Jimmy Espy: Follow the money

Published 9:09 pm Saturday, February 25, 2006

Was it only a few months ago that the Water, Light and Sinking Fund Commission, the local panel set up by state law to oversee the operations of Dalton Utilities, voted unanimously to substantially raise rates on water and electricity? Board members cited increasing costs. The utility HAD to have the additional revenue, we were told.

Was it only a few months ago, following the defeat of the most recent special purpose local option sales tax by voters that a downcast Dalton Mayor Ray Elrod went on local television and said that without the SPLOST there was no money to move ahead with many of the projects that the tax would have funded?

Did those things happen or is my imagination playing tricks on me?

Apparently, those tales of fiscal woe are “false memories,” otherwise how do you explain the Water, Light and Sinking Fund Commission voting unanimously (do they vote any other way?) this week to spend $1.35 million to provide sewer service to The Farm, the private residential development owned by carpet mogul Bob Shaw.

And how can you explain the city council’s apparent willingness to fork over a matching $1.35 million on the project?

That The Farm, located west of Dug Gap Mountain and miles from the city proper, was annexed into the Dalton at all is and old and amusing story, but not one worth retelling here. It is enough to say that The Farm is part of the city.

That alone seems to justify the expenditure of $2.7 million in the eyes of some of our city leaders, who raise the issue of “fairness.” Homeowners at The Farm are city residents, so the argument goes, and deserve all the services that other city residents get. That simplistic argument might work in a fifth-grade civics class, but it shouldn’t carry any weight with adults who know anything about the situation.

The annexation of The Farm into the city was always understood to be a special case. (Feel free to search a county map for any similar geographic anomalies.) Anyone who has purchased a home at The Farm knows what services would be available and what would not be. Police protection? Yes. Sewer? No.

And is anyone who lives at The Farm really in need of city sewer? Is there a problem with septic systems? Dalton Utilities CEO and President Don Cope said he thought “several of the residents” were “experiencing some difficulty with septic tanks.”

“Some residents.”

“Some difficulty.”

It doesn’t sound like a crisis.

It should be noted that my problem is not with the residents of The Farm, In fact, I suspect they are little more than pawns in this game. This project isn’t really about 65 homeowners, even if they live in the most prestigious development in the area.

If the Dalton City Council and the Dalton Utilities vote to spend $2.7 million on this project, they need a lot stronger rationale than any phony “fairness” issue. Because the real question of fairness is Dalton Utilities and the city suddenly finding the money for this project only months after raising rates on every retiree, working class family and poor person hooked into their system. You wanna talk fairness? Let’s talk.

Providing sewer to The Farm is not really the great white whale of this story. That’s just a pretext to get into the city’s coffers. The real issue here is the potential for profits for people who have had the … foresight … to invest in property which can readily “hook up” to the sewer expansion. “City sewer” is a boon to property developers and landowners. Imagine their joy at hearing that the city is going to run sewer lines all the way to The Farm. Wouldn’t it be good to own some property adjacent to that? You betcha it would!

Dalton Utilities already has made deals with developers in the county to provide sewer service if the developer pays the tab. That seems reasonable and there is no reason why Dalton Utilities couldn’t make similar deals with developers in the Westside area, instead of expecting city taxpayers to pay a big chunk of the bill.

But why should the city of Dalton spend tax dollars to encourage upscale residential growth outside the city? What’s fair or smart about that?

And here’s one last thought to chew on with your eggs and bacon.

How about an additional seat on the Water Light and Sinking Fund board with the requirement that the person who holds it has a family and makes less than $50,000 a year? Maybe that way the average working people and the disadvantaged folks in this community might get some consideration.