pf_03717 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 1 of 2 Thomas Paschke From: Neal Beets Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 1:24 AM To: Thomas Paschke Subject: FW: Twin Lakes From: Chief Injustice Bill "The Commissioner" Davies [mailto:AsktheCommish@FootballGuys.com] Sent: Fri 5/19/2006 4:24 PM To: *RVCouncil Cc: Neal Beets Subject: Twin Lakes Dear Council Members and Mr. Beets, My name is Bill Davies. I am a long time Roseville citizen and former candidate for City Council. I am writing to urge you to support letting the developer crush and use the existing material at the Twin Lakes site instead of adding the unnecessary cost and increasing uncertain risks related to introducing new materials. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend Monday's critical council meeting, so I must write, instead. I am writing as soon as I found out so that if you have any questions, you can respond to my e-mail. As a couple of you may recall, when I ran for the council in 1991 part of my platform was to introduce a residential component to the Twin Lakes area redevelopment. Since then, I have become aware of the redevelopment project being put through and i find it to be superior even to what I had envisioned for our city 15 years ago. My understanding is that one of the objections from various residents relates to crushing material already there as opposed to delivering new materials. My understanding of the process is that the material on-site that is proposed to be crushed will face stringent testing to ensure that it does not cause greater exposure to pollutants. The concerns of these citizens really do not stand up to any sort of reasonable test. They make one (or both) of two fatal assumptions. They assume either: a) the polluted matter to be crushed would have its ability to pollute greatly enhanced through the crushing process, or b) the new matter being brought in would have fewer pollutants. As to the first point, the material being crushed has been at that site for a very long time. Through rain water and airborne ways, any pollutants in that material have already been passed to adjacent properties - including Langton Lake. Not completing or delaying the project now does nothing to reduce that risk. In fact, the proposed use would clean up the area and reduce and/or prevent future continued pollution. Even if the matter were to be more vulnerable to being carried airborne as a result of the crushing, even the removal process will have a component of disrupting the matter. The bottom line is that the risk, if one exists, to allowing the crushing and use of existing matter is already there. Not allowing the developer to use it only adds to the cost of an already expensive project and provides no benefit or reduced risk to Roseville citizens or wildlife. Second, there is a flawed argument that the removal of this matter and having new material shipped in is a better and safer alternative. All matter used in construction carries some element of contamination. Asphalt, for example, is petroleum based. By its very nature it's going to carry with it contaminants. There is no guarantee that the new material will be any more safe than the existing. Additionally, it seems that introducing new materials also has a great likelihood of introducing new contaminants. Our land has learned to adapt to the existing conditions and there is no evidence that the existing conditions have led to any health- related matters to residents. As a citizen, I would hope that we would choose to continue to face risks we and mother nature have successfully dealt with in the past instead of introducing new ones we don't understand. OS/22/2006