Lies Of Omission

A form letter was circulated around Prescott Valley for people to sign in opposition to a quarry anywhere in Prescott Valley town limits. The first “lie of omission” was that not having a quarry in town limits was an option.

The issue before the Prescott Valley Town Council was a choice between two sites, one near Fain Lake and the other in a valley named the Government Tank. There was never a third option.

The majority of the Council voted for the Government Tank for numerous reasons (none of which were to benefit the “developer”). A quarry has existed next to Stoneridge for more than 25 years operated by AP&S (Asphalt Paving & Supply). That location no longer has the materials so they needed to mine the material in another location and process it at the existing location. The best location for them was near Fain Lake on county, not town, property. This location would be only a few hundred feet from both Stoneridge and Victorian Estates and necessitate crossing Stoneridge Road and using Highway 69 to reach the processing location. The people living in both locations objected. The Town asked them to find another location. They located material in the Government Tank location. This was a greater expense for them as they would have to build a private road across hills and valleys to the processing plant but they wanted to be good neighbors and agreed to use that area. This location is in a valley in the middle of hundreds of acres of open space. The closest home being nearly a mile away. It can’t be seen by any surrounding neighborhoods and would be using no public roads.

A PAC from Country Club Estates circulated a petition to put a referendum on the ballot to prevent AP&S from using the Government Tank. When they were accused of using lies and scare tactics they defended themselves by saying everything they claimed was from Town documents or government agencies and were true. Perhaps, but there were many glaring lies of omission. Let me go claim by claim.

“Loss of quality of life AND LOSS OF LIFE due to silica dust and noise”. OMITTING that no employee working on site has ever been diagnosed with silica poisoning or cancer in the history of the existing quarry. And, in FACT, the level of dust is so far under the allowed ppm the employees on site aren’t required to wear masks. If the employees are in no danger, neither is anyone a mile away.

“Erosion of property values due to loss of views, peace, tranquility and safety”. OMITTING Stoneridge values, a few hundred feet from the existing quarry, have increased more than any other surrounding areas in Prescott Valley. No one from Stoneridge has complained to the Town about the quarry. Not about noise, peace, tranquility or safety. Our State Representative, Quang Nguyen, has lived 800 feet from the quarry for 23 years and only learned of its existence a few years ago. This fact is known to the PAC’s opposing the Tank but they omit mentioning it.

“increases long-term road maintenance without reimbursement and loss of tax revenues”. I don’t know where this claim comes from. AP&S is building a private road and maintaining it. PAC’s OMIT there are no “tax dollars” being used. The only place the private road crosses a public road is at Old Black Canyon and AP&S will reinforce and maintain that area.

“Impact on quantity and quality of water and related costs for all of PV”. What related costs to PV? And again OMITTING that AP&S will not be drilling wells, they will bring whatever water needed from holding ponds they have. They have nothing to do with the “quantity or quality” of PV water.

“Increased traffic, noise, and dust, and safety issues for communities and school”. OMITTING the quarry is no where near schools. No increase in “traffic” as they will be using their own private road. And again, every residential neighborhood surrounding the area is considerably farther from Government Tank than Stoneridge is from the existing quarry and their “safety” would be in more danger from trucks crossing Stoneridge Road if the Fain Park location was used.

“Potential of damage to existing wells and aquifer due to proposed 100,000 ton blasting events”. OMITTING in more than 20 years AP&S has only used explosives ONCE. This claim bothers me the most because they keep using the term “blasting” conjuring up the image of dirt and rocks flying hundreds of feet in the air. In truth, AP&S hires a company that is expert in explosives. They are trained to know where wells or other utilities are located and to avoid them. They dig a deep hole, place explosives at the bottom, fill the entire hole with wet dirt and set off the explosives. It results in a big “thump” not a “blast”. Nothing flying in the air. While the agreement says they can use explosives 4 times a year, that doesn’t mean they will. As previously stated, they only used them once in the last 20 years.

If I didn’t know what I know, if I hadn’t visited all the sites in question, I would have signed their letter. But the omissions in the letter they had people sign, in my opinion, are glaring especially in light of the numerous public meetings we held that discussed their concerns. In light of the fact that it was explained numerous times that there was NOT a third option of locating a place outside Town limits. It was explained numerous times that the Council choice was either the Government tank (not in site of any homes or using public roads) or using the land around Fain Park (close to homes and using public roads). The AP&S already has all the permits to use the Fain Park land. They could start using it tomorrow. If the PAC’s are successful in preventing the using Government Tank they WILL use the Fain Park location. They will NOT consider a location outside the town limits. What the PAC’s don’t factor in is the trucks that would have to bring the material to the processing location (over public roads & highways) are charged per ton, per mile that would add between $300 and $600 or more per load. That would increase the price of asphalt, cement, gravel, etc.

The day after the vote the Council received a letter saying we voted to benefit the “developer” and didn’t show how it benefited the people of Prescott Valley. I’m not sure what meeting they were watching. Having the quarry in a valley in the middle of hundreds of acres of open land as opposed to right next to Stoneridge, Victorian Estates and Fain Park is a benefit. Not using public roads is a benefit. And having the land around Fain Park given to the Town is a benefit. Voting for Government Tank did NOT benefit the “developer”. They prefer the Fain Park location. It costs them more to use Government Tank. The Council members who voted for the Government Tank believe it IS the best option for the citizens of Prescott Valley.

The Council was also accused of not listening to the people. Yes, the Council does. The approximately 2000 people who signed their petition didn’t have all the facts necessary to make an informed decision. As I pointed out, there were omissions. When the decision was announced on Facebook most of those who commented were in favor. There will be people who disagree with Council decisions, that’s to be expected, but it doesn’t mean the Council members are uncaring or corrupt. Members care deeply about Prescott Valley and the quality of life of all its citizens.