Archive: Opinions

Dear Editor,

Although you do a great job with LansingStar.com and the community is grateful for your coverage on so many important issues, I felt I had to respond do your editorial which favored the installation of sewers in Lansing. You were good enough to advise me that, for now, my home is not located in the proposed sewer district.

However, although I have personally 'lucked out', really, that is not the point. What will happen to my neighbors who are in the proposed sewer district?

What about most of the homeowners who do not have a median income of $60,000+ a year who will be forced to install these sewers? I cite this figure because it was the figure noted in your newspaper a few weeks ago as the median income of most households in this area. If the world were perfect, sewers might be a nice frill.

Most favoring sewers (including, for example, you, Editor) do not live in the proposed sewer district. Another proponent, Ed LaVigne lives on Fiddler's Green, an unspoiled, upscale area, far from any proposed sewer district. While I don't mean to single Ed out, I'm fairly certain that all of the major proponents do not live in the proposed sewer district.

So the reality is that most who favor the sewers will cash in businesswise if the sewers are built but none of them live in the actual sewer district. They will not have to live with the disruption to their neighborhoods at the time the sewers are built (dirt, construction, loss of use of roads, etc.) and the life-long costs that will accompany them. Something is wrong with this picture.

I wonder if the proponents would be pushing for the sewers if they earned significantly less than $60,000+ a year and knew that they would be have to pay a staggering additional annual amount in taxes, have to pay thousands to dismantle their existing systems and hook in, whether or not their own system were in good condition or not, not to mention life-long maintenance of the sewer system, any treatment plants, etc.

In my own experience, I paid $6,000 for a new septic system in 2006. I have it pumped for a nominal sum every three years. In a one-two person household, the system could last 20 or more years, which breaks down to about $300.00 a year, including maintenance, significantly less than the costs that are being proposed if sewers are installed.

In these times, why should residents be asked to pay $600 or more annually in additional taxes, about $3,000 to dismantle their existing system and another $5,000 to hook in? The dismantling/hook in figures were proposed in 2008. At that time, the annual tax amount proposed was $800 annually. Even if the tax amount is reduced due to municipal loans, etc., hook up charges will not go down, system dismantling costs will not go down. Residents will be asked and forced to pay to dismantle their systems whether individual systems need to be replaced or not.

The bottom line? Local residents in the proposed sewer district will be asked to lay out approximately $10,000 to get sewers they do not need, do not want and that they cannot afford. Frankly, it's nuts.

Are sewers needed at the area of the schools? Possibly. However, could different septic systems be installed at the schools at much lower cost? Other than the lakefront areas and the school properties of Lansing, the residents do not need sewers.

Who needs the sewers? Developers, supermarket builders, etc. and they hope to get them and then fatten their wallets on the backs of residents who are just starting to see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel from this recession.

Since they seem to want the sewers so much, I suggest that all of the sewer proponents relocate to the proposed sewer district and help pay for the sewers and/or offer financial assistance to the local residents of modest incomes who cannot afford them.

Elisabeth Hegarty
Lansing, NY

v8i15