Water, Water Everywhere: Patton



That Mike Patton is just a ham.

A major league ham. Ya gotta luv it.

I remember studying journalism at the University of Western Ontario in the dark ages and being told by television profs that you had to take advantage of the pictures. You need good film.

So I didn’t like that at all. I want to give people journalism … not a bunch of props. So I went into print with a bit of radio. Furthermore, I look like a serial killer on TV … shifty eyes … not to be trusted.

But Patton, yes our Bulldog contributor has got this all down, finds a way to get a prop or two in his rants and is lively and bright and gives you good information as well.

He is the perfect television ham. Me? I would stand in front of the camera acting like I was reading the phone book.

Sure he goes overboard now and then. I’m still having nightmares from when he tried to kiss the camera repeatedly in one segment.

Today he features himself drinking water from a Red Bull can and gives us a tour of his 1950s bathroom sink.

You can’t get this everywhere.

Seriously … Patton takes on the critical issue of water and how we’re paying for it in Ottawa.

Take it away Mike … no kissing …



Back to The Bulldog’s home page, click here.

To comment on this post, use the reply box at the bottom of this page.




The Bulldog Forum: Debate And Comment

Bulldog Cars: Get Going

Bulldog Celebrities

Bulldog Sports

Bulldog Technology

Bulldog Travel

Ottawa Gas Prices

For Your 10-Day Ottawa And World Weather Forecasts, Click Here.

To Access The More Than 40 Great Features On The Bulldog From Homes To Travel And Much More, Go To Its Main Index By Clicking Here

Return to The Bulldog (Ottawa), Bulldog Canadian or Bulldog Politics.



4 thoughts on “Water, Water Everywhere: Patton

  1. Fixed costs vs variable costs, it is an accounting concept older than that sink.

    And, by the way, that’s not a 1950’s sink. That sink colour with that single control water tap and that exact style is the same as the new sink in my downstairs’ bathroom. We installed it in 1976 – so there.


  2. If I remember correctly, the water portion of our taxes was removed years ago so the price of city water could be raised without effecting our tax bill rate. People don’t like when our taxes increase but paying a little more for our water seems to be alright with most of us.

    And that last video proves what we’ve know all along … Mr. Patton is a Real Man. I think Chaz is right ’70s sink along with ’70s soap.

    That Mike Patton is one ’70s kinda guy.


  3. A blended solution may be best, as the bulk of the costs associated with delivering clean water to our taps is fixed, and thus could be allocated as part of the property tax bill, in much the same way as our curb side garbage, recycling, composting is allocated, notably as a fixed fee, irrespective of the assessed value.

    On the other hand, sewage treatment likely has a larger variable component. Consideration should be given to allocating the fixed charge costs of sewage treatment in a manner similar to what I suggest above, while retaining the metre readings to address the variable costs, with a continuation of the current water in equals sewage out assumption. While the real ratio is not 1:1, due to garden and lawn watering, and topping up the swimming pool, hot water spa etc., it is a reasonable proxy.

    The same methodology, after applying appropriate rate reductions, could be used to address the ill considered storm water runoff tax being assessed to members of our rural community.


  4. If the problem is deficit caused by sudden water conservation, then fix the deficit but don’t encourage water waste.

    I agree with Ron, the answer is a blend. Perhaps a property tax increase to cover the infrastructure or part of it, and a water bill that puts a “fair” price on water use by the litre.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *