Letter to the Editor: Reader Asks for Correction, Takes Multiple Exceptions to Article

Hello,

I am writing to you about Eddie Rivera’s article on Feb 23, 2016 entitled “Council Adopts EIR for non-potable water project”.
http://www.pasadena.buzz/main/council-adopts-eir-for-non-potable-water-project/#.VtYraUZ0ZH4

I am the Marie Levine quoted in this article, and I would much appreciate if you issued a correction. I noted that *** 53 *** bodies were found at the Sheldon reservoir site, not 18 as incorrectly reported. This number comes from the 2004 Pasadena Land Use Plan which I am attaching here for your records.

I am also dismayed by the clear bias in this report. While the City does believe it has an archeological plan in place to stop construction in case artifacts are found, your reporter completely omitted to note that the EIR falsely represented the accuracy of its sub-surface survey , as they were forced to admit during the City Council meeting. In fact as documented in the draft EIR, BA Silva Sensing Systems who performed this survey says :

· “Note that these findings do not ensure the absence of (other) cultural features within the survey boundary. Normal soil properties and disturbances (human and natural) could create conditions such that identifying this particular type of target is impossible.”

It is also very unfortunate that your reporter could not follow through with the statement of the facts, as incorrect as they were. So what happens after the City stops the construction in the very high likelyhood that indian artifacts are found? The City has no plan, and given the sensitive nature of the Indian Burial Site, it may well have to abandon the site altogether leaving the whole project in shambles without another option to store this water.

Furthermore the title of the article itself is misleading. The City would only save 10% if the Project completes all 5 phases. Phase I is what was voted at this City Council meeting, and this would only save 5%. Future phases will have to be re-proposed to the City Council. and hence 10% water savings is not what was voted on last week.

Also why was the cost of the project omitted? Phase I is estimated at $25M, which I think we can all agree is a high price to pay for so little return on the investment.

The reporter failed to note that the reason the Linda Vista residents objected to the pipelines along Laurel street is because of their concerns for the large Canary Island pine trees that line Laurel Street. These trees are extremely large, they are known for their shallow root systems and for falling during wind storms, thus posing a real risk to the houses along the street. Without the reason for the objection, the reporter makes the Linda Vista residents sound like whiners. Shame on your paper!

Your readers deserve better than made-up facts and biased reporting, I ask that you correct this article and accurately represent all sides of this issue.

Sincerely,

Dr. Marie Levine
Pasadena Resident

 

[Pasadena Now Publisher James Macpherson: Thank you for your letter, Dr. Levine. We did not quote you. However, we did say that 18 sets of remains were located at the site and you are correct in saying that 53 were found. We try very hard to accurately report facts and apologize for this error. In reference to your allegations that we are biased, we can only say that we try very hard to be objective and are sorry that you think you are detecting a bias which, in truth, does not exist.]