Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Housing boom, small pipes point to spring drought

Re: County Commission needs to address pressure problem, Jan. 19 letter to the editor:

Editor: George Miller's letter was appreciated and right on. However, I would have not described the "dance" by Utilities Director Kay Adams and County Attorney Garth Coller as "impressive" but rather disgraceful.

These people work for the county commissioners and the commissioners are our representatives.

Some of the problem was that the questions asked did not address the issue straight on. This allowed for wiggle room. The question asked by Commissioners Chris Kingsley and Nancy Robinson should have been: "Has the existing problem, with the small pipes, in the existing subdivision of Seven Hills, i.e., the Estates, the Links, the Greens, the Reserve, been fixed?" The answer, of course, is no, simply put. No new pipe has been placed in the subdivision because it would cost money.

Also, for your information, Ms. Adams, all existing lots have now been sold and building within the existing "old" Seven Hills is at levels unseen since the inception of our subdivision in the late 1980s and early '90s. This, coupled with the illustrious affordable apartments, should give us an interesting drought season this spring. We know from the sworn testimony that the apartments will have water, but we surely don't see our problems getting any better.

And please don't start the "We have to have water restrictions to solve the problems" baloney again. I have 12,000 square feet of lawn that has to look reasonably well or I will get a letter from the homeowners association. So we water twice a week and will have to pay the price that has been put upon us by the commission.

It is so strange that we have water for all growth, but we are supposed to live with restrictions for those of us who unfortunately have small pipes. Why not fix the pipes now that the county owns the system?

Last, to address the issue of why some people didn't include their names and addresses on the surveys sent by the county, maybe these same people feel that no matter what they say or do, all they ever get is the runaround, and they are just worn out by the "treatment" from the county.

Where does Rep. Brown-Waite stand on Social Security issues?

Editor: As the war drums against retirement pensions increases in tempo, I would be grateful to hear what U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Crystal River, thinks of the plan to phase out and/or reduce Social Security benefits.

President Bush may envision an "ownership society," but according to the government he will turn young gamblers into old beggars if he privatizes the program due to the incredible projected costs.

Brown-Waite's 5th Congressional District ranks first in Florida for the volume of Social Security recipients. She has been a rubber-stamp politician whose primary legislative initiative has been to propose the voluntary exhumation of fallen American World War II heroes interred in France. This piece of political genius was conspired during the anti-France frenzy leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Apparently France's lack of enthusiasm to support the erroneous war in Iraq was enough to warrant violating the hallowed grounds of soldiers' graves to send a political message.

Why, in an uncertain time when we require "steady" leadership, are we creating imminent social insecurity by dismantling Social Security? Why are we about to destroy the least fiscally harmful program that benefits our senior citizens?

This is Brown-Waite's opportunity to step up to the plate and tell senior citizens, and District 5's 188,000-plus over-65 Social Security claimants, that she will oppose Bush's Social Security reconstruction if it means benefit losses to elderly people. That she will oppose Social Security alterations if real, honest (remember when Medicare passed for $380-billion and the real cost was $540-billion) costs are not disclosed to the taxpayer. That she will fight for senior citizens' rights if other, more fiscally dire programs aren't reformed first. That she will oppose Social Security destruction if the public doesn't have a right to vote on it by referendum in the next election.

If we can vote on the minimum wage, we should be able to vote on our income from Social Security, right?

If Rep. Brown-Waite will go against the party dogma of dismantling pension programs that help seniors and invalids, she will have traded humanity for party loyalty. Considering Bush's track record on legislative disasters, she is better off being loyal to her voting constituents than endorsing a needless reform program that is headed for an iceberg.

[Last modified January 23, 2005, 00:13:14]