I think Mr. Steinhilber needs to answer this question himself, directly, and explain where he got the $60,000 figure.

An aside: this all also ignores the fact that Mr. Ciolek himself is NOT advocating this funding approach because of its undue and unbalanced financial burden on homeowners.

Options for funding wastewater infrastructure include working within a town’s existing revenue streams, which Mr. Ciolek said, was, in the current economic climate, not viable; charging betterments, an approach he called “inherently inequitable” since betterments would be higher in less densely developed service districts; seeking a Proposition 2 1/2 override or debt exclusion, which he said was politically difficult to sell to voters; and increasing applicable rates and fees, which he called the most flexible and equitable route because every user would pay in.

TAXES

Eric will fight to stop any and all attempts to impose new county taxes on the families, seniors, and businesses of Cape Cod. Eric will work to protect residents by stopping Cape-wide sewer project proposals, which alone, could cost each homeowner over $60,000 in new taxes.

I have a screencap of the page, and I’ll post it if necessary.

What we need around here is a return visit from the gun nuts. Those guys *really* know how fabricate themselves some outrage!

That is still more of a factual basis than any argument to the contrary. I repeat: if someone knows of any documentation of any kind that refutes the report’s findings and backs its premises with sound data, post it here. Post a link and let everyone read it and draw their own conclusions based on fact.

This will be the last comment I allow on this tangent. If someone has a response to what my post was actually about, i.e., that Mr. Steinhilber’s quote was inaccurate, I’ll allow it, but no more pointless circular debates about the county wastewater report. Stay on topic, folks.

Actual cost information was obtained from over 30 existing wastewater treatment facilities, located largely in southeastern Massachusetts. The data were carefully reviewed to be sure they included all pertinent cost items.

That is from page one of the report. This is from page three:

While the cost estimates presented in this report are conceptual and based on a uniform set of assumptions, they are supported by a review of actual data for nine example projects.

On page six:

Data were obtained from the following sources for this study: Interviews with suppliers of treatment systems; Discussions with construction contractors and developers; Data available from the Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center; Reports from the New Jersey Pinelands Commission

Page 45 on lists the facilities used to provide the key data cited in the report.

The report explains its methodology and contains supportive data for its findings. Disliking the findings, or the man who compiled the data, or the county that sponsored the report does not disprove the data’s accuracy — nor does simply saying “Prove the report is accurate.” That’s Obama Birther logic, and it unnecessarily muddies a complex situation. The burden of proof here is on the Doubting Thomases. If anyone has sound evidence that contradicts anything in that report, present it here. I welcome it.

Finally: none of this refutes the main point of this post: that the number Mr. Steinhilber quoted was inaccurate in that it was attached to the wrong wastewater treatment model. Again, someone provide evidence to the contrary. Until that happens, I stand by my conclusion.