| Main |


The Yelm City Council has publicly stated on several occasions that
private, for-profit developments are going to be mitigated only with private money.
What does this means to us, the citizens?
This means the city will not allow use of public monies to support private developers’ responsibilities
in creating their own private businesses.

Here is the Fact:
On June 14, 2006, the Yelm City Council approved public money in a $155,000 payment to Golder Associates for the SW Yelm Aquifer Study Project to examine water issues as they relate to the proposed, privately owned Thurston Highlands site.

In approving the aquifer study, did the City Council favor
the proposed Thurston Highlands private development by using public monies?

If the answer is YES, then would you say the city’s stand that
“private for-profit developments being mitigated only with private money” is jeopardized by this action?

If that is the case, then is the City Council starting off “on the wrong foot” in keeping private and public issues
separate about Thurston Highlands and other developments?

Bottom Line:
Public taxpayer monies are being used to support a private-development’s Environment Impact Statement (EIS) via this Aquifer Study. What do you think about that? Please leave your comments…

Posted by Steve on June 26, 2006 at 5:54 am | Permalink

Post a comment


  1. The Staff Report on the SW Aquafir (sic) suggests they tax SW residents for some of the cost of this project. There have been a number of water quality studies by consultants since wells have gone bad but I have not heard or read much discussion of them.

    Comment by Gail Cane on June 26, 2006 at 8:40 am

  2. Hi Steve – This is a report on tthe June 28 Council Meeting I attended. Mr. Thompson, the new council member, took the oath of office, promising to uphold our Constitution and City Ordinances. Public comment was on the upcoming Rainier Fair, and I noted the two Reuters articles, one on presidential proclamation regarding condemnation of property and the other on Chinese corporate investment in U.S. rural development. I was reassured by Mr. Isom that State has very stringent laws regarding con demnation. I said I was glad to hear that. RSE invitation was refused on basis of rule of quorum of Council members present. It was noted it was extended in good will. As leaving, must be a trick of my eyes, but seemed Mr. Thompson appeared 20 years older. He might say same of me.

    Comment by Gail Cane on June 30, 2006 at 7:15 am

  3. I am not a public speaker and I do not attend council meetings. I dont want to be publicly walked on because I disagree with them. I research, I listen and I read. All key items to surviving in Yelm without being run over by the council.

    I think public funds should be voted on by the public on where we want our money to go, instead of leaving it to council members who couldn’t care what you and I think.

    If a business can’t do or doesnt have all the funds to do their own Environmental Impact Study irregardless of whether there is a grant to cover a fraction of the funds or not – why should we trust them to complete the project that they want us to approve in the first place!

    If they are already having trouble in one area the likelihood is that they will have trouble in others areas as well.

    Comment by Katherine on July 14, 2006 at 12:09 am

The comments are closed.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.



Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com