Friday, October 11, 2013

Pomona deadlocks on trash station, blows away $1 million

Much like David Allen I've been away from the Pomona City Council for a while, hopeful that a new group of people might be able to get along better. Unfortunately, that has not been the case, with the recent deadlock of the trash station franchise agreement.

What bothers me is the "sore loserness" of the opponents to the transfer station - equivalent to what is going on in Washington. By withholding the franchise agreement, all James Sambrano and his plaintiffs are doing is increasing Pomona's legal bill. Sambrano, incidentally, actually settled with the transfer station operators to drop his environmental lawsuit with prejudice, or else the court would have imposed penalties for his frivolous lawsuit. David Perez, who owns the transfer station's operator, did promise the city a $1 million minimum franchise fee, money that is needed to help the city rebuild its reserves, which are currently $8.1 million.

As for those who claim that the members who voted for the transfer station have been bought off, that is not supported by the facts. I have posted the campaign statements for Pomona city councilmembers here for some time. The only person Valley Vista gave to in large quantities was Elliott Rothman, and he recuses himself on the trash station as required. 

Overall, trash station theater is starting to get old. It's time to move on.

2 comments:

goddess of pomona said...

Totally disagree. That's like telling someone who has had something stolen from them to forget about getting it back. It was wrong for this very controversial project to not be taken to a vote of the people, where it surely would have been defeated. It is not getting old for me and other parents of young children who live and breathe in Pomona, and believe this whole process has stunk to high heaven. I want Pomona to be a healthy place to raise children. I applaud those who continue to fight against the trash transfer station.

John Clifford said...

Goddess, while I understand your frustration, this is NOT something that should be voted on. Did we vote on Target going in? Do we vote on any other development? We elect our officials to do the voting. There were YEARS of hearings on this issue. If we were to try to back down on our agreement at this point, the developer would be able to sue the city and probably win as they went through all the process.

It's less like having something stolen and not wanting it back and more like I bought something and now you want to take it away from me.

Not a supporter of the project, but the actions have been taken.