True Purpose of Letter Unclear

Dear Editor,

Ms. Callahan’s letter in the June 30 The Times appeared to have four points: (1) No city water for Nestle; (2) the Mayor using his veto power for his personal agenda; (3) Territorial Charter allows city police; (4) the Mayor wasting city money.

As to (1) if Nestle had been in contact with city administration concerning the feasibility of locating in Waitsburg that would be a normal initial step prior to any publicity. Had there been open discussion it would likely have been reported in The Times the following week. If there was no open discussion regarding Nestle’s inquiries the question is when and where did Ms. Callahan get her information? “Rumor has it” is quite vague and makes me wonder how many others were privy, or was it only elected and/or hired personnel who had this insider knowledge?

Waitsburg was once home to a successful cannery which used a substantial amount of water. During much of the year excess water from the city’s water system is discharged from an overflow pipe. These factors combined indicate there may well be adequate water for a Nestle venture—whatever it may be—especially if it means more local jobs. A check of water supply capacity would allow for a decision based on facts.

A check of zoning requirements, necessary permits and water supply to determine feasibility would be logical. Only then would further discussion be appropriate.

Ms. Callahan made a general statement but gave no specific examples for (2). Are we to condemn a person on general statements? Hardly seems fair.

Perhaps a check of why we switched from a Marshal’s Office to coverage by the Sheriff is needed for (3). Lack of personnel--including reserves--for adequate coverage and the potential cost of upgrading equipment/vehicles were major factors, as I recall. Perhaps others may recall additional factors.

Again, Ms. Callahan made a general accusation for (4) with no specifics. How much money was wasted on what by the Mayor? As a former member of Waitsburg City Council she should be able to provide specifics since she had a vote on all city expenditures at every council meeting. It would be logical to express opposition prior to voting, or through a negative vote, on any wasteful spending. Surely such dissention would be in the records.

I’m still wondering at the true purpose of Ms. Callahan’s letter.

Jim Davison

Waitsburg