Gazette Blog Editor
Just to keep the issue of the town selling Chaparral Pines water for its golf course alive, here is a comment that a reader recently posted on the blog:
We need to make sure we don't miss the meeting when this murky deal comes to a vote. I doubt that this council will do the right thing when so much money is at stake, but what they are doing - selling potable water for a rich man's golf course for 49 years at cost - cannot go unchallenged.
We understand a town councilor has asked Payson water guru (who knows what his title is these days) Buzz Walker what percentage of the water dumped on the golf course can actually be pumped out of the ground and resold. No answer yet. Payson Mayor Kenny Evans says all of it.
The Roundup bought that ridiculous assertion hook, line and sinker. Or at least the editor lacks the cojones to stand up and challenge the mayor.
Meanwhile, town hydrologist Mike Ploughe has bailed. He's down the road. Please stay tuned.
P.S. If I'm not mistaken, Kenny is on his third term already. At least it sure feels like it.
10 comments:
Where is Payson Councilman Ed Blair?
In reference to Ed Blair’s “win-win” statement concerning Chaparral Pine's Golf Country Club and the Town of Payson selling 49 years worth of water at cost so the Country Club can water their golden calf golf course. Talk about worshiping false gods!
Ed Blair is nothing but a “Want a bee”.
He loves the pomp and circumstance of being a Payson Town Councilman.
He knows full well that if he doesn’t march in step with Mayor Kenny Evans, that Blair will not get the Mormon vote and he will be gone.
What I find really interesting is that Mayor Kenny Evans’s “sheep” are going to follow him right over the edge of the cliff into the abyss.
I's extremely difficult, apparently, to cut through the personal animosity toward Mayor Evans and examine this issue rationally and without bias. Add to this the age old divide between "filthy lucre" and everyday earnings and an impasse is almost guaranteed.
The town of Payson is pretty much guaranteed a large amount of perpetual water, far more than its present needs. It is said that it is enough to support the needs of a town with a population of 35/40 thousand people - a population hard to imagine for any time in a future, especially since a fairly large segment is vehemently opposed to growth.
The cost to build an infrastructure to contain and distribute this resource is considerable, and a large segment is strongly opposed to taxation.
The possibility of building a fairly large education facility with other attractive and supportive entities is a reasonable occurance. Such a complex would need a substantial source of water, both potable and reclaimed.Constructing this infrastructure will be considerable.
The town could, posssibly, pass legislation which would obligate it for all expenses Or it could seek alternatives which would share costs and future obligations with users. Sharing costs would seem the most prudent course.
Guaranteeing that water usage would be paid for by users seems an obvious and prudent course, also.
So, the town has a windfall of a huge amount of surplus water lasting into a foreseeably long future. The water can be claimed and utilized for Payson go to other areas hungry for it.
Utilizing it for Payson will require a considerable expense. The expense can be amortized by a reasonable sharing of costs among users. Allocation of some parcel of the water at no cost to the town in return for a meaningful contribution toward infrastructure seems not only reasonable but obvious good business. If a rightful concern exists toward future continuation of the water or its volume, this is certainly a provision which would be accounted for in a contract.
When the emotional biases are removed from this issue,the best foreseeable containment and distribution of the resource can be viewed in the rational and reasonable light becoming it.
The water must be used in some manner. Getting a return on investment is always a primary consideration. "Selling" water at cost may seem arbitrary and even perhaps unbalanced, but it does no harm by taking the water from other needs and actually projects a profit in the return of whatever amount of water goes back into the acquifer - certainly some amount.
If it doesn't harm Payson and actually represents the possibllity of a "win, win" the only objections appear to come from a bias against affluence and present office holders.
Potable (and re-claimed)water is commonly used to irrigate golf courses both public and private throughout the world. The only real question involved is whether this use inteferes with public need or demand.
If the water is looked upon as a commodity (assuming a surplus of it) and not a judgement,it becomes more clear as to its possibilities
Evans was first elected in '10, and ran un-opposed (as did all if the coucil members in '12) but yeah, it sure feels like a lot longer.
Where's the college?
Please allow a brief response to the second "Anonymous" post above. (I wish anonymous posters would adopt a pseudonym that would preserve their anonymity but allow us to distinguish one from the other.) Anyway, the arguments in that post have been made before, and if I were a local realtor or a home-owning golfer in Chaparral Pines, I'd probably make the same argument.
My reaction is that we need to take a big picture look at potable water usage in the West and in the world. It is never OK to dump it on a golf course. Never! Period! Growth be damned! Because if we miscalculate, we're doomed.
Also, please allow me address two charges that the poster made:
I have a bias against the affluent. Guilty as charged. There are too damned many people who have way more than they need - too often at the expense of those who don't have enough.
And my bias towards Mayor Evans? Also guilty as charged. I think he is full of it and full of himself. And if we had a responsible newspaper in this town he would have been exposed by now.
Jim Keyworth
Editor
O.K.
What would YOU do with the large amount of excess water?
Also, I understand and have no problem with your personal bias against affluence and believing many people have more than they need. Implementing that as public policy,however, is defined as Socialism, perhaps worse.
In reference to the second "Anonymous" poster above.
You want to give it to the golf course,fine.
How about we cut the water charges (rates) to those of us who have lived here for 30 plus years IN HALF.
We are the ones that paid for the current water "infrastructure".
That way everyone can have a garden in their yard, and hey, guess what, WE WILL ALL BE REPLENISHING THE UNDERGROUND WATER AQUIFER! Just like the golf course.
What a wonderful idea.
Just like Ed Blair said a "Win-Win"!
Now I am sure no one is going to object to this.
Also, it is easy to understand what is really going on here.
All those in Payson who make more than $80,000.00 per year or that have money they want to invest.
The stock market is too risky, so what is available locally so "they" can keep their eyes on their investment?
I wonder if the mayor and the town council members as well as ol' buz walker and the rest of the RICH Town of Payson staffers plus retired staffers and the mayors community development "sheep" would be willing to open up their investment portfolios for public viewing?
How many of them invested in "Crescent Resources"? This is the investment corporation that is developing "Chaparrel Pines Golf Course".
Want to see how these filthy rich people live just copy and paste the links below into your browser address bar and click enter.
http://www.yourchaparralpines.com/?gclid=CI25waHF0LQCFSmCQgodtiQA_Q
also:
http://www.chaparralpines.com/
Now you know the rest of the story.
In response to "Anonymous OK" two comments above: what I'd do with the excess water is put it in the ground in a legitimate and effective manner, not by dumping it on a rich man's golf course and pretending it will all "trickle down" (where I have I heard the expression before).
And the only thing wrong with socialism is the way it's defined and interpreted by the right wingers. In its purest form, it is a very effective system for distributing the wealth.
Look at America's rapidly evolving demographics. You rich folks are on your way out. Your time is over.
Instead of watering that golf course, you might want to start burying your gold there. It certainly can't buy you any more elections as Karl Rove and the Koch brothers found out in November.
Power to the people!
Crescent Properties (formerly a division of Duke Power Co.) did, at one time own both Chapparal Pines and The Rim golf clubs. The clubs were split apart after a bankruptsy in 2011. Chapparal Pines is currently owned by Steve Loy who is also business manager to Phil Mickelson among other things. He is also a possible new owner of The Rim Club, depending on circumstances. He is highly respected as a businessman and a supporter of environmental endeavors. None of the is terribly important except that there is a lot of misinformarion out there.
It should be pointed out also that at one time Chapparal Pines received reclaimed water from the town of Payson. They played an important role in the construction of Green Valley Park by donating services. Having money is no sin. How the money is used is far more meaningful.
You admittedly have a bias against the affluent. But yet many of the people that write articles that you publish here are affluent. Some of them are among the most affluent.
Why the contradiction?
Dear Anonymous:
Please be specific. What rich people do I have writing articles? And even if I do, my feelings about the affluent would not prevent me from allowing them to have their say. You are a case in point.
Post a Comment