CONSIDER THIS: Why San Benito Wants a Refund

Managing Editor

Michael Rodriguez

Michael Rodriguez

So the San Benito Food Pantry again faces increasing demand from its clients – ‘again’ being the operative word.

While I wouldn’t call it a staggering rise, watching the pantry clientele swell over the years is alarming when considering all which San Benito already contends with.

In a city where U.S. Census data has reported the median household income being $20,680 less than the state average – $30,883 in San Benito compared to $51,563 in Texas – it’s no surprise that public need for the pantry’s services is at an all-time high. To put it into further perspective, San Benito is home to more than double the percentage of persons living below poverty level than the state average reported in the Census – 35.6 percent to 17.3 percent, to be exact. And then there’s the tintinnabulating reminder that water rates have increased for several years – presumably for a water treatment plant in such disrepair that the city filed a lawsuit against the engineers and manufacturers responsible for the facility’s design and construction.

Granted, nobody is arguing whether San Benito is a poor community. Cities throughout this region, after all, have long shared similar household incomes and reported high percentages of people living below the poverty level. But this is also why our local governing institutions must remain conscious of these demographics before embarking on potentially-costly endeavors, which all too often serves only to further impoverish the community than they do to empower it.

Take the new water plant for instance. Here’s a facility hailed as San Benito’s state-of-the-art savior for all things water treatment, and yet it has produced more controversy than water. What’s more, questions have now been raised concerning the validity of the previous justification for the annual increasing of water rates.

As you may recall, San Benito city officials spanning several administrations and councils have long explained that the revenue generated from incremental rate adjustments helped pay for the $17 million plant, which was part of a $32 million water/wastewater infrastructure overhaul that was partially funded by the North American Development Bank. Still, some associated with the project have recently contended that the rates were actually mandated by another institution – NAD Bank, to be specific – as one of the conditions for grant money.

Whatever the case may be, the question that people are asking in San Benito is whether they’re getting a refund. They’re being facetious, of course, but consider their frame of mind for a moment. I think they couldn’t care less about the whos, the whats, the wheres and the whens.

This is a growing resentment fueled by the hour in which an already-disillusioned citizenry learned of the problems experienced at the plant. In fact, it’s only been a few months that we’ve known about that the facility never actually operating at full capacity. If it wasn’t for the San Benito News exclusives that kept our readers abreast of the situation, who knows how long it would have been before the public was made aware of the deficiencies associated with this multi-million dollar investment.

As it is, there’s much that local residents struggle with every day – a scarce job market and fluctuating insurance costs notwithstanding – without inheriting a money pit that the city is still paying for… and in more ways than one.

What the city can do now, however, is learn from this experience and refrain from implementing any future water/wastewater rate hikes.

In the meantime, I may need to retract the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge I issued to the San Benito City Commission two weeks ago. There’s no telling how long the plant’s predecessor – an 87-year-old treatment facility – may continue as the city’s only supplier of water while the suit is fought in court. With that said, what do you say we just save the ice water for now, guys. I won’t hold it against you.


Permanent link to this article:


    • Looks like on September 10, 2014 at 8:11 am
    • Reply

    Looks like somebody busted out the 20 year old bottle of wine. 🙂

    • Searaven on September 10, 2014 at 7:46 am
    • Reply

    Woopie, it gets better, the bums also made the culprit City Engineer. Remember because its going to get better. The three amigos are advocates of this engineer and one commissioner uses him for a subdivision he is trying or let me say will get approved. It is called “Pay to Play”. When the City was managed correctly this engineer never got a bid. When a corrupt City Manager took over The Engineer got all bids except one. I can go on, but you get the picture.

    • Tell it Like it Is on September 8, 2014 at 10:58 am
    • Reply

    Mr. Editor. Again you are spot on with your comments.
    Consider this. Over the past several years the City of San Benito has managed accumulate ‘unused’ CDBG monies to build a ‘splash pad’ somewhere in the City. After they determined that a splash pad may indeed be a losing situation and more expensive than they could possibly afford, they can up with Plan B; a park of the ‘Southside’. It appears this decision was made with little planning, no real consideration for our demographics, and so on; (as you have done).

    Recently three local nonprofits, La Posada Providencia, SB Food Pantry, and START Center, asked the City of San Benito to reallocate $60,000 of the $164,207.77 in unused CDBG funds from years 2010-2014 to the SB community-based agencies that provide basic and emergency needs to benefit low and moderate income persons particularly those that are homeless, hungry and in need of food and emergency family services. They asked the City of San Benito to follow and be true to their primary CDBG goals which follow the CDBG’s National Objectives:
    • Benefit Low and Moderate income persons
    • Prevent and Eliminate Slum and Blight
    • Meet an Urgent Need

    Your statement says it all: ” But this is also why our local governing institutions must remain conscious of these demographics before embarking on potentially-costly endeavors, which all too often serves only to further impoverish the community than they do to empower it.”

    Tell It Like it Is, Michael!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.