Postal Service update on PMBs (long) - Posted by Rob FL

Real Estate Investing
1

Posted by David Alexander on March 23, 2000 at 11:33:40:

I own one of these little postal centers now and cant keep up. the post office doesnt even inform us of what they expect. The only real concern I’ve noticed from the postmaster is that we update the list of boxholders regularly, other than no contact. In our complex we get the mail from eveywhere, if they cant figure out where it goes they send it to us, scary. The people in the complex no to come to us if their missing mail because invariably it ends up with whether it should have or not.

The scarier thing is we regularly get mail that’s 3-6 months old.

I believe that eventually it will somehow get privatized, they spend to much time working against themselves.

David Alexander

2

Postal Service update on PMBs (long) - Posted by Rob FL

Posted by Rob FL on March 22, 2000 at 20:10:00:

It has been quite some time since I posted anything about the PMB issue. It looks like the post office is truly going to win this unless we do something about it immediately. Read below for more info on how things are going. *** This is not intended as an advertisement, simply an update ***

PostalWatch Incorporated
3631 Virginia Beach Blvd., # 100
Virginia Beach, VA 23452
Toll-free hotline - 1-877-5POSTAL (1-877-576-7825)
Website: http://www.postalwatch.org
Email to: info@postalwatch.org

3/13/2000 - POSTAL SERVICE PROPOSES POUND SIGN RULE
AND EXTENDS PMB DEADLINE TO AUGUST 26, 2000.

DON’T CHEER YET! IF EVERYBODY DOES NOT TAKE IMMEDIATE
ACTION AFTER AUGUST YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO USE PMB.

ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN A
MUCH MORE READABLE FORM ON OUR WEB SITE AT

********* BACKGROUND ********
On March 13th, 2000 the US Postal Service opened an
official “Comment Period” for a proposed rule that,
if made final, would allow private mailbox users to
utilize the pound (#) sign address designator instead
of the dreaded “PMB” designator. The proposed rules
continue to ban the use of “suite” or any designator
other than the pound (#) sign or “PMB.”

First the good news, the PMB deadline has been
extended until August 26, 2000.

Now for the not so good news, this proposal is not as
beneficial to private box holders as it may seem on
the surface.

First of all, this is only a PROPOSED RULE and during
the last several months the Postal Service has
successfully recruited no less than 35 States
Attorneys General to oppose this revision. Comments
opposing the revision from these Attorney Generals
would potentially give the Postal Service the
necessary “political cover” on Capitol Hill to back-
track and decide NOT TO ADOPT these revisions. See
previous Attorney General’s comment letters from
September 24th, 1999 and March 1st, 2000 for a
preview of what their comments will be for this
proposed rule.

Secondly, these regulations will force any box holder
that rents from a CMRA with a physical address which
contains a “secondary address designator” to either
use the PMB designator on the in a three line format
or go to a four line address format. Are you
confused yet? Wait until you try to get all your
correspondents to get it right.
For example, if your CMRA’s address is 1325 Main
Street Suite 124 your address could only be formatted
in one of the three following ways:

John Doe
1325 Main St. Suite 124 PMB 124
Smithtown, USA John Doe
#124
1325 Main St. Suite 124
Smithtown, USA John Doe
PMB 124
1325 Main St. Suite 124
Smithtown, USA

IF WE DON’T ACT NOW THE POSTAL SERVICE WILL NOT
ACCEPT THE POUND (#) SIGN ADDRESS DESIGNATOR!

TAKE ACTION NOW

***** SAMPLE COMMENT LETTER DUE 4/12/2000 *****

Manager, Delivery
United States Postal Service
475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 7142
Washington, DC 20260-2802

Dear Sir,

I am hereby providing comment to the Postal Service’s
proposed rule published in the March 13, 2000 Federal
Register that, if made final, would allow private
mailbox users limited use of the pound (#) sign
address designator instead of the highly
“stigmatizing” PMB designator.

I SUPPORT the provisions of the proposed rule that
would allow private mailbox renters to use the pound
(#) sign address designator.

I OBJECT to the provisions of the rule that do not
allow box holders who rent from CMRAs that have a
secondary address element on the delivery address to
utilize the pound (#) sign designator in a three-line
address format. I further object to provisions that
disallow the combination of the private mail box
number with the “secondary address element” of the
CMRAs’ physical address.

The Postal Service noted within the Summary of
Proposed Change section of the above Federal Register
publication that their reasoning for disallowing such
three (3) line addressing or combination of secondary
address elements is that allowing such addressing
“will likely cause operational problems. The
problems are related to automation misreading the
address?.”

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of
private mailbox users have been successfully
receiving their mail addressed in these formats for,
in some cases, the past twenty years without any
“operational problems.” Is one to assume that the
Postal Service either intentionally or
unintentionally failed to accommodate these types of
addresses in its “automation programs” and thus is
now attempting to shift the associated burden of that
failure to private box holders?

I OBJECT to any regulatory action that forces
existing box holders to change any previously used
address designator (i.e. Suite), or that allows the
Postal Service or any third party to willfully
withhold mail delivery, return mail, or interfere
with the delivery of otherwise deliverable mail to
any address or person based solely on address form or
content.

I find the underlying CMRA regulations discriminatory
and strongly believe they should be rescinded
immediately.

Sincerely,

Name: ____________________________

Date: ____________________________

Address: ____________________________

3

Re: Mr Bronchick’s lawsuit? - Posted by NickEaston

Posted by NickEaston on March 23, 2000 at 09:14:59:

What happened to Mr. B’s proposed lawsuit?

4

Re: 4 lines and # - Posted by JD

Posted by JD on March 22, 2000 at 21:20:25:

Thanks for the reprint. Only a small percentage of Private mailbox holders would be effected by the 4 line /secondary element rule. It seems like a resonable (to me) rule in such a circumstance. Seems to me as if postalwatch is blowing the 4 line issue out of proportion. As for the Postal Service possibly backtracking on the # sign rule, I believe that the Postal Service has figured out the PMB only rule would be a nightmare to enforce, and has lost interest in trying to do so. IMHO

5

Re: Mr Bronchick’s lawsuit? - Posted by William Bronchick

Posted by William Bronchick on March 23, 2000 at 10:43:02:

I didn’t file it because they conceded on the PMB rule and the free release of info.

6

Re: 4 lines and # - Posted by Rob FL

Posted by Rob FL on March 23, 2000 at 07:58:41:

I guess we will see what happens. I really don’t have much trust in the government anymore. Just the fact that they made me change my address was enough. Do you know how difficult it is for people to get the address right. I finally had to start sending mailing labels to my tenants because the address is so long. Half of the companies who send me mail could not fit 4 lines of address into their computers so they end up entering the address wrong. All these rules are such a big joke.

All this has made me feel that the whole post office system needs to be privatized. Does the government really need to be in charge of delivering mail anymore? This ain’t 1776. Oh well.

7

Re: 4 lines and # - Posted by J. Clifton

Posted by J. Clifton on March 23, 2000 at 01:09:42:

I disagree, Rob and PostalWatch are exactly right to emphasize the various manuevers being performed by the bureaucrats to get their attack on PMBs cemented into law. The point is not whether the address modification is “reasonable,” but why must businesses using CMRAs change the format of their address at all? Why the simultaneous push to “propose” regulations, while recruiting 35 AGs to oppose the proposals? The government originally didn’t “propose” eliminating the suite designation and PMB privacy, it just announced the changes were going to take effect, period. The public outcry caused them to retreat, but not give up–which is why vigilance is still needed on this issue.