OCR Text |
Show Wednesday, May 11, 1977 Page 9 Letters To The Editor Continued From Page 1 S fit a 32 In if I s B 1 TEENAGE PREGNANCIES Mother's Day, a day set aside to honor motherhood, has just been celebrated. But for some mothers this day just accentuates what may be a painful and lonely role. Joan Beck in a recent editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune raised the serious issue of the high rate of teen-age pregnancies in this country. She cites some alarming statistics : 1. Every year 10 percent of all teen-age girls in the U.S. will become pregnant, with 6 percent giving birth. 2. Half of all illegitimate births are to teenagers. 3. One baby out of every five born in the U.S. has a teenaged mother who is 17 or younger. Being a mother during adolescence has many complications. There are psychological traumas to everyone involved in an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, the families, the father and, of course, the mother-to-be. It may well mean dropping out of school, forfeiting for-feiting vocational goals and leaving the young woman unskilled, undereducated and ill prepared to financially support a child. The pregnant teenager may lose her support systems such as family and peers; she finds herself isolated. "Mothering a child is one of the most challenging, demanding, exasperating, time-consuming, time-consuming, difficult and rewarding roles a woman ever undertakes. But parenting is not for kids." As the pressures mount in terms of finances, finan-ces, emotional demands and loneliness, the teenage mother can easily resent her predicament and in turn resent the child. Being a teenaged mother does not automatically imply inability to be a good parent, but it does suggest that the task may be more difficult. It means a higher chance of prematurity which predisposes the infant to greater incidence of congenital defects, learning problems, etc. Most teenagers who deliver babies or have abortions did not intend to become pregnant. The U.S. ranks 5th in teenage birth rates among industrialized in-dustrialized nations; only Romania, New Zealand, Bulgaria and--East Germany rank ' fftgMf Tff a ConltylftthUrthatrfeso equip-,, ped to educate the public, how is it that we fail to teach our adolescents the reality and repur-cussions repur-cussions of being a parent ? THE ANDERSON LUMBER "ANSWER MAN" HAS Highway 248 East 649 - DOG FOOD Purina Field & Farm n : 1 1 . i rmsuury Cainine Crunch $9.25 per 50 Ib.s Compjete Line of Horse: Feeds. CIRCLE J Horse Trailers New Shipment of Grant Laryettes RANCH & mm 137 South Main Heber Citv 654 - BEEN GIVING TO BOTH CONTRACTORS AND HANDYMEN SINCE 1890 LET HIM HELP YOU! Park City, Utah 8477 ' - . Potato beea $13 oer 100 lb cnHa . Red Pontiac J Russet ! rrrn p. mr 3202 City plant that is only n years old and build one brand new plant for Park City and the west end of the county. Call Engineering Co. reluctantly admits that it will cost no more to build a separate plant for the county portion and to enlarge the existing Park City plant than to build one new facility. Their only "cost effective" argument is that the Sewer Board can operate one plant at a saving over Park City and Summit Co. operating their own plants. I am not taken in at all by the representation of savings which the Sewer Board claims it can make. For 10 years before Park City turned its sewer plant, its sewer bond, its revenues from fees and connections and its $36,000 interest-bearing interest-bearing bond reserve fund over to the sewer board. Park City was charging $3.35 mo. per sewer user and a $200 sewer connection fee. Since the sewer board took over, it has continued to charge $3.35 mo. but has collected a $750 sewer connection con-nection fee from the great influx in-flux of building which burst into being during their two-year two-year existence in 1975-76 after af-ter the two-year economic "drought" Park City suffered suf-fered thru. This windfall not being enough for them to manage with, they levied a two-mill levy on all of the real and personal property within the Snyderville Basin Sewer District which, whether you know it or not, you have been paying during the last two years. This not being enough, they are guaranteeing you an increase in-crease from $3.35 to $5.00 mo. if you approve their bond. Does this impress you that they are the kind w ho can effect ef-fect a savings for you? The scare tactics they are now using in desperation consist of telling you how much more it will cost Park Pjty jpeople jf jthey have to go it on their own without a federal grant and because of increased costs down the line a year or two because of inflation. in-flation. The State cannot compel Park City to act if it does not have cash in its treasury or bonding capacity to improve its system, much less to enlarge it for (future) needs which do not now exist. Therefore, if Park City persists per-sists in issuing more building permits and the effluent gets so bad the people downstream down-stream start to holler, it leaves the state with the alternative of giving Park City top priority for federal grant funds if that is what we wish (since grant funds are not free and are eventually paid indirectly by the taxpayer tax-payer at much greater cost ) . As for inflation increasing costs if we proceed on our own, that is a meaningless threat because inflation increases in-creases everything equally--revenues increase proportionately propor-tionately with costs so that the real cost will be the same. Instead of a revenue bond where those who benefit from the service bear the cost, they propose a general obligation bond which sub jects everyone's property to additional taxes if they can't make ends meet from sewer revenues, because they say GO bonds are easier to sell and at less interest (obviously (ob-viously and you can see why. ) They say they are sure they can repay the bond from revenues without taxing your property, but not one member of the Board has been willing to guarantee guaran-tee that they won't tax your property or raise your monthly mon-thly fees above $5.00. In view that they have been taxing your property for two years without making the public aware of it, who of sound mind would put faith in their present assurances that they will not tax your property under a GO bond. It is self-destructive for Parkites and the people in our end of the Coutny to approve ap-prove a bond which will allow more than 3 million dollars to be spent for a sewer line that will parallel 12 miles of the highway leading into Park City. This line will serve only those adjacent ad-jacent to the highway and will produce a 12-mile solid tunnel of development on both sides of the highway. We don't need to destroy the beauty of our county with this kind of ugliness. There are 100,000 acres of land lying within the District. The limited densities envisioned to protect the charm of this area should be spread out over the entire area in feasible, allowable small developments that will be mainly out of sight and not strung along 12 miles like a Coney Island boardwalk. Two of the largest landowners land-owners in the District are not in favor of the bond. If they develop, they are willing to bear their own costs of installing private sewer systems instead of putting their sewer costs on the backs of the people. Costs of a private sewer system are such that a developer can build an adequate system for 300 units, sell connections for $500 each instead in-stead of $750 to repay his costs, and still have profit left to put in his pocket. The sewer board has attempted at-tempted to rebut this contention conten-tion by representing that the State Board of Health will not allow private sewer systems to be installed. This is not so. According to Mr. Kent Saxey, President of Engineering Consortiums of Salt Lake City, the State cannot refuse permission to operate any private system which complies with their 3k I jy S!.m.. I ...if we bond a big sewer pipe here... Our increased Sewer Rates will be encouraging and helping pay for this kind of "progress" all the way to Kimball Junction, BUT OUTSIDE OUR CONTROL AND BEYOND OUR TAXATION. Think of the consequences! Next Thursday, May 17th lets vote our conscience, if only for the sake of our children. Charity begins at home. standards. As far as the pitch that one plant is the only "cost effective" effec-tive" answer, it is not. The State Board of Health prefers one plant instead of many because it is easier for them to control one plant instead in-stead of several, not because one plant is always the only "cost effective" way. The State spent 2 million dollars and four years to produce a 208 page Study Report to tell all the cities and sewer district in Salt Lake County that they had to scrap five sewer treatment plants and build one master plant because a single plant was the only "cost effective" way to go. The cities and the five sewer districts serving all of Salt Lake County were not about to lamely accept the State's edict of one plant, as our sewer board is lamely doing. They went to bat and the State Board of Health and the 208 Committee conceded con-ceded that two plants were eually "cost effective" and both would be federally funded. fun-ded. Not willing to accept only two plants, Murray City and the Salt Lake Co. Cottonwood Cot-tonwood Sewer Improvement Im-provement District chose to combine a plant of their own instead of being forced into a second plant with Granger, Hunter, and the SLC Sewer Highway 224 Today Approaching Park City L Improvement Dist. 1. They retained Mr. Saxey's company, com-pany, who in two weeks turned tur-ned out a study debunking the 2 million dollar 4-year study and proving that a three plant concept would be financially viable when compared with one or two plants. Mr. Saxey's figures showed that the third plant could operate for about $20 less annually per connection than if Murray and Cottonwood Cotton-wood were forced to join one of the two plants. The 208 Committee and the State Board of Health cried and wailed but were overruled by the Salt Lake Co. Council of Governments, the third plant is now a reality, and the EPA funds appear available for it, too. Does this tell you anything about the biased, one-sided sewer story being foisted on us? And who is footing the bills for printing, hand-delivering, hand-delivering, plus postage for the mailing of another 2000 pro-sewer bond information sheets? Those favored few who stand to gain at our expense ex-pense are sparing no expense expen-se to pull wool that is 100 percent cotton over our eyes. The only way to restore fiscal sanity to the sewer department and preserve the beauty and charm of our area is to kill this bond r-7 4ww proposal and let Park City reclaim its sewer operation. Let Park City and Summit County handle their problems individually as they see fit. The State Board of Health has knowlingly allowed Park City to compound com-pound its problems since 1971 by continuous building. Its excuse that it has looked the other way since 1974 because it expected Park City to become a part of the Snyderville Basin sewer treatment plant is no excuse, as there was never any assurance that the Snyderville Snyder-ville plant would become a reality. They were made aware of this by the killing election of a year ago. The only avenue left to them is to give Park City priority funding fun-ding if and when it wants it. Why should Park City be cowardly and kneel down'.' Salt Lake County wasn't. They are having their cake and eating too much Sincerely yours. D.A. Osguthorpe To The Editor: Just about a year has passed since the Snyderville Sewer Basin District was soundlv defeated at the polls. And once again we are deluged with threats and intimidations, with facts and with non-facts, non-facts, of what may happen to us and to our pocket-books, if the sewer bond is again defeated. Let's examine the cost factors fac-tors one at a tinie: 1. Construction Costs The Snyderville Basin Sewer District Board, in a pamphlet entitled "Fact you Should Know" states "the regional district concept would cost residents $1,031,000 while upgrading Park City's existing plant would cost $1,525,000. But a design proposed by Bush & Gudgell Engineering and presented to Park City in July. 1976, puts the cost of the expanded Park City plant at $927,000. Adding the cost of replacing Park City's sewer lines of $200,000 brings the total to $1,157,000 or approximately ap-proximately 25 percent less than the Sewer Bond's figures. v ,. The Bush & Gudgell expanded ex-panded plant would be "one of the most economical plants . that could be designed and based on biological treatment treat-ment rather than an activated ac-tivated sludge system." The plant would (a) handle an Continued en Page 1 1 |