By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great local journalism.
Letter to the editor
City guilty of extortion over water rates
Placeholder Image
Forsyth County News

Extortion is the only word to describe what Mayor Gravitt and the Cumming City Council are perpetrating upon the citizens of Forsyth County for the water the city pumps from Lake Lanier and sells to the county. In addition to the city’s water racket, there is the city’s continuing attempt at extorting from the county a disproportionate share of sales tax revenues. Extortion can be the only accurate way to describe these travesties!

Complicit in Mayor Gravitt’s and the Cumming city council’s thievery having to do with water is the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The volume of water taken from Lake Lanier for the city of Cumming and Forsyth County remains the same whether the Corps authorizes the withdrawal under one contract to the city or whether there would be separate contracts with the respective municipalities. By not allowing Forsyth County to draw their share of that volume that is being taken, and forcing Forsyth County to buy that water from the city of Cumming, the Corps is facilitating the city’s monopoly thereby making the city’s extortion of the citizens of Forsyth County possible.

There can be many approaches to solving these problems, but the simplest would be doing away with the municipality (the city of Cumming). The geographically and populously tiny city of Cumming, run by a bunch of good old boys, typical of a clique of rural politicians from bygone times, only provides an unnecessary duplication of services and added costs to be passed along to the taxpayers. I suggest another type of government for Forsyth County such as in Athens/Clark County. One government for the entire county is the most direct and simplest solution to the problem. What special interests do the citizens of the city of Cumming genuinely have that are in conflict with the citizens of the rest of the county that justifies separate representation? I think none.

William Byers