|
Chris' Letter-Niland Land Owner/ IV PRESS |
|
|
|
|
Written by truth
|
|
Monday, 12 February 2007 |
|
Voice: Reader opposes sludge plant Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:02 AM PST I am writing to express frustration about recent implications in articles, editorials and Viewpoint that those who oppose hauling sludge from Los Angeles into the county are somehow “jumping the gun.”
One day after the chairman of the County Supervisors intimated that those opposing a sludge plant (already pulled from consideration in the industrial area of the county), may be involved in trying to keep ethanol plant(s) from coming into the valley, your editorial “jumped” on this possibility with both feet.
IV Press is the principal source of news in the valley. Somehow information is being reported as fact that is simply not true. A month ago it was stated that the sludge plant was approved in two earlier EIRs. Contact with the County Planning Department reveals that this is not true. Last week a “staff report” indicated that “an environmental review … found the process was safe.” How could that be? Fact: the EIR process was not completed, the project was pulled by the proponent before the review had run its course.
Now the sludge burning plant that presumably was not acceptable in an industrial area is to be placed in a farming area in the midst of lemon orchards, okra fields and plant growers. There will be carcinogens released into the atmosphere. If it was all of our own waste, we probably would not be trying to site this plant at the north end, but could find room for it in the industrial area.
If it is “safe,” why not locate the L.A. sludge burning plant in the Los Angeles area?
How will we ensure that the plant, if built, will not become an eyesore, as have earlier plants that did not meet expectations and have been abandoned? If we have methods to prevent this, why are previously abandoned plants still dotting the landscape? Perhaps abandoned plants are acceptable in the industrial area, but should not be allowed in areas zoned for agriculture. If true, rezoning of the site north of Niland should be opposed for this reason alone.
As a land owner, I oppose siting the sludge plant north of Niland.
CHRIS ALLAIREWrite Comment (0 Comments) |
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 12 February 2007 )
|
Articles