A landowner on
To the Editor:
I read with great interest the letter of Troy Sutton that was printed in your February 8 paper. I guess it’s that time of year again when the RSD’s trot out their “unofficial representatives” to spread the message that any attempt in the legislature to give RSD customers more rights or clarifies areas of RSD operations will cause the sky to fall and the world as we know it to end. Really……
I actually agree with Mr. Sutton where an inspector can be someone with “sufficient knowledge” can be considered a qualified inspector is too loose a definition. Maybe Mr. Sutton can contact his representative and urge a change in the actual language of HB 1497. That would make more sense than scrapping the entire bill. Having been down in Indianapolis last week, I don’t think that Mr.Sutton should lose any sleep worrying that there is a shortage of high priced lobbyists representing the RSD industry and working behind the scenes to influence legislation.
Where I feel Mr. Sutton needs to be more forthcoming in explaining his opposition to the bill is how he comes to the conclusion that RSD’s will be run out of business. Exactly how will this bill run RSD’s out of business? Why not explain your point with some specificity, Mr. Sutton? I think you owe it to this paper’s readers to fully inform them of the actual provisions in the bill you seem to feel are so toxic to your sponsor. Why should anyone follow your recommendation if you can’t explain your position with specifics?
I also read the Feb 4 articles about the bill in your paper and the various comments by LCRUD’s counsel. What amazed most is his contention that people would run for office as trustee solely to make trouble. I find that hard to believe and it also goes against my personal experience where trustees or board members are elected.
As to the comment that one or two people can vote no and that supposedly prevents the board from doing anything…..I’m really surprised that a person with as much experience would publicly say something that can be so easily proven to be false. One or two persons on a board of five can never block a board of five, as the majority of three or four would always outvote the one or two saying no.
I do get his point though, they want yes men and the best way to get yes men is for the county commissioners to appoint trustees as is currently done. Apparently even one person daring to say no is too scary for him. I guess as soon as even one person learns that he or she can speak out, it scares the daylights out of them that others will also start asking questions and voting in accordance with their constituents wishes, rather than the wishes of the people in power.
I am concerned that that proposed changes in camp rates may negatively affect other users’ rates and would like to see some financial projections of the effects. As to the interim billing at half rate, I have no objection to billing for bond interest, but do have extreme objection to billing for these mysterious “administrative costs.” If you look at the numbers, the “administrative costs” portion tends to be free money and is already substantially accounted for with the initial project financing. The identified costs are funded by the funding agency with each draw request. There should be no unfunded costs to be paid in the interim, unless the amount was so small as to make keeping records for the draws unjustified.
Bottom line is read the bill, see if you agree or disagree. If you don’t like something, then contact your representative, just as the rest of us have been doing. Having informed people involved in the process is the best way to achieve the best result, in my opinion.