OK, gang, It is official. For the next 40 years SunCal will get 30% of the county's sales taxes, 10% of the property taxes and 50% of the state sales taxes from the first phase (4,000 acres) of their 57,000 acre development on the West side (bigger than Las Cruces and Santa Fe combined).
Think about it, we are subsidizing the development of a CITY!
It is such a shame that the Journal has not taken seriously its responsibility to inform the public about the TIDDs subsidies in a timely and detailed manner. Instead of researching why many other cities are turning against TIDDS, including Las Cruces, they have blindly followed Journal owner Lang's develop-at-any-cost agenda by printing SunCal's talking points and half truths like the following in today's paper.
On Jan 23, 2008, the ABQ Journal said, "County economic development coordinator Daniel Gutierrez said no taxes would be taken from other entities, such as Albuquerque Public Schools or University of New Mexico Hospital."
This is, of course, a sad half truth. When you reduce the amount of money going to the state, which provides APS' funds, you reduce the money available to go to APS.
Sigh.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Journal Backs Taxpayer Subsidized Developments in Spite of Water Shortage
Today the Journal(J) ran two articles about how great our water supply is. Last month (Dec. 3), the J ran a front page article that said ABQ’s water supply, “appears set for the next forty years.”
This, of course was no where near the size of, say, the recent huge front page article about Roger Clemen’s steroid problems, but, then, tabloids will be tabloids.
The water triad seems to be part of the J’s continuing propaganda effort to support massive, taxpayer subsidized developments in the ABQ area, the latest of which is the Sun Cal 55,000 acre TIDD giveaway (bigger than Santa Fe and Las Cruces combined).
Facts about our ABQ’s water supply:
1. We use 32 billion gallons/year from our aquifer which is dropping at 8 feet per year.
2. It has dropped so much that we could soon see major subsidence (sinkholes).
3. Our San Juan-Chama-Rio Grande water project, which cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, will supply 30 billion gallons/year.
4. A period of extended drought would create chaos, as farmers, other cities and Texas fought over the diminishing Rio Grande water.
If that happened, where would we get our 30 billion gallons/year? And, don't say this cannot happen. I has happened many times in the geologic past! Just look at Atlanta's desperate drought for a developer-created disaster.
In any case, we are STILL looking at continuing to draw down the aquifer by 2 billion gallons/year, even when SJ-C-RG water comes on line.
BUT, developers argue, “We will conserve more water.”
Drastic conservation measures have already cut our water consumption from 42 billion g/yr in the 90’s to 32 now. Obviously, there is a limit to how much we can conserve, and conservation happens in the face of challenges from new growth--homes and industry.
BUT, developers argue, “The aquifer will recharge itself.” According to the U.S. Geologic Survey, “Recharge happens very slowly.” According to the head of ABQ’s water conservation program, “I could not tell you how fast recharge will happen.”
Soooo, developers want to double the size of ABQ in 40 years, AND use our tax money to make growth happen faster, even though we live in a desert.
The gamble on conservation and drought notwithstanding, one has to ask, “What the hell will our kids do in forty years?”
This, like the national debt and government spending in general, seems to be just another example of greedy politicians supporting their corporate bedmates at the expense of our kids’ future.
Asking a city councilor or a county commissioner about this draws angry responses, but corporate welfare is still welfare.
Paranthetical question: why did Exxon get subsidies from the U.S. last year when it was the most profitable corporation in the world?
Sigh
This, of course was no where near the size of, say, the recent huge front page article about Roger Clemen’s steroid problems, but, then, tabloids will be tabloids.
The water triad seems to be part of the J’s continuing propaganda effort to support massive, taxpayer subsidized developments in the ABQ area, the latest of which is the Sun Cal 55,000 acre TIDD giveaway (bigger than Santa Fe and Las Cruces combined).
Facts about our ABQ’s water supply:
1. We use 32 billion gallons/year from our aquifer which is dropping at 8 feet per year.
2. It has dropped so much that we could soon see major subsidence (sinkholes).
3. Our San Juan-Chama-Rio Grande water project, which cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, will supply 30 billion gallons/year.
4. A period of extended drought would create chaos, as farmers, other cities and Texas fought over the diminishing Rio Grande water.
If that happened, where would we get our 30 billion gallons/year? And, don't say this cannot happen. I has happened many times in the geologic past! Just look at Atlanta's desperate drought for a developer-created disaster.
In any case, we are STILL looking at continuing to draw down the aquifer by 2 billion gallons/year, even when SJ-C-RG water comes on line.
BUT, developers argue, “We will conserve more water.”
Drastic conservation measures have already cut our water consumption from 42 billion g/yr in the 90’s to 32 now. Obviously, there is a limit to how much we can conserve, and conservation happens in the face of challenges from new growth--homes and industry.
BUT, developers argue, “The aquifer will recharge itself.” According to the U.S. Geologic Survey, “Recharge happens very slowly.” According to the head of ABQ’s water conservation program, “I could not tell you how fast recharge will happen.”
Soooo, developers want to double the size of ABQ in 40 years, AND use our tax money to make growth happen faster, even though we live in a desert.
The gamble on conservation and drought notwithstanding, one has to ask, “What the hell will our kids do in forty years?”
This, like the national debt and government spending in general, seems to be just another example of greedy politicians supporting their corporate bedmates at the expense of our kids’ future.
Asking a city councilor or a county commissioner about this draws angry responses, but corporate welfare is still welfare.
Paranthetical question: why did Exxon get subsidies from the U.S. last year when it was the most profitable corporation in the world?
Sigh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)