Measure K would wreak havoc
Published: Thursday, Oct 2, 2008
If you remember one thing when you vote sometime in the next month, remember that Measure K on the ballot is not to be taken lightly. Measure K has its appeal, in that it would save us all a few bucks every month on our water bill. After all, President Bush was able to keep his popularity afloat for a while by raiding the U.S. Treasury and mailing us all checks.
But then reality set in and we are learning the hard way that there is more to economic health than just free money.
Measure K does promise, in a way, free money. But unlike the federal government, local governments can’t print money, and here is the problem with Measure K.
The money that Measure K wants to give to the voters is the same money that would normally be spent on letting us flush our toilet without breaking the law. Take that money away, and the city would have to pay for our flushing with money normally earmarked for parks, street repairs, police and fire protection, etc., if they can even do that legally.
A couple of weeks ago, I referred to Measure K as the 8,000-pound gorilla hovering over the city — K as in King Kong. It is a fair comparison. K as in Kong has the potential of wreaking terrible impacts upon our community.
There have been a great many arguments submitted in support of K. Some of them have some merit, perhaps, as far as they go. But think of this.
If every single thing the proponents said about the new sewer plant, about the city water department, about city government, if every single thing they said were true, it still would not justify Measure K.
It is one thing to use rhetoric such as that being expounded in favor of Measure K to stop a project from being built. It is another matter entirely to ask a community not to pay for a project after it is completed, which the sewer plant will be later this year, and operational early next year.
You see, Petaluma borrowed money to build that plant, and they have to pay for it somehow. Petaluma had to build the plant, because today’s laws would not allow us to use the old one much longer, and today’s laws dictated much of the new configuration.
You can argue all you want whether the plant is too fancy, whether or not it could be built cheaper, and on and on and on. The point is, those arguments were made several years ago, the vote was taken, the money was borrowed from the state, and the plant was built. It is there. I’ve had the tour. The buildings are there. It has to be paid for.
We owe the money to the state of California. Proponents have said that if our city hits bankruptcy, the state can bail us out and forgive us our trespasses. Oh, yeah. The state of California has not been in a forgiving mood lately. It is totally irresponsible to think our city can just walk away from a $126 million loan without severe repercussions that could clobber our quality of life here for a good many years.
It would wreck our credit rating, and the city wouldn’t even be able to build a port-a-potty on credit. It would devastate our ability to even take care of our own safety.
Measure K makes no sense. Nothing you can say can justify the extremity of this measure. The cause does not justify the remedy. You might as well prescribe milk mixed with kerosene to soothe an upset stomach.
This measure is coming at a particularly bad time, as Petaluma is laying off people just to cope with sharply reduced revenues, without having to fill a $126 million hole.
If some of the proponents’ arguments have merit, they can be addressed separately, and perhaps some ratepayer relief can be found. But if you are tempted to grab the golden ring and get a few bucks back on water bills, try to take the time to study the issue and know exactly what you are doing.
(Don Bennett, a business writer and consultant, has been involved with city planning issues since the early 1970s. He serves on the Sonoma County Planning Commission. His e-mail address is dcbenn@aol.com.)
