The Nisqually Valley News Poll question out in their print & online editions today asks the wrong question,
“Do you think the Washington State Auditor was fair and thorough in its finding that the City of Yelm was justified in paying for the Golder Water Study?”
How about this question the NVN just never asks?
“Do you think the City of Yelm was fair and thorough in not having a contract to get repaid by the Thurston Highlands developers for their pro-rata share of the Golder Water Study?”
AS A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION WORTH 50,000 POINTS ON THIS SESSION OF
“FACTS OR TWISTING THE FACTS”
THE NVN COULD HAVE ASKED QUESTION NUMBER TWO:
“Why didn’t the city get a contract with the developers for the city taxpayer to repaid for their pro-rata share of the Golder Water Study, a contract like Golder Associates obtained with the City of Yelm?
AND QUESTION NUMBER THREE WORTH 100,000 POINTS IS:
“Wasn’t getting a contract with the developers for the city taxpayer to repaid for their pro-rata share of the Golder Water Study the ethical and right thing to do on behalf of the city’s citizens, the very people they are supposed to protect and serve?
JOHNNY, WHAT DO WE HAVE FOR TODAY’S WINNER?
All jesting aside, though the continued NVN distractions are laughable:
I filed no comment with the Auditors Citizen Hotline, as I have no issue with the citys right to enter into or validity of a contract for a Golder Associates Water Study. That some people filed Hotline comments (anonymous) about the Golder Water Study contract validity is their business.
My issue has always been about the public’s interest not being protected by the city’s interactions with Thurston Highlands’ developers, as Yelm City Administrator Badger said in the NVN February 2, 2007,
If a good water source is found on the Thurston Highlands site, developers will have to pay their fair share, which won’t be determined until the Environmental Impact Statement is complete later this year.”
Yet, City Administrator Badger informed me in early 2007 they had no contract with developers for repayment of their undetermined “pro-rata share” of the Golder Water Study, and the city received nothing at EIS release-time, coinciding with the developers’ Fall, 2008 default, except hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt now on the backs of the city’s taxpayers, almost 2 years after I first questioned how those taxpayers would be repaid.
A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Public Documents request also returned no documents, as well.
Even Councilmember Bob Isom expressed his concern for continued additional taxpayer funds requested from city staff for this water study at the December 12, 2006 Council meeting.
The January 14, 2007 Blog entry sums up the city’s Water Study issue very well.
In managing a business, would you verbally agree (without contract) to be reimbursed at some future time for a job you would do and for an undetermined, pro-rata amount?
This begs the question:
If the city required “developers will have to pay their fair share [for the Water Study]”,
why did the city not require taxpayers get repaid, at the very least with a contract?
Would you run your business that way?
Of course not.
Then why is the city running their citizens’ business this way?
DID THE NVN INVESTIGATE THESE QUESTIONS WITH THE CITY OF YELM?
THIS IS THE HEART OF THE MATTER — EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST FOR SHOW SO THE CITY CAN SAVE FACE & THE NVN CAN SELL MORE NEWSPAPERS!
GLAD TO SEE THE FRONT-PAGE STORY & OP-ED ABOUT ME MAY HAVE SUPPORTED THE LOCAL ECONOMY THROUGH MORE NEWSPAPER SALES LAST WEEK, THOUGH THE NVN NEVER ARRIVED AT THE APPROPRIATE QUESTION!