Column for October 12, 2006

By the time that this column is published, the thirty days that the Selma Town Council gave to be able to further study the Cotton Mill water tower situation will have expired. The council will have met on Tuesday evening, and perhaps a disposition announced.

I am on record in this very column and on the internet as being indifferent as to whether the tower should stay or be torn down. To me, the tower is an old rusting metal structure. If it comes down, it comes down. "The Selma News" unofficial web poll is overwhelmingly in favor of saving the tower. There are a lot of people who have signed a petition to save the tower. Signatures, however, are not dollars.

One issue in the debate over the tower is the issue of liability. The tower does not have a sturdy fence for perimeter protection. That is one concept that I can relate to. In a previous career, I worked for a public safety organization performing safety inspections and risk avoidance. The word liability was used quite often. We had five times the population of the entire town of Selma and more area to cover. One of the first things I noticed about the old water tower was that there was no fence around its base, creating a possible liability situation for the town. So I can relate to the liability argument.

One thing that I have written about in the past is the issue of liability. There are many situations in town that are potential liability risks and nothing is being done about them. We have uneven sidewalks that I personally have tripped over. During the recent Railroad Days festival, I noticed many cables near the main stage that were not secured and observed people actually trip and almost fall over them as a result. In that situation, we are talking about thousands of people of risk exposure as opposed to few if any tower climbers. I am just an old safety guy talking common sense here.

The latest estimate to tear down the tower is now as low as $5000. The cost of erecting a sturdy fence to protect access to the tower and limit liability is about $3000. Is it worth the three grand to protect a rusting structure that is not being used when another $2000 will tear down the tower and eliminate the risk? Personally, I say it is not.

The problem that I still have with tearing down the tower right now is that even if the cost is just $5000, that is still money that the town wants to spend in a time when our property taxes have gone up, we have eliminated staff, and cut budgets. Five thousand dollars is a small amount of money and we can probably find it in the budget somewhere, specifically in the water budget, I am told.

I am all for limiting liability, but I am also all for fiscal responsibility. To cut employee benefits and positions while at the same time bothering to spend money to tear down a long abandoned and relatively harmless water tower is just plain bad employee and public relations. It fosters a hostile environment for already affected employees and irritates tax payers out of principle.

Do I think that the tower should come down? From a common sense and professional standpoint, yes I do. Yet I can live with or without it and don’t really care if someone steps up to the plate to salvage the tower. I would love to see proponents of keeping the tower given the chance to raise funds to do so. Let people put their money where their mouths are. The reality is that they would never come up with sufficient funds to save the old tower.

Should it be a priority item for the Town of Selma and the issue be raised at this time? No way. If we can find $5000 in any budget, whether it be a revenue generating stream or not, then that is five grand that could be better managed. Where else could we have found more money to squeeze out of some budget instead of raising taxes and cutting employee benefits? That is the opinion of this taxpayer and utility customer.