Sweetwater Authority board members cut out the junkets before taxing the citizens
On behalf of South Bay residents and ratepayers we unequivocally oppose the 5.6% Proposed Adjustments in Rates for Water Service Fees.
Reasons for opposing the proposed rate increase are as followed:
1. Recent news reports that exposed a culture of “self-serving corruption,” by members of the Sweetwater Authority Board. Board members voted to take “junkets,” and pay themselves obscene “stipends” of up to $26,205 to attend festivals, open houses, community festivals, water conferences, chamber of commerce etc.,
2. Increasing rates 6 times over the last 5 years, 18% in 2009 and in this dire economic times the proposed 5.6% in 2010!
3. The doubling of the cost of the new water filtration system planned for Sweetwater Authority’s treatment plant in Spring Valley growing from $4.1 million to $10.5 million. This project fiasco represents the height of incompetence and total disregard by both the Board and Operations Manager James Smyth for Sweetwater Authority ratepayers.
What is no surprise to those of us from NC is the fact that the biggest reported “rip off” of “stipends” was by a National City representative Ted Muehleisen, an appointee of a politician who has made an art of fleecing poor people, Mayor Ron Morrison. Muehleisen supposedly represents the poorest residents (NC-70% Mexican of ancestry) in SD County, but received the highest compensation ($26,205) of all board members??? An investigation by the board of Muehleisen receiving $26,000, and Mayor Morrison appointing himself to the board should be initiated to change the policy of allowing self-serving politicians to appoint themselves to the Sweetwater Authority Board.
In opposing the rate increase it is our position that the board has no legitimate right to impose the proposed rate hike on ratepayers until the Sweetwater Authority Board changes its policies to end:
· Stipends that cost ratepayers $113,700,
· Obscene junkets to Monterey, San Diego, Albuquerque, Yosemite, Tucson, San Antonio, Indian Wells, CA, etc. and
· The board begins to share the economic pain with Sweetwater Authority ratepayers.
Aside from the above, a particular indictment of your board members is that representatives, Hispanic “fiscally prudent” Jose Preciado and Herpanic Maria Rubalcaba that supposedly represent the predominate Mexican/American water district ratepayers have joined with majority board members to approve the above actions, and the shaking down of ratepayer. News reports state that Ms. Rubalcaba received $10,534, and Mr. Preciado $12,390 of stipends!
In the Bell, CA debacle at least one elected representative denounced the “rip off” of taxpayer’s monies in the predominant Mexican American community. In the Sweetwater Authority not one Board member (Hispanic or Anglo) has spoken up in defense of ratepayers!
As witnessed in 2009 when only 10 customers objected to the 18% rate increase, it will come as no surprise if the Sweetwater Authority Board approves the proposed 5.6% rate increase.
However rest assured that if the board approves the rate increases or fails to correct the self-serving corruption “junkets” and “stipend” issues; that legal and political action will be fourth coming from the community.
In closing, the Sweetwater Authority Board labels its junkets and stipends, “compensation,” in Mexico it’s called what it is… “corruption!”
Herman Baca, President
Committee on Chicano Rights
National City
MAPA San Diego member attended the US – Mexico International Learning Exchange
On Monday August 16, 2010 a MAPA San Diego member attended the US – Mexico International Learning Exchange session at the Jacobs Center.
Of the Latinos attending this exchange, or attendants not working for the Jacob Center, nor HUD, nor the city of San Diego, or the Government or not attached to the delegation from Mexico – there were only two.
We heard people stand-up and talk about what a good job they are doing. Eventually, Bill Anderson, who I believe it the head of the city planning department (forgive me if I am wrong) stood-up and talked about some 10 point plan to build durable and sustainable communities in the City of San Diego. This is important because in our own Barrio Logan, and in other parts of our city in which the most under-represented largest segment of our population appears to live and work, we have new community plans being drawn-up. We keep hearing about durability and sustainability, and economic viability; yet exactly where are the mandates and directives which will facilitate compliance to these standards of intended durability and economic viability?* I see no on-sight gray water/sewage separation that would lower the cost of reclaiming most of the water that goes into our wastewater system. I see no mandated passive heat/cooling exchange systems or designs in building. Nor have I read of neither mandates nor guidelines requiring photovoltaic/heat as part of every building design? And, most importantly, I see few to no ways in which the average citizens already living in homes in this area can fully participate in redevelopment of their neighborhoods using the already existing values of their single family homes.
These people, our neighbors, if the coming zones change were put into effect before they were ‘encouraged’ to sale their property of redevelopment could see the value of their piece of the Barrio increase many times in value. Why not allow for the already existing community members to benefit from the positive effects of zone changes? Why not allow for their already existing social and cultural capital to be augmented by the increase economic values of higher density zone changes or zone over lays that would allow commercial or industrial uses? Image, a true community investment partnership in the stead of and transfer into the rent slavery which seems to be the post development product in our barrio and working class community coaxed into higher and higher densities.
No, it would seem to us, if the city planners were truly interested in building/revitalizing durable and sustainable communities it would seem that these physical design requirements would be part of any and all community planning. Instead of the same old faces we have seen in the city controlled groups who are now saying, the buzz words of substantiality and durability, we would see how such practices being directed in all new construction or redevelopment of old construction as part of our community and city master plan. Are we seeing, seemingly yet again, the same old city workers mouthing the new buzz words so that they can keep their well paid city jobs? Will they, change their tune again, when a different political party is back in power and does not care to invest in durability, working class economy, or sustainability? No, it seems to us that we should not only have new faces working in their department (instead of the same old people who seemed to have ‘not yet’ supported mandating the physical requirements needed to build equity into existing predevelopment population) but we would have people dedicated to raising the sea which is the ocean of our population’s equity – across the whole of our human environment.
*In 2008, at the Southwestern Sociological Association conference, MAPA San Diego presented the research paper “City Planning in Zero Water Environments”
Gregory Morales
San Diego