who are the real water wasters?

A recent letter to the editor, reprinted from the Bisbee Observer.

Dear Mr. Pauken:

At last night's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Community Development Director was guilty of an insubordinate outburst deserving of reprimand. Without obtaining permission from the chair to speak, John Charley -- a city staff member whose role should be to *serve* the
commission -- railed against what he improperly
characterized as a lone P&Z commissioner "brow beating" the other commissioners into agreeing with him and, in this instance, in getting the other commissioners to agree to change what the city attorney had already drafted.

Mr. Charley ignored the fact that fully two (or, if you prefer, 40%) of the five commissioners present had grave misgivings about the wording proposed by the city attorney.

Mr. Charley also ignored the duty that the commissioners have to actually *consider* docket items before they make a recommendation.

Not only was Mr. Charley's intemperate remark an
inexcusable attack upon me, it was an attack upon
democratic process. Neither Mr. Charley nor the City Attorney have any authority to set policy; since their role is merely one of support, any exhibition of bias from them (as was seen last night) is wholly improper. Accordingly, it is outrageously anti-democratic for Mr. Charley to
suggest that it is somehow inappropriate for the P&Z commissioners to decide a matter for themselves through discussion and compromise leading to a consensus.

I expect a public apology from Mr. Charley, not only to me, but to the entire Planning and Zoning commission for having abused his office through such an insubordinate outburst.

Jeffery Harris

It absolutely didn't happen that way. Jeff Harris is totally misrepresenting this incident. He owes the citizens of Bisbee an apology for being a pain in the rump.

What needs to happen.... A full page article is needed in the paper. ON one side should be the minutes of the meeting referenced in the letter to the editor, on the other side The letter sent by Jeff Harris to the editor. IN bold type, it needs to show that Anderson had asked for comments from the city Then the piece needs to go to the point where Charley mentioned Jeff Harris and exactly what was said, That also needs to be put in bold print. Anyone who can read can tell exactly what went down AND what was grossly exaggerated in the letter by Jeff Harris.

Only an example that obvious will successfully handle this. Attempting to discuss it with the bias that is evident from several of the posters on TOPIX is pointless.

The personal attacks that are going on are so grossly ignorant it is jaw dropping.

Magnum PI wrote:

Quote :

Assuming that the quote in the newspaper article is correct, what did John Charley actually say?
"I would just like to say that as much as I would like to see a unanimous vote on this, time and time again Commissioner Harris is the lone vote against many items that come before you. And, for better or worse, brow beats you into what he believes is right. And I’m disappointed that you’re changing what the city attorney has already drafted. So I would prefer that the language remain the same." John Charley's comments apparently came AFTER a poll, when Jeff Harris continued to dispute the wording and tried to continue his battle.

Excellent point, but you're missing another key facet of this situation. As I hear it, Charley's comments were also not some spontaneous outburst, but instead the response he offered when one of the commissioners asked for staff input. This directly contradicts the factual claims that head J.H.'s letter and further detracts from his credibility on these issues (as if a history of altering public documents, attempting to independently negotiate public aid agreements with foreign sovereigns for road work, and having a backyard that looks like a Transformer vomited in a chicken coup didn't already do so).

Magnum PI wrote:

Quote :

So, the way I read John Charley's comments, he wasn't trying to say that the proposed ordinance should not be changed because the City Attorney had drafted it. Rather, Mr. Charley was expressing frustration that Jeff Harris was - once again - stomping his feet & demanding that he get his way, and that the P&Z shouldn't cave in just to appease Mr. Harris.

J.H.'s very objective in these temper tantrums is to exaggerate his own importance. The objection to the use of the word "legal" is inflated sophistry and misdirection. If the suggestion of the P&Z (carrying no legal authority in and of itself regardless of the terminology its resolutions employ) is adopted by the City Council in an ordinance affecting the consumption of water in Bisbee, the dichotomy J.H.'s supporters are attempting to establish becomes a distinction with out a difference. If any ordinance is promulgated by the City to curb the over-use of water in its jurisdiction, the "legal" obligation accruing to Bisbee residents in that case would be a very concrete one. J.H. does not argue against the substance of the resolution. This he might find difficult, given that Bisbee is not precisely a rain forest, torrentially endowed in every season with ample supplies of that most necessary of commodities, and that wise management of what water there is in the district may indeed be the most beneficial course. Moreover, that it is likely the ordinance under consideration will apply with the most force to new development rather than existing properties, shows that the scope of the "legal" obligation residents are saddled with will be limited at best. Instead, he seizes upon a turn of phrase, which, assuming that the City Council does act on the suggestion of the P&Z, will be redundant at worst.

Why does he do this? He does this, because when he whines and caterwauls enough over an issue so minor, the P&Z is more likely to accede to his demands simply out of a desire to bring the issue to uncontested resolution, and thereby he gains some degree of illusory influence over the proceedings. It is an act of egotism. When anyone has the unmitigated temerity to suggest that the P&Z not continue to enable this self-indulgence, J.H. hears in it the echoing footfalls of a jackbooted small-town Schutzstaffel traipsing through the back roads of South-Eastern Arizona. In interesting contrast to the doom-saying eschatological histrionics of Mr. Harris is his own abject intolerance for criticism, which he, and his supporters, have shown repeatedly in this and other venues.

Elysian wrote:

...He does this, because when he whines and caterwauls enough over an issue so minor, the P&Z is more likely to accede to his demands simply out of a desire to bring the issue to uncontested resolution, and thereby he gains some degree of illusory influence over the proceedings...

From a psychological perspective, this is VERY intriguing.

Are you saying that he purposefully selects minor issues upon which to make a stand, knowing that the other members won't waste their time & political capital fighting over a relatively minor point? It sounds like a tactic that virtually guarantees him a small "win" he can spin as a "big win" to his followers, and reinforce his image as a Champion For The People.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

Elysian wrote:

...He does this, because when he whines and caterwauls enough over an issue so minor, the P&Z is more likely to accede to his demands simply out of a desire to bring the issue to uncontested resolution, and thereby he gains some degree of illusory influence over the proceedings...

From a psychological perspective, this is VERY intriguing.

Are you saying that he purposefully selects minor issues upon which to make a stand, knowing that the other members won't waste their time & political capital fighting over a relatively minor point? It sounds like a tactic that virtually guarantees him a small "win" he can spin as a "big win" to his followers, and reinforce his image as a Champion For The People.

That sounds so right. I think you guys have recognized the inner workings of Harris. It makes perfect sense.

I am told that the latest council meeting was a great success. The water conservation agenda is well on it's way with only slight modifications needed down the road. Congrats to everyone who worked so hard to get that enacted.

Yeah, it appears to be a small step, but better to start acting now than being up a river without a river .

Elysian wrote:

I am told that the latest council meeting was a great success. The water conservation agenda is well on it's way with only slight modifications needed down the road. Congrats to everyone who worked so hard to get that enacted.

The irony of it is, Jeff's behavior is SO outrageous, he alienates some of the people who might agree with him on some issues.

I, myself, happen to agree that the "legal obligation" language was not needed in the proposed ordinance.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

Elysian wrote:

I am told that the latest council meeting was a great success. The water conservation agenda is well on it's way with only slight modifications needed down the road. Congrats to everyone who worked so hard to get that enacted.

The irony of it is, Jeff's behavior is SO outrageous, he alienates some of the people who might agree with him on some issues.

I, myself, happen to agree that the "legal obligation" language was not needed in the proposed ordinance.

The problem is that while Jeff has some excellent points, he dilutes his message simply because there are no gradations, EVERYTHING is based on corruption and stupidity. Common sense dictates some of it has to be error, lack of foresight and the result of far simpler explanations.

Elysian wrote:

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

Elysian wrote:

I am told that the latest council meeting was a great success. The water conservation agenda is well on it's way with only slight modifications needed down the road. Congrats to everyone who worked so hard to get that enacted.

The irony of it is, Jeff's behavior is SO outrageous, he alienates some of the people who might agree with him on some issues.

I, myself, happen to agree that the "legal obligation" language was not needed in the proposed ordinance.

The problem is that while Jeff has some excellent points, he dilutes his message simply because there are no gradations, EVERYTHING is based on corruption and stupidity. Common sense dictates some of it has to be error, lack of foresight and the result of far simpler explanations.

Or even that Jeff is right, but the other point of view is right as well! For example, you CAN get to California by way of Yuma. But you can ALSO get there through Phoenix and Blythe.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

Elysian wrote:

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

Elysian wrote:

I am told that the latest council meeting was a great success. The water conservation agenda is well on it's way with only slight modifications needed down the road. Congrats to everyone who worked so hard to get that enacted.

The irony of it is, Jeff's behavior is SO outrageous, he alienates some of the people who might agree with him on some issues.

I, myself, happen to agree that the "legal obligation" language was not needed in the proposed ordinance.

The problem is that while Jeff has some excellent points, he dilutes his message simply because there are no gradations, EVERYTHING is based on corruption and stupidity. Common sense dictates some of it has to be error, lack of foresight and the result of far simpler explanations.

Or even that Jeff is right, but the other point of view is right as well! For example, you CAN get to California by way of Yuma. But you can ALSO get there through Phoenix and Blythe.

That too. He is not a dumb man, he just needs to be a little flexible. Yes?

:scratch: Why are so many golf courses and housing developments allowed and then people are worried about water conservation? It is most likely not the average Joe like myself who is very conscious about conserving water especially here in the desert who needs to be reminded about water conservation. It is industry, golf courses, and unharnassed housing developments and business and industry complexes who are the water mongers. So much for the concept of controlled growth.

the only good ideas harris has is by accident

MAYBE WE COULD LEARN SOMETHING FROM THIS STORY
THAT RAN IN THE STAR ON MONDAY

Low-water-use toilets might be too effective
By Tony Davis
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.11.2008

Can low-flow toilets cause problems for sewer lines?
A Pima County program to install the toilets in older neighborhoods at taxpayers' expense is in limbo because of that question.
And the answer eventually could change other water-conservation policies as well.
The toilets work smoothly and save a little water, most homeowners in the program say.......

There are always pros and cons in everything. That is why moderation works best.

you have a point there, TOM TOM. But the story is still interesting. Read it.


A picture in the Star the following day brought another question to mind:

WHAT BECOMES OF THE OLD TOILETS THEY TRADE OUT FOR THE NEW LOW-FLUSH TOILETS?

In Pima County it looks like they become a wildcat dumping problem, messing up the desert.

Here in Bisbee some end up at the Thrift Store. The Y pays to get
rid of them at the transfer station which clogs the dump somewhere.

I doubt Andy the Recycler has plans for old potties.

Yup. There are tradeoffs.

When I searched the Star for the low-flush story from Monday three Roto Rooter ads came up with the low-flush hits
so SOMEone is making money on the mistakes.

Which brings up ANOTHER question. Does Cado get a kickback on those low-flush toilets she pushes?

It is the history of insanity and public correctness that a good idea is taken to insane extremes. There are far better ways to conserve water than clogging sewer lines and buyinig low volume toilets.