may not win this lawsuit, but is it really worth the news that a St. Albert City Council decision has again got us into the spotlight? I say no. Let's get St. Albert back to being a City that creates the news rather than being in the news.

Thanks for your time in reading and considering.

Kevin Malinowski

Quote 0 0
Head Honcho
Breaking News.

Water Turn On.jpeg 

Hello everyone, 

I told the City utilities worker she was a welcome sight. A week without water came to an end at about 8:20 this morning… a week of using emergency water supplies and having to shower at the home of our son and his family.

Yesterday afternoon I received correspondence from a law firm (one of the largest in Edmonton) representing the City of St. Albert. My “Originating Application for Judicial Review” is scheduled to be heard in Alberta Court of Queens Bench tomorrow morning. The letter said that because of the complexity of the matter they want to have the case postponed and heard in Special Chambers and exercise the right of cross examination. I contacted the lawyer involved for the City and indicated my approval for the postponement and he is to contact the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to have a date set. We are still prepared to attend on Thursday morning if required but it appears the matter will be postponed. 

 
Due to the length  of time it will take to get before the Court, the law firm advised the City yesterday to turn on our water supply. It is now done.
 
I will give you another update as soon as I have further information.
 
Jerry Manegre
St. Albert
Quote 1 0
Willy
Jerry, I hope you have retained a lawyer as the city will do everything they can to intimidate you and out manouver you and use your lack of knowledge against you. Also study the water bylaw referenced in the threatening, intimidating letters the city sends out. I went through all 18 pages and it speaks mostly to new meter installations in new houses. I was hard pressed to find anything that addressed this kind of situation.
Quote 1 0
Willy
Kevin, $50 per house seems rather rich to read your meter the way it was read before the smart meters. If I am not mistaken all that was needed was to drive by your house and the data was uploaded. Now let’s presume that there will be numerous owners that would opt out given the option. Let’s say 100 homes for sake of discussion. How many meters could be read say in a 4 hour period? 10 an hour, 1 house every 6 minutes seems reasonable. Some might take longer to drive to say when all the houses in Grandin have been read but then in the next neighborhood, say Akinsdale, you could get to 10 homes in 20 minutes.
So to me, it appears that 40 homes read in 4 hours x $50 each = $2000 for 1/2 a days work. Hmmm..... where do I sign up?

Also, does a cistern seem like a practical, viable solution to someone who wants to opt out? You would be looking at a minimum of $10,000 to have one installed and could you imagine the paper work and hoops one would have to jump through to do this?

Seeing how you were on the smart city commity I would like to ask you... How many decades does the city project for the break even point on the cost to implement this whole program? What about on going maintenance and infrustructure costs? IT upgrades?
Quote 0 0
Kevin
Willy wrote:
If I am not mistaken all that was needed was to drive by your house and the data was uploaded.


You are mistaken, they are called touchpads for a reason. If all they had to do was drive by there would already be EMF and this argument would be moot.

As to $50, there is no estimate as to the number of people opting out and there should be no requirement to give the dissidents any advantage of economy of scale.

As soon as any employee is diverted from what should be their assigned duties to deal with this there is a loss in productivity. Again, their is no requirement for an opt out option to be a break even function.
 
Quote 0 0
Kevin
Willy wrote:
Also, does a cistern seem like a practical, viable solution to someone who wants to opt out? You would be looking at a minimum of $10,000 to have one installed and could you imagine the paper work and hoops one would have to jump through to do this?

Seeing how you were on the smart city commity I would like to ask you... How many decades does the city project for the break even point on the cost to implement this whole program? What about on going maintenance and infrustructure costs? IT upgrades?


Second part first, I said as a member of the SmartCity steering committee I supported the smart water meters, I didn’t say the committee supported it or analysed the cost benefit.

First part, I really don’t care what a cistern costs or what red tape is required. The point is by shutting off the water, the City has not eliminated a way that the resident could opt out.
 
Quote 1 0
Willy
Wow Kevin, your contempt for the “dissidents” is rather blatant and shocking.
Your choice of words is very telling.
Quote 1 0
Willy
Kevin wrote:


Second part first, I said as a member of the SmartCity steering committee I supported the smart water meters [you are correct, you did say that], I didn’t say the committee supported it or analysed the cost benefit.[i didn’t say that either, please re-read my question]

t.
Quote 0 0
Kevin
Willy wrote:
Wow Kevin, your contempt for the “dissidents” is rather blatant and shocking.
Your choice of words is very telling.


As I have stated, i supported the mandatory deployment.

I am stepping back and accepting only if those who are refusing are willing to accept the cost to them. Again the cost to the resident should be higher than what the actual cost is, as they are taking a person away from other work they could be doing.

Contempt is a pretty strong word, you have to stop reading emotion into written word.

I currently only have “contempt” for 2 St. Albert citizens. To the best of my knowledge they are not involved in this debacle.
 
Quote 0 0
Willy
Actually your choice of words; “I don’t care”, “dissidents”,” cost to the resident should be higher than what the actual cost is”, in other words [penalised], “ The city has not eliminated away that a resident could opt out”
- stands on their own merit and is rather contemptuous. No emotion read - just your choice of words. Rather, on your part, your lack of respect, empathy or compassion towards the “dissidents” is rather blatant and insulting.
Quote 1 0
Kevin
Willy wrote:
Actually your choice of words; “I don’t care”, “dissidents”,” cost to the resident should be higher than what the actual cost is”, in other words [penalised], “ The city has not eliminated away that a resident could opt out”
- stands on their own merit and is rather contemptuous. No emotion read - just your choice of words. Rather, on your part, your lack of respect, empathy or compassion towards the “dissidents” is rather blatant and insulting.


I respectfully disagree, it is however, your prerogative to interpret as you wish.
 
Quote 0 0
Swallow1
Head Honcho wrote:
Many of our members here are not part of the Facebook community and miss much of what goes on in fairly limited number member areas of that forum.

Kevin wrote: Smart water meters in St. Albert are causing a stir. As a member of the now disbanded St. Albert Smart City Steering Committee I completely supported their mandatory deployment. However, this is the email I sent council this morning.

Good morning council members,

I have been following the smart water meter debacle since the issue arose.

I completely support council in the decision they made to not have the opt out option. However, I do have concerns with shutting off of the water of a resident. Potable water is important and it is essential life. 

The City may or may not win this lawsuit, but is it really worth the news that a St. Albert City Council decision has again got us into the spotlight? I say no. Let's get St. Albert back to being a City that creates the news rather than being in the news.

Thanks for your time in reading and considering.

Kevin Malinowski



While I believe this message is clear and concise, I don't believe anyone on council (save 1 or 2) will give your letter a second thought.  

Why, you ask?

Probably would have been better to start out with the second paragraph first and first sentence of your message being last (I have been following the smart water meter debacle since the issue arose.)

They don't like to be told they're wrong - unless they can pin it on a previous council.

Also, IMHO, like the Cannabis "debacle" most city council members have a litigious "BENT". Sadly, when they refuse to back down, WE ALL PAY and most people LAUGH?

Can we count on THIS council not to make residents of St Albert a laughing stock(yard) to the rest of the province?

I sure hope so.

Quote 0 0
Head Honcho
This received last evening from Jerry Mangere for listening TODAY.

Hi everyone,
 
This is the second time the EMF Summit has been presented. Jeanne and I have already watched many of the interviews. 
 
Thought I would forward this just in case some of you have the time to watch. Each interview is usually available for 24 hours.
 
Jerry

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Lloyd Burrell | EMF Health Summit" <lloyd@electricsense.com>
Subject: Starts tomorrow
Date: December 8, 2018
 
 
Headaches, fatigue, depression, brain fog… sound familiar? Learn how to know in just 7 days if your symptoms are EMF related & what to do to start the healing process. 
 
Could cell phone radiation really cause and cancer? Regular cell phone use by adults can increase the risk of gliomas (brain tumors) by 40%. FACT. Discover simple ways to protect yourself. 
 
Do you suffer from inflammation like 60% of Americans? Discover a simple technique that takes just 20 to 30 minutes that reduces inflammation and brings about significant pain relief... with no side effects. 
 
Would you like to improve your sleep? Learn how to improve your sleep and reduce your nighttime exposure to EMFs by up to 90% with one simple FREE change in your bedroom. 
 
Would you like to reverse the aging process? It sounds to good to be true I know, but you can also learn how to reverse the aging process and put yourself in control of your life and future. 
 
At the EMF Health Summit I’ve gathered together 34 of the worlds leading experts on EMFs and health including medical doctors, scientists, researchers, building biologists, nutritionists, electromagnetic field specialists. 
 
They're passionate about dispelling the health myths and confusion around the effects of cell phone radiation, particularly 5G, dirty electricity, Wi-Fi and many other forms of EMF’s – and they’re eager to share everything they know to help you and your loved ones.
 
It's a FREE on-line event and it starts tomorrow 9th December 2018. 
 
Register here: emfhealthsummit.com
 
Lloyd Burrell
ElectricSense
Live a naturally healthy life in our electromagnetic world!
 
EMF Health Summit
EMF protection is IMPORTANT
please share ElectricSense emails
with your friends and colleagues.


Support my work: visit my EMF protection store http://www.electricsense.com/emf-protection-store/
Quote 0 0
Kevin
Does anyone know if the Manegre's presented the City with a letter from a physician stating that they were EMF sensative?
 
Quote 0 0
Head Honcho
That is an excellent question, Kevin.

You may want to ask Jerry himself for the answer:

rtfbythebay@gmail.com

HH
Quote 0 0
AlbertaShank
No such thing as EMF Sensitivity except that which exists in ones own mind. 

But that is just science... and we know today that doesn't matter as proven by the Climate Fraud being forced upon us.
Quote 0 0