Parish
Bashing Opponents of WTP4 Is Wrong
RECEIVED Tue., Aug. 2, 2011
Dear Editor,
In Michael King's recent editorial "Point Austin: Seeing Double" [News, July 29], he described people against Water Treatment Plant No. 4 as being insensitive to the need for local employment. Trying to draw parallels between Austin and the national political landscape, he compared WTP4 opponents to the tea party, who oppose stimulus spending to create jobs and repair the national economy.
In my case, he would be wrong. I have voted as a Democrat for 34 years. I agree with The New York Times commentator Paul Krugman (whom King referenced in his editorial) that Barack Obama spent way too little on stimulus money when he had the chance. Obama may be defeated in the next election because of it. However, just because I am for the stimulus theory in concept does not mean I want ratepayer and tax money wasted.
Consider the pet project of former (Republican) Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, "the bridge to nowhere," a federally funded bridge connecting a remote, sparsely populated area of the state for no discernible public good. It will create some jobs, but what service did it render the public? Tax and rate money are valuable. At this point, new water treatment capacity is not justified.
The majority of WTP4 opponents I work with on this issue are not against the plant for reasons such as opposing stimulus money. There may be tea party members against this plant, but I have not knowingly met them.
Locally, we can spend "stimulus" money on things that would actually be a good investment for tax and ratepayers. These include creating a larger reclaimed water system, repairing leaking pipes, and retrofitting commercial buildings to save water. The list also includes transportation improvements (rail, road repair, bike lanes, sidewalks), retrofitting buildings to be more energy efficient, and a host of other projects that better serve the public.
Also consider Austin's proposed water rate increase of 61% over the next 5 years, part of which will pay for this plant. This includes the newly proposed "sustainability fee," a regressive fixed charge that will be levied whether or not ratepayers use a gallon of water. If the increase happens, there will be less discretionary income that ratepayers can spend, hampering local economic recovery.
If Michael King wants to defend the treatment plant, it will not help his credibility to keep making incredulous statements about his opponents' philosophy.
In Michael King's recent editorial "Point Austin: Seeing Double" [News, July 29], he described people against Water Treatment Plant No. 4 as being insensitive to the need for local employment. Trying to draw parallels between Austin and the national political landscape, he compared WTP4 opponents to the tea party, who oppose stimulus spending to create jobs and repair the national economy.
In my case, he would be wrong. I have voted as a Democrat for 34 years. I agree with The New York Times commentator Paul Krugman (whom King referenced in his editorial) that Barack Obama spent way too little on stimulus money when he had the chance. Obama may be defeated in the next election because of it. However, just because I am for the stimulus theory in concept does not mean I want ratepayer and tax money wasted.
Consider the pet project of former (Republican) Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, "the bridge to nowhere," a federally funded bridge connecting a remote, sparsely populated area of the state for no discernible public good. It will create some jobs, but what service did it render the public? Tax and rate money are valuable. At this point, new water treatment capacity is not justified.
The majority of WTP4 opponents I work with on this issue are not against the plant for reasons such as opposing stimulus money. There may be tea party members against this plant, but I have not knowingly met them.
Locally, we can spend "stimulus" money on things that would actually be a good investment for tax and ratepayers. These include creating a larger reclaimed water system, repairing leaking pipes, and retrofitting commercial buildings to save water. The list also includes transportation improvements (rail, road repair, bike lanes, sidewalks), retrofitting buildings to be more energy efficient, and a host of other projects that better serve the public.
Also consider Austin's proposed water rate increase of 61% over the next 5 years, part of which will pay for this plant. This includes the newly proposed "sustainability fee," a regressive fixed charge that will be levied whether or not ratepayers use a gallon of water. If the increase happens, there will be less discretionary income that ratepayers can spend, hampering local economic recovery.
If Michael King wants to defend the treatment plant, it will not help his credibility to keep making incredulous statements about his opponents' philosophy.
Sincerely,
Paul Robbins
Paul Robbins
