Recently I was told by a gentleman in the city that he was tired of my “righteous indigestion” and wanted me to find something positive to write about.
Now, even after enjoying all the seasonal favorites of Christmas, including oyster stew, I failed to have any “indigestion,” so what I think he meant by his malapropism was that he was tired of my “righteous indignation.”
I told him that when our local governments did something that was positive, I would gladly write about it. So here goes:
One of my hopes for the New Year is coming to pass. The city has finally gotten its Land Use Plan out of committee and is on the road to having public hearing about the plan. This is a very vital document both for residential neighborhoods that need protection against encroachment and for economic development for our city. This vital plan should direct our growth for the next decade and protect our quality of life in the city if the committee has done its job correctly. But, after all the years it took this plan to come to conclusion, surely it should cause no “righteous indigestion.” Stay tuned and I will let you know.
Another positive is the county is beginning to find and remove abandoned mobile homes. Just identifying them is going to be a monumental job. With the money they have, they hope to remove and recycle 25 to 30 units. Their plan is a little fuzzy, but their goal is commendable. Going after the most visible is their priority, while some might say going after the most hazardous would be a better plan, especially those near schools. This grant money will be available to remove these eyesores throughout the county — which includes the city. Hopefully, the owners of the land will be required to keep the lots free of weeds and other debris. That is the very least they can do in return for the free removal of their abandoned mobile homes and saving us from some “righteous indigestion.”
Scattered Site CDBG money is going to make major repairs for HOMEOWNERS who meet the income eligibility. A demolition is going to be done on Arch Street, a home repaired on Hickory Street and a removal done on Francis Avenue. This is what Community Block Grant money is supposed to be spent for, and the county is to be commended for carrying out this program correctly. It appears that this money will be spent as the government intended it to be spent. Keeping our locality in the pool of grant recipients is crucial for the betterment of our neighborhoods. Spending the money appropriately is also crucial. As much need as there is in this locality, we should be awarded piles of money for improving living conditions. Never again should any of us get “righteous indigestion” for the local government trying to use neighborhood block development grant money for building an auditorium.
Now, I must admit that I get a little “righteous indigestion” when I think about the $40,000 that the Rural Center is giving us and the $4,000 match that we have to come up with to “study” the “feasibility” of running a sewer line to Kittrell. Maybe we can keep the indigestion to a minimum.
First, the county and city should chart in their land use plan where future sewer lines should run. For years Norlina Road has been a five lane road with broad lanes, a turning lane, curb and gutter, and no sewer. Why has this corridor for future sewer expansion been neglected? A sudden and impetuous decision by some developers must not overrule long-range planning and the common good.
If this line to Kittrell is truly to be a “totally different plan” from the one looked at a few months ago, then a few rules need to be set out. This study phase should not be a tainted process with a pre-determined outcome. In other words, the county manager and government should remain neutral until the results of the study are complete. This plan should not be done in-house, even though there are competent people who could do it. Otherwise the outcome could be judged as tainted. This plan should include factual information from DNER (North Carolina Department of Environmental Resources) about the sewer collection and treatment as well as the future costs of treatment, as well as inter-basin transfer. This plan should also call for an independent environmental engineer with a non-compete clause to research the same statistics for comparison. Two sets of research should be required to see if they jibe.
Facts, statistics, economics and logic must rule over hearsay, opinion, estimates and guesswork. Only then can this project be judged as sound or not, and only then can the taxpayers decide if it is worthwhile or not. If the price for growth and enhanced opportunity is affordable, this study should show it. If the cost is too high now, but feasible at a later date, this study should show it. If this sewer line is not feasible because of all the sewage that requires pumping, this study should show it. If this line is too small to support future growth, this study should show it. If this line cannot be supported by Henderson’s waste water treatment, this study should certainly show it.
It is a shame that it is going to cost $44,000, but we now have a $40,000 planning grant from the Rural Center to see if this project is feasible. Since the chances are slim to none that this grant money will not be spent (even though the County Commissioners voted to accept the grant without knowing what the contract says), with a few well-conceived guidelines, we can keep the “righteous indigestion” at a minimum.
A Land Use Plan for Henderson, removal of abandoned mobile homes, CDBG money for homeowners, and a truthful fact-finding mission for a sewer line to Kittrell all keep my “righteous indigestion” at bay.
The gentleman from Henderson should be glad.