Editor, The Smithfield Times:
The June 30th article in the Smithfield Times on the IW Rainwater Lawsuit (“IW Rainwater Lawsuit Date Set”) is just another example of the county’s disdain for the rule of law.
Who does the easement in question belong to? Without a doubt, the land belongs to the county / state / federal governments, but citizens have the illusion that they own property that is described in a deed. In reality, citizens are just “tenants” because if they don’t pay property tax, it will be confiscated. The county also imposes an additional tax called a “rainwater charge” on such properties, but it is not used to protect them from rainwater damage.
These programs are mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which delegates enforcement to the states and their political subdivisions. The EPA is funded with federal public taxes and in return distributes billions to private companies to fight pollution. “So we are all taxed twice on rainwater at the federal and state levels.
But what happens to the on-site fees? In my opinion, they’re not used properly to troubleshoot rainwater problems (usually caused by the county or Virginia Department of Transportation). These “fees” are mainly issued for district-operated facilities with questionable rainwater protection values due to poor locations, faulty constructions or constructions which in the past have led to additional correction costs.
The irony of this lawsuit is that precedents on federal and state laws clearly favor property rights. Nevertheless, the district refuses to solve rainwater problems, for which it charges companies and citizens “rainwater fees”.
Regardless of the outcome, the final losers will be the taxpaying citizens due to the attorney and court fees incurred by the county defense team. The district administration does not see the public interest as a duty and is not responsible for its actions.
Jose E. Hernandez
Carrollton