As most of us know, the election on Question 2B, the sewer rebuild, happened on Nov. 3.
On Nov. 5 the Durango Herald printed its third editorial in opposition to rebuilding the sewer plant at Santa Rita Park. It sounded like a spoiled child that didn’t get its way, accusing the city of strong-arming and scare tactics to get 2B passed.
Isn’t that what the Herald has been doing? Three editorials on the same subject in one month sounds like strong-arming and scare tactics to me.
My grandfather was a newspaperman, and he would have agreed. His ethics on reporting, journalism and city elections were clear. The newspaper writes one editorial on critical issues, and that one must be based on facts and an unbiased conclusion. The readers then write letters of agreement or opposition, after which the electorate votes.
One has to wonder why the Herald is so emphatic, even after the election, to continue its diatribe on the city’s elected officials, and the electorate itself.
The Nov. 5 editorial seemed to be arguing with itself. Due to gas prices, the city no longer has the tax base it had. Agreed, so then why would the people want to spend at least $20 million to move it – that’s at least $20 million more than the cost to rebuild it in place. With trees and landscaping one would not know the sewer plant is where it is.
Every city has at least one sewer plant. Every city tries to disguise it, and many do it very well. Our elected city officials have done a first-class job beautifying Santa Rita Park, and making it more rafter-friendly. I’m confident that they will do an equally good job landscaping the rebuild of our most critical utility.
The great deal of energy and bias the Herald is giving the sewer rebuild is over the top for a newspaper, if not suspect. There are many bad scenarios in the places they wanted to put it – dangerous, and out of sight financially are the two worst.
George Richardson
Durango
