> In our area sewer bills are based on water consumption and sewage
> costs more than water. Both bills have a high minimum charges --
> single people living alone rarely use more than that minimum and
> probably would pay less on a more usage based rate schedule.
Over here in England supplies were all unmetered at one time, with the
charge being based on the "ratable value" of the house (i.e. the same
base as used to calculate local property taxes). Sewer charges work
the same way, with a different multiplier to arrive at the actual
My home is still on such unmetered service, and this year the bill
comes to approx. $530, [*] near enough half and half for supply and
sewer. The sewer charge is normally higher than the supply charge,
but I get a $50 discount as I have no surface water draining into the
sewer. Houses in the area still on their own septic tanks would pay
only the supply portion of the bill, about $265, plus the small
surface drainage fee if their surface water went onto a street and
then into the public sewer.
Meters are standard for new homes now, and many older properties have
also been converted to metered service. Most water companies offer a
trial period of metering, and if you're not saving money after a year
or so you can revert back to unmetered service (that option isn't
available when the property changes ownership or on new homes built
with a meter).
The metered service in my area is billed as a small fixed annual fee
plus so much per cubic meter, both for supply and sewer.
It works out to about $43 plus 0.7 cent per U.S. gallon for supply and
$111 plus 0.8 cent per gallon for sewer.(again with a $50 discount if
you have no surface drainage to the sewer).
[*] All converted at 1 GBP = $1.80.
> So King Daley I had a solution for that also: we will take a tiny
> little five foot wide length of land on the north side of Irving Park
> Road (where Chicago touches Schiller Park) and stretch that all the
> way west then through the Forest Preserve (don't worry about those
> commissioners, they are my puppets also) and we will keep on
> extending that little strip of land through Rosemont until it reaches
> the eastern edge of Ohare, where then we 'balloon it out' to take in
> all of Ohare. So by that gerrymandering Chicago is able to annex
> Orchard Field (which they would begin calling 'Ohare' Field; FYI that
> is why the FAA designation for Ohare is 'ORD', from the Orchard Field
I wondered about the situation at O'Hare first time I was going to pass
through there some years ago and looked at the map.
In my Rand-McNally road atlas there's a dotted line labeled "Chicago
City Limits" which follows the marked area of the airport exactly, yet
the big yellow area which otherwise marks the limit of Chicago stops
way short of the airport. In fact following that Irving Park Road the
city limit appears to be at Pueblo Av. on the eastern edge of Schiller
Woods, which I make a good 3 miles from the airport boundary.
Thanks to your explanations, now I know why -- My map is obviously not
detailed enough to show a 5 ft. wide strip!
When did the annexing of Orchard Field and the change of name to
O'Hare actually take place? I'm guessing 1960s?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Orchard Field was its name during
World War II; it became O'Hare sometime in the middle 1950's, but
the FAA retained the old designation of ORD for ORcharD Field. My
impression is cartographers (map makers) go insane attempting to
properly chart out the northwest side of City of Chicago. The
boundary is quite plain on the south side, much of the north side
and even going east and west (on the north) for the first few miles
it is clearly on Howard Street (except far east by the lake where
it juts up north of Howard Street for a couple block where the
Chicago/Evanston boundary is the southernmost edge of Calvary
Cemetery. Then the boundary makes a sharp turn and goes southeast
on Clark Street (which the Evanstonians refer to as 'Chicago Street')
back south to Howard then straight west for a few miles on Howard.
I think all of the Chicago Transit Authority train yards at that
point are considered Chicago, but at street level, _on the north
side of Howard Street_ beginning at the CTA tracks underpass, the
north side of Howard Street begins taking Evanston street numbers;
the CTA Howard Station (on the south side of the street [Howard and
Paulina Sts]) is known as 1759 West Howard; the CTA employees only
office on the north side of Howard and Paulina, right across the
street is known as 301 Howard Street by the Evanston numbering system.
Right next door to 301 Howard (Evanston) is 1760 West Howard (Chicago)
because the elevated tracks go overhead at that point. I think
Howard is the only street name Chicago/Evanston share in common.
A few blocks west of Howard Street and Western Avenue (in Evanston,
'Western' is known as 'Asbury Street'), the Chicago boundary line
drops south (at Kedzie Avenue [Chicago], I forget off hand what
Evanston calls that street), and the suburb of Lincolnwood begins on
the south side of the street, the Chicago street numbers continue
through Lincolnwood. After a couple blocks, the Village of Skokie
begins on the north side of Howard Street, and the Chicago system of
street numbering resumes [on both sides of Howard] since Skokie and
Lincolnwood both go along with Chicago's way of numbering things. It
only gets more complex as you go further west; at Lincolnwood, the
Chicago boundary drops south to Devon Street (6300 north I think); the
boundary line cuts in and out, frequently jutting in and out of
alleys, a half block here, a half block there. Most of this goes back
to earlier years in the 20th century as 'unincorporated areas' (based
on the votes of the residents therein) chose whether or not to
affiliate with City of Chicago or whichever suburb they were otherwise
contiguous with. SBC (nee, Ameritech, nee Illinois Bell) has one
telephone exchange out there on which '911' does _not_ go to Chicago
Police, it instead rings to the Cook County Sheriff which handles
unincorporated areas of the county. People living in that area (known
as 'unincorporated Norwood Park Township' [so as not to be confused
with 'Norridge', an incorporated suburb which is completely surrounded
on all four sides by Chicago]) get put on that exchange.
The little town of 'Golf, Illinois', which was cut out of a corner of
Glenview, Illinois is like that. Golf backs into Glenview to the north
and west, to Skokie and the golf course/country club on the east and
Morton Grove on the south. Incorporated, but it buys its fire
protection from Morton Grove and its police protection from Cook
County Sheriff. All those places use the 'Chicago street numbering
system' except for Evanston which is very independent. Golf, Illinois
has its own train station, its own post office and its own school, and
naturally its own golf course/country club and it is entirely _fenced
in_ or set back so far from Waukegan Road (main drag in Glenview/Morton
Grove) and Church Street (main connecting road between Evanston/Skokie/
Morton Grove and points westward) that no one can get in there except
on foot or by alighting at the Golf train station.
You may recall John Wayne Gacy, the Democratic ward committeeman from
some ward or another of Chicago, and serial killer of young boys who
had the misfortune of being manipulated by him in his construction
business, or otherwise 'uncertain of their own sexuality', etc. One
reason he fell through the cracks for so many years and escaped any
apprehension at all is because he lived in the 'no mans land' of
unincorporated Norwood Park Township. Police never went around there,
it was not their territory. Finally, police from Des Plaines, Illinois
who were investigating him (after about twenty years of his getting
away with murder [quite literally]) took him into custody, and turned
him over to Cook County Sheriff. People use the phrase 'Chicago'
quite generically, but _Chicago Police_ had nothing to do with that
case; nothing at all. Surrounded on all four sides by Chicago and
three other suburbs, but the _block he lived on_ was (and still is)
part of unincorporated Norwood Park Township. PAT]
Date: 16 Sep 2005 05:33:58 -0000
From: John Levine <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Roaming Charges
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 24, Issue 423, Message 6 of 11
> This raises a question I thought of recently, but had not bothered to
> ask anyone about. Suppose I start a cell call in local but move to a
> roaming tower during the call? Does the call get charged as roaming
> or not?
I doubt you'd get a handoff in a situation like that. It'd drop the
call and you'd call back.