Benefits ignored

Your Dec. 23 editorial ignored arguments for Newark’s water plan: (1) the water system needs capital investment; (2) Newark cannot sell more bonds, but an expanded watershed corporation could; (3) unlike the city council, the corporation would be obliged to spend its money on the water system; (4) with its better management, the corporation could reduce the amount of unbilled water.

Instead saying why these arguments are mistaken, you discuss other controversies, crow about the Mayor's admitting the system can be better managed and complain about using money the corporation would pay the city to ease reassessment's impact on homeowners. Some of your rhetoric is unfair. For example, it isn't fair to say the plan misuses the watershed when it doesn't change the management of the watershed. The bonds sold by the corporation would use the revenue from water sold in Newark, not the watershed, as collateral. Let's have more analysis and less emotion.

Glenn Shafer, Newark