Stormwater dissenter responds

Tue, 02/21/2006 - 4:48pm
By: Letters to the ...

I took notes at all stormwater utility meetings, except the one for commercial properties. So I will clarify the issues that have confused Mr. Chase.

First, “The voice of experience” comment was made to command a response. During and after flooding rainfall events, I witnessed the ugly side of a stormwater utility. I did not see any person from that meeting at these structures witnessing the devastation that had taken place to these homeowners. These people pay a monthly fee and I had to explain to them why their situation did not qualify them to receive aid.

Again, you were not there, Mr. Chase. That is the experience I refer to in that article. It was a vague statement and I appreciate you bringing that to my attention so I could give clarification. I do not consider myself to be a sole authority as Mr. Chase suggests. But I will make any statement necessary to make sure my opinion is not ignored as it was in the meeting.

If you remember correctly, I did not object to the stormwater utility itself. My issue is with how it is to be funded. Since you do not reside here, I am suspicious of your motives with this issue. Which brings me to your second issue. Your statement, ”Obviously it didn’t matter to him that I do not accept pay for my participation.” Again, if you remember correctly, my reply to your statement was “Thank you. I can respect that.” Perhaps as I stated in my previous article, you just were not listening along with the others. Thank you for making it so easy for me to prove this statement. Did your puppet masters convince you to write this article?

I am not here to appease politicians. The phone calls I received from friends and neighbors supporting the content of my article was astounding. Seems I was the only person at the Jan. 19 meeting that still believes in “We the People.” All opinions should count, even ones you disagree with, Mr. Chase.

I find it odd that you responded to my article since you were not the target. My mission was to inform the public of all aspects of a stormwater utility, not just the perfect scenario being force-fed by Integrated Science. Maybe I can get an answer to my question since this will be published in The Citizen.

If we already pay for road\right of way drainage maintenance through our taxes into the general fund, why are you charging us again? I look forward to a response to this question. Although, I am curious if that response will come from the puppet or if one of the puppet masters will finally stand up and earn their pay.

Matt Bergen
Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments