Tooele Transcript Bulletin – News in Tooele, Utah

March 1, 2005
‘No’ means ‘no’ on sewer

The residents of Stockton all received [a] letter in the mail. As a Stockton citizen, I am outraged that this sewer system has been such a tumultuous thing in our town. I am proud of the council members who heard the voice of the people in November and stuck to their guns. We had a legal ballot in November and the sewer was voted down for the third time. Mayor Thomas needs to understand that “no” means “no.” According to this letter, they are being hypocritical in accusing those who may benefit financially from the project not going forward. Should we list the names of those “concerned citizens” who will benefit from the project proceeding?

Mayor Thomas led the town to believe that “no out-of-pocket expenses” would happen. Who exactly is going to pay for the collapsing of the existing septic tanks, replacing landscaping, fencing, sprinkler systems, etc.? This sounds like a lot of expense to me. If it’s not coming out of my pocket, whose is it going to come out of? My home alone would require close to $10,000 to replace what I will lose.

The survey got a 70 percent “yes” vote. I noticed that the newspaper didn’t mention the flip side of the coin. The survey stated that if the sewer was turned down, each home may be required to pay their portion of the $300,000 already spent, in one lump sum. Is this really necessary? To scare the majority into doing something a few people really need? I truly believe there are homes that are in great need of a new system. The town had a legal vote. What part of this little word [legal] do you not understand?

Another concerned citizen.

Jennifer A. Dyson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>