Guest column

1
1041

Backlash Builds on Push to Underground Utilities

By Jennifer Welsh-Zeiter
By Jennifer Welsh-Zeiter

A new coalition of concerned residents in town called S.T.O.P – Stop Taxing Our Property — has formed to give residents all the facts about undergrounding, not just ones city administrators want to “educate” you about.

The city had budget surpluses of $9.9 million, $9.8 million and $4.8 million in fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively. If undergrounding is so essential, why haven’t those surpluses been saved for undergrounding rather than placing the burden on taxpayers? Shouldn’t we demand better planning and fiscal responsibility of our city’s leaders? Why not use Measure LL funds to support a revenue bond rather than taxpayers? At the projected $3 million a year, those funds could support up to $60 million in bond debt.

The city will spend over $240,000 on consultants to push undergrounding and biased surveys. Contrary to a guest opinion by Mr. Gibbs of Underground Laguna Now, the surveys did not find that the majority of residents support paying for undergrounding. The surveys “found” what we already know, that we live in a fire threat area.

How does that equate to an imperative to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to underground utility poles? Forty-four percent of California is in a high fire threat area. Laguna is no different than hundreds of other cities. The ’93 fire was caused by arson, not utility poles, and the cause of the most recent fires in Sonoma and Santa Barbara have not been factually determined. There has never been a major fire in Laguna caused by utility poles.

The city estimates spending $10 million over 6.5 years before construction would even begin on undergrounding. Wireless power already exists, and is developing faster every day for mass scale use. Soon electricity transmission by wires will be obsolete. Why are we spending hundreds of millions to underground a soon to be obsolete method of delivering power?

Last December, the California Public Utilities Commission ordered new stricter fire safety measures for electrical distribution systems in high risk areas, and created a “Fire-Threat Map” where those measures are currently being implemented, including Laguna and Laguna Canyon Road.

With these significant new fire prevention measures for utilities, including frequent monitoring and inspection of all utility poles, immediate correction of safety hazards in high fire threat areas, and major new rules for vegetation management, shouldn’t we wait and see if these safety measures work before asking taxpayers to foot the bill to underground utilities? If Edison doesn’t comply, wouldn’t there be substantial cause to force the utility to underground at its own cost?
Laguna’s downtown and homes around Coast Highway are not high risk for widespread utility fires.  Why is the city insisting on undergrounding in these areas using the arbitrary “evacuation route” scare tactic? No one can predict where a fire may break out. Fallen trees, light poles and parked cars obstruct as much as power lines. Ninety percent of fires are caused by cigarettes, campfires and arson. Electrical transmission fires are an extremely low percentage of all fires.

Many neighborhoods have already paid thousands to underground, some over $50,000. Why should these residents have to pay for others to do the same thing? Some of these neighborhoods were on so called “evacuation routes.” Many other residents would never use any of the “evacuation routes.” One council member lives on Glenneyre and her view would be greatly improved by undergrounding. Is it fair or equitable to force others to pay for that view?

The $240 median per parcel trumped out to support the undergrounding only applies if your property tax assessment is $600,000. That’s great if you bought your home many years ago such as council members, whose average assessment is $462,000, according to county assessor records. Many other residents who bought more recently will pay thousands more. Is this equitable? Who else isn’t paying their “fair share?”

The city paid over $200,000 to put new carpet in City Hall, and has been on a hiring binge over the last three years, increasing payroll and pension liabilities. City health insurance is expected to increase by 18%. In the past three years, $3 million of new vehicles were purchased. Millions have been spent purchasing real estate that may be desirable, but is not necessary. Shouldn’t we demand responsible spending first before taxpayers are asked to tax themselves and give the city even more?

Ask questions; get informed. It’s your money.

 

Attorney Jennifer Welsh Zeiter is co-founder of S.T.O.P and a self-described fiscal watchdog.

 

Share this:

1 COMMENT

  1. The Woods Cove neighborhood voted yes to underground a few years ago. The main reason was aesthetics, better views and greater property values. I’m OK with that.Let each neighborhood decide. But I’m not OK with the somewhat misleading justification for under grounding Laguna Canyon Road. As Jennifer has pointed out so clearly the fire of 1993 was caused by arson, not utility poles.

    We aren’t in great danger of fires from utility poles. Yes it can happen, which is why Edison (probably pushed by their insurers) will be creating new regulations governing the distance trees are from utility poles. (Think Santa Rosa Fire)

    There is some justification for under grounding based on down wires blocking the road during an earthquake or other disaster. However if safety is the main mission of government then city funds should be allocated to keep residents safe. With the large budget surpluses Jennifer mentioned shouldn’t that money be spent on public safety?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here