Any stimulus funding Santa Cruz County may garner from the feds should not pit the residents of Chula Vista against those that live in north Rio Rico and Morning Star Ranch. This either-or argument that surfaced recently will serve to spark needless friction in our community.
|
|
They never asked for the bridge at Old Tucson Road to be demolished prior to the Corps engineers conducting the soil samples that would have demonstrated it is cost-prohibitive to rebuild.
How many residents this project will serve is morally immaterial. The county and corps have an obligation to do whatever is necessary to make things right for Chula Vista. It may not be in the form of new bridges. But at the very minimum, they need to provide safe, viable access routes and guarantee that their homes will never be flooded again, which was the goal of the project originally a quarter-century ago.
As for the bridge at Palo Parado, any argument to stall this project is lunacy. The needs have been clearly identified and a bridge at the Santa Cruz River is imperative.
Freshman Supervisor Rudy Molera, whose district includes Chula Vista, Chairman John Maynard, and Public Works Director Scott Altherr need to do whatever it takes to get both projects done.
When told a cost-benefit analysis for stimulus funding for Chula Vista bridges would not meet the criteria for stimulus funding, Supervisor Manuel Ruiz said at a recent meeting that he prefers to see “the glass half full.”
Ruiz said he was prepared to march the “hallowed halls of Washington, D.C.” to enlist the help of our congressional delegation and others.
That same spirit can rise above the barriers and negativity and should be embraced by Molera and Maynard, as well as county and Corps staff instead of that us-vs.-them attitude that has emerged.
(Write us at 268 W. View Point Dr., Nogales, Ariz., 85621 or manuel.coppola@nogalesinternational.com.)






Comments
Heartshine wrote on Feb 13, 2010 12:00 PM:
George Wilgers wrote on Feb 9, 2010 1:50 PM:
I have heard tale that it was the Federal Government who created the problem in the first place by funding the Chula Vista development in the floodplain in the 1970's and then reniging on flood insurance claims in 1978. This leads me to two questions:
Is that true? and IF so, then why is the county on the hook for any of the costs? "