Mr. Burgos: As you know, this posting needs an update after ABCUA authorized $50 million in revenue bonds for the purchase of NMUI. Putting aside for the moment the fact that ABCUA's purported desire to condemn NMUI is based solely, or in part, on the faulty premise of conservation (NMUI users use considerably less water on amonthly basis than do ABCUA's users), there is something else that irks me about the potential use or abuse of eminent domain power in this instance.
In my view, it appears that NMUI users have little to say either in opposition or support of the exercise of eminent domain by ABCUA. To illustrate: The ABCUA has 3 County Commission members. The County Commission itself has only 5. Tim Cummins, who represents NMUI users on the County Commission, is conspicuously absent from the ABCUA. Therefore, if ABCUA unanimously decides to proceed with the condemnation, as they did with the authorization of the revenue bonds, there is no effective way for NMUI users to be effectively heard on the matter, at least with respect to any oversight by the County Commission which, as noted, is comprised by a majority of ABCUA sympathizers, who have no political reason to listen.
To be sure, there have been public remonstrations by ABCUA that NMUI users will not be adversely affected by either the negotiated or forced sale of NMUI. For any NMUI users out there like me, ask yourself this simple question: We pay lower rates than ABCUA users. If ABCUA proceeds with the forced sale, and NMUI is no longer, do you really believe that ABCUA will or can allow one group of users to continue to pay a lower rate than others or do you really believe they will the lower rates to match what NMUI users currently pay? I thought so. And, since we have no real political power to hold ABCUA accountable, Councilor Cadigan notwithstanding, we must be heard in the eminent domain litigation, which appears to be a foregone conclusion.
Thank you.
Dan | 01.11.07 - 8:32 am | #