2 comments:

• Doug Chaney posted at 7:55 am on Fri, Feb 8, 2013.

  Posts: 402

  And as for the sewage treatment plant at White Slough, why haven't the newspaper or the city council and management team, notably public works, ever notified Lodi taxpayers of the many fines assessed by the CSWRCB, the latest Jan. 14, 2013 for exceeding ammonia and coliform limits and faces a $9000 fine. And this link from 2009 shows the disregard by council and management to follow the rules: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2009/wqo/wqo2009_0005.pdf. And there were 25 violations from Feb. 2000- Sept. 2007, a $21,000 fine in Oct. 2009, violations and penalties in Feb. 2011, and Jan. 2012. The city council and the Lodi paper are seemingly adept at keeping these council and management violations from the taxpayers. These fines for violations at White Slough, and one violation already at the Lodi Energy Center, indicate to me the management and staff at public works are not doing their job by repeatedly violating these laws and need to pay closer attention to who is either flasifying or incapable of reporting the correct figures. This nonprofit generating this award should be questioned concerning their lack of research into the many past violations and I wonder what it is they recognized White Slough for? So how much are these cities "donating" to this nonprofit for these "recognitions" and what are they based on? Just go to the CSWRCB website and search for White Slough violations and see for yourself the real track record of this sewer treatment plant and the accusations and fines levied acainst it, including one document alluding to false figures being reported.

  • Link

   

• Doug Chaney posted at 6:52 am on Fri, Feb 8, 2013.

  Posts: 402

  I see the city of Lodi is still trying to move out of their 50's style mode of governing. Thank you, Mayor Nakanishi, as well as past Mayor Mounce for being the only two council representatives who are not afraid to question and challenge the many controversial decisions made by the "three amigos", who appear to pass any, and nearly every issue or ordinance on the whims of their large contributors and always voting together to assure the three votes needed to assure passage. It is rather ironic that Mr. Bartlam seems to be a major participant in the authoring of this document as well as the general plan and the controversial superWalmart project, while failing in his bid to become a major player in the development/real estate industry in this area. And I would assume that many other participants drawing up these documents are those who would stand to profit the greatest when they were approved. Has superWalmart/Browman ever reimbursed the COL for the over $300K spent during Mr. Bartlam's part time, highly paid short tenure, and many hours of staff and advisory fees that were promised by them to be repaid when the project was approved? Or will this just be swept under the rug?

  • Link