by Betty Winholtz
Candidate for Mayor
After 20 years as a pivotal decision maker in Morro Bay city government, I understand Ms. Peters desire to insure that her style and legacy continue. Therefore, her choice for mayor is not surprising.
While acknowledging qualities I have brought to the City Council—"hard worker . . . thoroughly studies . . . asks questions that clarify the issues"—Peters states three reasons why she cannot support me as mayor. Let me flesh out what she did not say.
1. She stated I was "argumentative and rude." From my perspective, argument, i.e. debate, is a basic component of decision making, particularly for those decisions that affect people's pocketbooks, lives, and livelihoods. It is from debate that all sides get an airing, points are uncovered, and compromise is discovered.To disagree is not to be rude.
2. She stated I refused "to compromise for the common good . . . voted against the sales tax initiative . . . because it wasn’t conditioned as she wanted." What she didn't say is that I wanted the uses of the tax more narrowly defined, so it would not be misused or misinterpreted in the future. To do so would have required a 2/3 yes vote rather than a simple majority.
I had faith the residents would have supported such a measure. I believe the vote results bear out my confidence in our residents. Measure Q passed with 65%, two percentage points away from 2/3. I believe with my support 2% would have been handily surpassed. As a result of passing a more generic sales tax, City staff and Council approve items the Oversight Committee must challenge.
3. Regarding the wastewater treatment plant upgrade, she stated I insisted on a "shortened timeline . . . voting against the rate increases needed to pay for it . . . wants to delay the process, risking cash penalties that would be paid by our citizens."
I did want a shorter timeline. It was evident that our plant was past its useful life as we continually approved replacement parts. The sooner the new plant was online the less we would shell out in repairs. When it was shown that other cities had accomplished the task in less years than was being proposed, why not?
I did vote against the rate increase for two reasons. First, it was a 50% lump sum increase, not graduated. Second, the new fees did not pay for the new plant, they paid for upgrading the collection system. We have yet to see the increased fee for the new plant. The collection system is in major need of repair, but I didn't believe the residents should be socked with a huge jump in their bill to fix it.
I do not want to delay the process. I do want to simultaneously examine alternative plants and payment methods that have been shown to save other cities money and time. Saving time does not increase the risk of fines. I spoke directly to the Regional Water Board staff, the agency who would ask for the fines. I was told they would be open to a method if proven to be a better one. I don't want another method if it is not proven better.
Unfortunately, my three competitors for mayor have been hesitant or outright unwilling to look at alternative processes that potentially could save residents unnecessary higher bills. If it is a false detour, we are still on our path to a new plant with no loss of time.
Thank you for reading and weighing my perspective.
It is the Journal's policy to allow responses and rebuttals to articles to be published in the next month's issue.
Belted Kingfisher image on banner by Cleve Nash
|
