Questions & Answers:
Issues concerning our community by Ken Ely, Blaine Councilman
The
following two questions were asked by The Northern Light
newspaper to
all candidates in the past election. I am very happy to respond
with the following answers.
Question:
The
city of Blaine is currently in the process of establishing
a sewer solution. Would you rather see that solution built
within city limits, kept in local control and potentially
at higher costs, or would you prefer that solution be regionalized
at lower costs, but out of local control?
Answer:
The
Sewer Solution: Ben Franklin observed that, whenever
it became necessary to lay a burden upon the people,
it was best to let the people be as responsible for it as
possible. For this reason, the CWAC committee, a citizens'
committee to examine Blaine's sewer treatment options,
was formed. They did their work and presented Council with
three options for the sewer. As your question points
out, sending our waste for to Canada for treatment ended
up being the cheaper option (there are actually two variations
of this option that would
be cheaper than treating it at home and two options that
would make it just as expensive). Now, like most people,
I have
been
hampered in what I want to do by what I can afford to do.
If piping our waste water to Canada is more in the line of
what we can afford to do, then that is what we ought to do.
As to whether we retain local control of our waste water
processing or we forfeit it to the Canadians, I am not much
daunted
by that issue. Whatever local control we are perceived to
have is really dictated to by many tiers of laws above our
municipal level. Canadian or American tiers will probably
make little difference.
Question:
The
city council recently approved a $250,000 bond to be used
for purchasing land and tree removal near the airport.
How do
you justify airport expenditures considering its current usage?
Answer:
The
Airport Land Acquisition: Whatever the current airport
usage, the tree issue is a safety and liability issue.
If we do not take the trees out of the approach patterns,
and someone hits them, our liability will make the $250,000
bond look like a very small sum. If we allow the trees
to continue to grow and the airport must be closed as a
result of the obstruction, our liability to the lease holders
will be several times the amount of the bond. As the trees
grow, airport usage declines. With the trees out of the
way, there are several things we can undertake to increase
airport usage. Acquiring the acreage on which the trees
stand is actually the most fiscally responsible way to
go about removing the trees: the City is, by the purchase,
the proprietor
of a property which it can lease or sell for a financial
return. All the other schemes to come at the problem leave
us paying for blue sky.
necessary to lay a burden upon the people,
it was best to let the people be as responsible for it as
possible. For this reason, the CWAC committee, a citizens'
committee to examine Blaine's sewer treatment options,
was formed. They did their work and presented Council with
three options for the sewer. As your question points
out, sending our waste for to Canada for treatment ended
up being the cheaper option (there are actually two variations
of this option that would
be cheaper than treating it at home and two options that
would make it just as expensive). Now, like most people,
I have
been
hampered in what I want to do by what I can afford to do.
If piping our waste water to Canada is more in the line of
what we can afford to do, then that is what we ought to do.
As to whether we retain local control of our waste water
processing or we forfeit it to the Canadians, I am not much
daunted
by that issue. Whatever local control we are perceived to
have is really dictated to by many tiers of laws above our
municipal level. Canadian or American tiers will probably
make little difference.
issue is a safety and liability issue.
If we do not take the trees out of the approach patterns,
and someone hits them, our liability will make the $250,000
bond look like a very small sum. If we allow the trees
to continue to grow and the airport must be closed as a
result of the obstruction, our liability to the lease holders
will be several times the amount of the bond. As the trees
grow, airport usage declines. With the trees out of the
way, there are several things we can undertake to increase
airport usage. Acquiring the acreage on which the trees
stand is actually the most fiscally responsible way to
go about removing the trees: the City is, by the purchase,
the proprietor
of a property which it can lease or sell for a financial
return. All the other schemes to come at the problem leave
us paying for blue sky.