Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
April 29, 2009
4. Water Quality –
Editorial:
Stealth politics to quadruple costs to homeowners for
Some neighborhood activists are still fuming over Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's plan to seek a vote of property owners to quadruple storm-water cleanup fees. They claim the move is exactly like his earlier plan, now underway, to ratchet up trash collection fees.
They're right to fume, but they're wrong about the comparison. The trash fees, love them or hate them, make sense. They are paid by homeowners to cover the costs of a service to homeowners, and there is no good reason for the rest of the city to continue footing their bill. Homeowners also have at least a modicum of control over their costs: They can get more trash picked up if they pay for more bins. But homeowners have no more direct control than anyone else over polluted street runoff.
The City Council was to act today to schedule an election in which only property owners vote. Sounds fair, right? If they would have to pay the higher fee, they should be the ones to get to vote. But this was to be a stealth election, conducted only by mail, requiring a simple majority and not the two-thirds of all voters that such increases usually require. The rush through council, the untried mail vote, the mayor's insistence that this was merely "cost recovery," the lack of public discussion -- all gave the move the same sour flavor as last month's solar power ballot fiasco.
But this time the mayor appears to have discovered his own over-cleverness and has separated the fee proposal from the time-sensitive budget process. That gives residents time to understand what they're being asked to pay for.
Storm water is the stuff that runs down the street when it rains, taking with it the trash, oil and other pollutants it picks up on the way to the concrete-lined washes and into groundwater, ponds and the ocean. It's what
Property owners have been paying for storm-water pollution abatement, at $20 to $30 a year, for over a decade. Now, with Proposition O, they pay a second fee to service and retire the bonds. The perverse logic behind quadrupling the first fee seems to be that, well, they paid this much without complaint, so let's get them to pay more.
Or maybe the mayor thought no one would notice. The irony is that, five years ago, voters passed Proposition O in overwhelming numbers precisely because they knew so much about it. Villaraigosa keeps saying that to solve the budget problem, the city needs to work together. He can take the first step and stop trying to work the city over.#
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-storm28-2009apr28,0,3440217.story
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DWR’s California Water News is distributed to California Department of Water Resources management and staff, for information purposes, by the DWR Public Affairs Office. For reader’s services, including new subscriptions, temporary cancellations and address changes, please use the online page: http://listhost2.water.ca.gov/mailman/listinfo/water_news . DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs. Inclusion of materials is not to be construed as an endorsement of any programs, projects, or viewpoints by the Department or the State of
No comments:
Post a Comment