Optional
Comment Form
Following
are comments I wish to make concerning the proposed discontinuance of the MAX
Post Office.
1. Effect on Your Postal Services.
Describe any favorable or unfavorable effects you believe the proposal would
have on the regularity or effectiveness of your postal services.
Closing the Max Post Office will reduce the postal
services that are currently available to me. As a disabled person on a limited
income, I rely heavily on the closeness of the Max Post Office both to receive
my mail, and to send mail out. I also rely solely on the Max Post Office to
provide availability of stamps and other mail services. Closing the Max Post
Office will require me to drive 16 miles (round trip) on a daily basis, six
days each week. That’s 4,992 miles a year I will have to drive just to pick up
my mail. In addition to the wear and tear on my vehicle driving an addition 96
miles each and every week, closing the Max Post Office will now cost me an
additional $18,294.64 per year just in fuel costs, and that is assuming the
price per gallon of fuel does not go up.
In addition: I understand that if the Max Post Office is
closed, mail delivery service in Max could be replaced by either a cluster box
unit, or personal mail boxes for all residents clustered together in a specific
location in Max (at an additional cost to me). If either of these options are
utilized, then any mail delivered to them will not be inside (as they are now)
and thus will expose me to potentially hazardous weather conditions, i.e. I
will need to leave my vehicle to retrieve my mail (thus exposing me to
inclement weather), and will expose me to potentially hazardous conditions
(such as slipping on ice or mud and possibly causing injury). With the
delivered mail being exposed to the weather as it would be in conditions such
as these, the mail could be damaged or destroyed. Also, if the personally
purchased mail box option is utilized, any mail delivered to it would be
unsecured and available to any thief who happened to come along, whether in
town or off of the highway.
So, in other words, closing the Max Post Office will
cause me personally an undue and unnecessary physical and financial hardship.
2. Effect on Your Community. Please
describe any favorable or unfavorable effects that you believe the proposal
would have on your community.
In addition to the comments I have made in section #1
above, which would hold true for most if not all of the residents of Max and
the surrounding area; as a small rural community, the Max Post Office serves
not just as a place to pick up or deliver mail, or purchase postal supplies,
but also as a community gathering place and a place to hear news that directly
affects the Max community – news that is generally not available anyplace else.
News bulletins containing local news and items of interest are posted at the
Max Post Office for all residents to read, and residents meeting one another at
the Post Office also provide important community related news. Closing the Max
Post Office would take this all away from the community.
3. Other Comments. Please provide any
other views or information that you believe the Postal Service should consider
in deciding whether to adopt the proposal.
According to the “Proposal to Close the Max Post Office,”
the USPS has several “reasons” to close the Max Post Office. The reasons given
in this document (written and provided by the USPS) are as follows: “The office
is being studied for possible closing or consolidation due to the following
reasons; Due to declining office workload, which may indicate that maintaining
this facility is not warranted. Over the past several years, this office has
experienced a steady decline in revenue and/or volume. The Post Office facility
had severe building deficiencies that included: Leased Facility Lease Expires
7/1/2016 Termination Clause – 30 days. The Max Post Office provides retail
service from 800 to 1215 Monday through Friday and 800 to 945 on Saturday. Over
the past several years there has been a decline in the amount of walk in
revenue generated. This revenue trend is as follows: FY 07 $5,407, FY 08
$4,365, FY 09 $6,201 and FY 10 $3,637.”
There are then only two reasons given by the USPS to
close the Max Post Office. The first is a decline in revenue. Not only do the
Max Post Office revenue figures given by the USPS not show a declining
revenue trend (note that revenue went up in FY 2009 to a point higher than the
previous two years, so a declining revenue “trend” is not substantiated by
these figures); but more importantly, federal law forbids the closing of a post
office solely for operating at a deficit. The USPS is required to show reasons
other than economic reasons for closing a post office. This brings us to the
second reason given in the proposal to close the Max Post Office, as written by
the USPS itself.
The second reason given by the USPS for closing the Max
Post Office is, “The Post Office facility
had severe building deficiencies that included: Leased Facility Lease Expires
7/1/2016 Termination Clause – 30 days.” A building deficiency would
indicate a structural problem. A “severe” building deficiency would indicate a
severe structural problem. There are no structural problems with the building
currently housing the Max Post Office. A guaranteed lease of the building for
the next five years, with a 30-day termination clause, cannot be considered a
“severe building deficiencies” as stated by the USPS, nor would any logical
person consider them as such.
The proposal written and provided by the USPS states
there are several “advantages” and “disadvantages” to closing the Max Post
Office. I would like to address these here.
“Some
advantages of the proposal are:”
1. “The rural and
contract carriers may provide retail services, alleviating the need to go to
the post office.” (this is also reiterated in the “disadvantages” section
of the proposal). Since the rural and contract carriers will not, and cannot be
in Max at the same specific time each day, Max residents (many of whom are
elderly or disabled) will be forced to wait, sometimes for an hour or more, and
sometimes in inclement weather, in order to take advantage of USPS retail
services. Maintaining the Max Post Office would alleviate this problem. Having
the rural and contract carriers provide retail services is a distinct
disadvantage and hardship on the residents of Max.
2. “Customers
opting for carrier service will have 24-hour access to their mail.” As we
already have 24-hour access to our mail with the Max Post Office, this is not
an advantage.
3. “Savings for the
postal service contribute in the long run to stable postage rates and savings
for customers.” Any savings the USPS would incur by closing the Max Post
Office would be inconsequential, and akin to removing one teaspoon of water
from the Pacific Ocean in an attempt to lower the water level. In fact, if the
USPS closes 16,000 of the most “under-performing” post offices in the country
(or in other words, half of the post offices in the country), the USPS would
save less than two percent of the USPS yearly budget of $67 billion. Again,
this is not an advantage.
4. “CBU’s can offer
the security of individually locked mail compartments.” As with #2 above,
we already have individual locked mail compartments inside the Max Post Office.
Closing the post office and installing CBU’s would lower the security of our
delivered mail by placing it outside in the elements, and removing the added
security of the Postmaster. In addition, Max residents would be exposed to
inclement weather and potentially hazardous conditions with the use of CBU’s –
conditions not currently faced. Number 4 is also not an advantage.
5. “Customers
opting for carrier service will not have to pay post office box fees.” As
we currently do not pay post office box fees, this too is not an advantage.
6. “Saves time and
energy for customers who drive to the post office to pick up mail.” Closing
the Max Post Office, and requiring Max residents to drive to Benkelman (16
miles roundtrip) to pick up mail will not save time and energy for customers.
In fact it will increase the time and energy residents currently spend to pick
up mail. Also, driving the additional 16 miles to pick up mail will require
more driving time, and more exhaust pollutants into the atmosphere. For a
government such as ours, who is so strongly advocating for environment friendly
solutions, this is not only a disadvantage for Max residents, but a step
backwards for the Presidents initiatives.
“Some disadvantages of the proposal are:”
1. “The loss of a
retail outlet and a postmaster position in the community.” This
disadvantage is a very real disadvantage, and will not be alleviated by the use
of rural and contract carriers as explained above (in “advantages” point #1).
2. “Meeting the
rural or contract delivery carrier at the box to transact business.” As
noted above, since the rural and contract carriers will not, and cannot be in
Max at the same specific time each day, Max residents (many of whom are elderly
or disabled) will be forced to wait, sometimes for an hour or more, and
sometimes in inclement weather, in order to take advantage of USPS retail
services. Therefore, this too is a very real disadvantage that will create a
hardship on many if not all of the residents of Max – a disadvantage that can
only be alleviated by maintaining the Max Post Office.
3. “A change in the
mailing address.” Although the community name will continue to be used,
assigned a new carrier route address to each resident of Max will not only be
time consuming for the USPS, but will also incur the related costs of several
USPS employees time and efforts to accomplish this. It will also force Max
residents to incur the costs of both mail and telephonic change of address
notifications. Another disadvantage that can only be alleviated by maintaining
the Max Post Office.
The only conclusion that can logically be made when
thoroughly examining both the “advantages” and “disadvantages” to the closing
of the Max Post Office (as presented in the USPS proposal), is that there are
no advantages to closing the Max Post Office. Not one. Only disadvantages for
both the USPS and the residents of Max.
The “Proposal to Close the Max Post Office” (as written
and provided by the USPS) also speaks about the “Effect on Employees” and
“Economic Savings.” The proposal states that the current Postmaster “may be
moved to another facility if possible” and the PMR “may be separated from the
Postal Service.” The proposal also states: “The
Postal Service estimates a ten year savings of $297,437 with a breakdown as
follows:”
Building Maintenance………………………………………….$0
Utilities…………………………………………………………..$0
Transportation………………………………………………….$12,097
EAS Craft & Labor……………………………………………..$365,971
Contracts………………………………………………………..$0
Rent……………………………………………………………..$0
Relocation One-Time Cost…………………………………...$0
Total Ten Year Savings……………………………………….$297,437
(breakdown is taken verbatim from the USPS proposal)
Evidently, the USPS is not supplying the correct figures
for this breakdown. Figures are either intentionally missing and not available
for examination, or simply miscalculated. That aside, however, the only savings
would be the yearly lease of the building, and the termination of both
employees. Transportation costs would not be saved, as the rural or contract
carrier would still make the same trip to Max as he always has. He would simply
be delivering the mail to a CBU or cluster of customer purchased mail boxes
rather than picking up mail at the post office as he currently does. The only
transportation that would change would be the large truck that delivers bags of
mail in the morning and picks up bags of mail in the evening. Closing the Max
Post Office would mean that large truck would not travel the 4 blocks in the
morning and the 4 blocks in the evening. An inconsequential savings of
transportation costs that amount to only a few cents per day.
The amount saved by the USPS on the yearly lease would in
turn cause the lease holder to lose that income. Terminating either or both of
the post office employees may amount to a miniscule savings for the USPS. In
either case, however, these actions would serve to add to already rising
unemployment rates in Nebraska and at the national level. In a time where
unemployment is over 9% and not expected to go any lower at any time over the
next five years; and in a time where the current administration is attempting
to focus on job retention and job creation, it seems counter-productive for the
USPS to even consider adding to the already high unemployment rate.
The proposal also goes on to say that the Max Post Office
provides delivery and retail services to 29 PO Box or general delivery
customers and no delivery route customers. This statement is pure fantasy. Not
only does the Max Post Office provide delivery and retail services to the 29
box holders, but the Max Post Office also provides retail services to non-box
holders in the community of Max, as well as providing retail services to those
who live on route outside of Max, and these include some who live closer to Max
than to Benkelman, but still have an assigned Benkelman address.
The proposal states in its conclusion the following:
“Taking all available information into consideration, the Postal Service has
determined that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and this proposal is
warranted.” Clearly, the only “advantages” are to the USPS, and those being
only a miniscule financial savings, which, as I pointed out above, is not a
legally allowable reason to close any post office. When one takes into
consideration the inconvenience’s and the hardships and the potential dangers
the residents of Max will be faced with if the Max Post Office closes, the it
is clear that the disadvantages in closing the Max Post Office far outweigh and
possible advantage.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Name of
Postal Customer
Signature
of Postal Customer
________________________________________________________________________________
Mailing
Address
________________________
________________________________________________________
City,
State, and ZIP Code
Date
No comments:
Post a Comment