By Monica Alonzo
By Stephen Lemons
By Jason P. Woodbury
By Dulce Paloma Baltazar Pedraza
By Ray Stern
By Pete Kotz
By Monica Alonzo
By New Times
I was concerned about the recent article about groups objecting to the water use andthe city's efforts at the new Sumitomo plant("Sumitomo Wrestling," Dave Plank, December 7). First, the information was highly exaggerated and wrong. The groups contend that the plant will "devour 2.4 million gallons per day of the last untainted aquifer in the city." The plant is only supposed to use 1.2 million gallons a day in its first phase, and all of it comes from the Central Arizona Project canal. Down the road, if market trends warrant, the plant will be expanded, and it then could consume up to 2.4 million gallons per day.
Now, 1.2 million still sounds like a lot; but, for a city this size, it represents less than one-half of 1 percent of the total average daily water use. The company already has indicated it has a long-standing history of efficient water use, and we will see this applied from the manufacturing to the landscaping. It receives no special water rates; and, because it has to purify the water it receives, it is clearly to the company's economic advantage to use it as efficiently as possible.
The infrastructure improvements that are being made by the City of Phoenix would have happened anyway--the city is putting in general water, sewer and street improvements. These will benefit not only Sumitomo, but also every other commercial enterprise coming into that area. Sumitomo will foot the bill for all the improvements on its land, and will pay an additional $560,000 in impact and development fees. The city will more than recoup the $7 million in improvements it spent when the Desert Ridge development is built out.
Unlike the City of Scottsdale, which nearly went to war over water issues a few months ago, Phoenix has an abundant supply of water--both now and for the foreseeable future. Sumitomo's entrance into our Valley will not hurt this supply and will not affect our groundwater quality. My statement to the opponents is, "Get your facts straight!"
Amy Silverman's article "Who Pooped on the Scoop?" (November 30), regarding Maricopa County's animal-control work, was provocative, but missed the point. With more thorough investigation, Silverman probably would have found that the Arizona Republic's editors correctly decided to hold Gail Tabor's article pending better research and balance.
Tabor made it clear to those she interviewed that she was doing a "hit" piece on the county's new program to place adoptable animals in homes instead of killing them. She didn't even visit the facilities she was criticizing. And it was obvious that she was only talking to a few "old-timers" who had their own vested interests in seeing the program fail. Tabor never even bothered to call the co-chairs of the Rabies/Animal Control Advisory Council, which had been operating with a diverse, talented group of citizen volunteers in public meetings for several months.
Credit should have been given to Tom Rawles and the other Board of Supervisors members for reviving the citizen oversight council and entering into the creative and innovative spay/neuter/adopt program that Maricopa County, PetsMart and Animal Foundation International are running now. It's the best answer to the pet-overpopulation problem anywhere, and, with some fine-tuning, it will be successful. Let any naysayers go to our two shelters and PetsMart stores to volunteer their help, attend the Advisory Council meetings and/or come up with a better solution!
Karen Moore, former co-chair
Maricopa County Rabies/
Animal Control Advisory Council
This letter is in reference to Amy Silverman's story on the PetsMart adoption program and the Arizona Republic not yet covering the story. Yes, I agree the story needs to be told; it has much validity, and the people should know what is going on. But I have to wonder: Why does New Times have to base the story on why or why not the Republic is or is not going to run it? Why doesn't New Times just report the story itself and be the exclusive? As a reader, I don't care who writes the story; I just want to read about it.
I respect the Arizona Republic for its coverage, the same way I do New Times. However, at this point, I got the impression that New Times is trying to expose some kind of bad rap on the Republic, and it came out like a tattle! I was really surprised at the angle at which this story was written.
The county pound is an effective agency forthe control of rabies and the management of animals within its boundaries. To that end, it does well.
In any situation where animals and humans interface, ultimately, management ofthe animals becomes necessary. Animal management of any kind has euthanasia (death) as part of management. And thepound does well for the given conditions.
What stresses the dog pound and its employees is the use of the pound by animal "rightists," special interests, politics and "bandwagoning." Too many cooks spoil the soup. Left alone, the pound can do its function. Special interests need to pursue their crusades through the private sector instead of trying to make the dog pound into something it's not.