Open letter to all Alcores community residents and owners 28thJan 07

From Huw Thomas Apt 113

Early December last year I was informed of an E.G.M. called for later in the month. The meeting was called to update and inform residents on the current initiatives with regard to the provision of water for the irrigation of our gardens. Approval in principle was sought for the provision of a wastewater plant to be installed just below Alcores . The water reclaimed from such a plant to be sold back to us at a competitive price under contract. I was informed prior to this meeting that the President Mike Fletcher Graham and Steve Turner another resident of Alcores were impressed with the potential of the plant as a solution to our perceived need for water and as a potential long-term commercial project. They were prepared to invest their own money in the project since it had become apparent from the investigations that Fernando (the administrator for our community) had undertaken that it was difficult for the community to undertake the purchase, running maintenance, and costs of such a venture. I believe he came to this conclusion for a number of reasons.

He had affectively drawn a blank in seeking grant aid for such projects

The community could run into a number of legal and financial minefields if it tried to run the project for itself

Any owner on the community who did not vote for the project could not be asked to pay for the water it produced.

The initial cost of purchasing and installing the plant (in excess of two hundred thousand Euros) is quite considerable and if the community wished to borrow the money at least three property owners free of mortgage would have to put up their properties as collateral.

The enterprise would need very considerable administration with distribution of profit and loss and decisions regarding maintenance and running requiring a great deal of time from a person or persons unknown

For these reasons our administrator advised that whilst leaving the option on the table a better solution might be to look for a private investment carefully contracted to protect the best interests of the community

Having witnessed the levels of aggression, distrust, and distain levelled at members of the present administration from its inception, and read the various accusatory and occasionally unpleasant e-mails that have characterized our democracy thus far, I can quite understand why such a conclusion was reached. However I was reassured that the E.G.M called for December would seek to address the legitimate concerns, technical, aesthetic, financial and commercial that were being raised. In the event the meeting was marred by the unfortunate absence of the recycling plant technicians and by the usual complexity and frustrations of a meeting conducted in two languages. I have also to say that the presentation of the facts and figures, which lay behind the proposal were poorly presented. I suspect that those behind the project did not realize just how contentious their plans would be and were genuinely taken aback at the level of suspicion and animosity they had attracted.

On reading through the various correspondence and being present on a number of occasions when this matter was being discussed I became aware of the main thrust of peoples objections, which I think can be summarized thus.

1 Fernando was commissioned by the community to undertake his researches for our benefit and has failed in his duty in this respect

2 Mike Fletcher Graham has stolen information from the community and used it for his own commercial gain. And that further more he had been unduly influenced by the Vice President Jose’ Bustinza and that since he was by his own free admission intending to use Jose and Fernando as consultants in his new venture there had to be a conflict of interest since the President and the Vice President would be actively canvassing for a solution to our water problems in which they had a financial stake.

3 That the Administration has sought to railroad their proposal through in unseemly haste because it has something to hide.

4 That a number of very undesirable consequences for residents will accrue if this plant were to come into being

5 That the whole idea is unnecessary since there is no water shortage

6 That the matter is being presented to us as a fait accompli with the company formed, the licences, granted and everything in place so that we have no choice.

With regard to points 1&2 it appears that far from being commissioned to investigate water treatment plants on our behalf Fernando brought his research for other communities for which he is responsible to us and asked us whether we would like him to look into our situation. The minutes of the committee meeting In January 2006 clearly indicate that this research far from being our intellectual property was in fact his, in so far as it was anybodies. As for Michael Fletcher Graham stealing Fernando’s findings in order to feather his own nest I can see no justification for coming to this conclusion. Firstly he was acting on the recommendation of the administrator; that a privately financed company was the best way forward. Secondly the profit from such a venture was highly speculative and in most peoples view, medium to long term at best. Thirdly he did not attempt to conceal what he was doing and knew full well that the only way he could possible get to implement this project was with the approval of the community since at any point it could very easily scupper the plan. Michael Fletcher Graham is simply not the kind of man to attempt to do anything underhand or dishonest, he may have been naïve in his assumption that people would understand his eagerness to move things forward, but, mercenary and corrupt, never in a million years. The only conflict of interest that I can see in relation to this project is the conflict between his desire to solve a community problem and the strong possibility that he would lose money or at best break even. As for Jose’s role in this matter it is a matter of amazement to me that he is seen in the light he is by a number of people, I know an equal number who like and trust him just as adamantly! Each to his own! But I have heard nothing which justifies the vitriol .No doubt I will now be judged as an enemy and you haven’t even heard me sing.

As to the accusation that this matter was being hurried through because those involved had something to hide I can see no evidence of either unseemly hurry or hidden agendas. In my opinion it is more cock up than conspiracy and they were anxious to keep things moving knowing that so many planks had to be put into position if anything was to be achieved. I gather for instance that the Calahonda E.U.C meet to approve these matters only once a year and, that, that meeting takes place very early in the New Year. This alone would explain why agreement in principle was asked for so urgently.

The perception that the instillation and running of this proposed plant might have some negative and detrimental consequences for our community is a very reasonable concern we all share it .For my own part I am reasonably satisfied that our worries would be unfounded but I can quite understand much more evidence and assurances would be needed.

I think the case for water conservation and efficient recycling is becoming overwhelming despite assurances that reservoirs are full (see later commentary) there may be good argument for lessening our dependence on water for our gardens, but I do not feel, that plastic gardens or too much more concrete, answers the crying need to soften and colour our environment. Flowers, shrubs and grass will help a lot.

The last objection (6) concerned the perception that this project was being presented to us as a fait accompli. . As I understand it Mike Fletcher Graham and Steve Turner discussed the possibility of getting involved in water conservation and recycling some time in the summer when it became apparent to Mike that a community solution to the financing of such ideas was difficult if not impossible. May be the problematic committee meeting held in June 2006 at which the project was to have been discussed but which broke up as a result of an acrimonious and loud disagreement between two members of the committee about an entirely un related matter (Incidentally there appears to be no minutes of this meeting) was the outward manifestation of the tensions and distrust which appear to have bedevilled this community thus far It seems to me that it was from this point on that it began to come clear to the administration that the best way forward was to look for private investment. Whatever the trigger for it, they formed a company, as they have every right to do, with the intention of offering its services to the community at a competitive price. They approached the water treatment plant company and asked them to look into the licensing implications and the logistical considerations surrounding a proposed plant for Alcores I believe that they put up their own money for this and did so in the belief that this was the best way forward for the community giving it a potentially guaranteed supply of water for its gardens at a competitive price. They did so knowing that people might vote against it and that their interest in the whole matter would be quite public. In their opinion we were being offered a win /win solution for our garden watering needs .I for one who have no money to invest in such a scheme and who hope to keep our community fees to a minimum commensurate with keeping good house, am only too pleased to have others shoulder the cost.

On the 17^th of January 2007 I attended two ad hoc meetings called respectively by the president of the community and by one of its vocals. These meetings were called to help clarify some of the concerns raised by a number of owners about the proposed plant.

The first meeting was with an engineer from the company who are hoping to sell their plant to the individuals who are prepared to invest in the project. This first meeting was informative and reassuring, questions as to citing, smell, access, plant maintenance, the look of the plant, its capacity, how it worked, the level of disruption to the community etc were answered, in my view satisfactorily We were guaranteed that the plant would not smell, that the most recent technology treated the waste to a very high standard indeed that the water it produces is a lot cleaner than most so called grey water and could be pumped easily and silently to a holding tank in a suitable location. That the plant was virtually silent (the volume of a fridge) that its maintenance and emptying would entail a tanker twice in summer and once in the winter, that the electricity needed to run the plant would be provided from the electricity company mains connection separate from the Alcores supply. Requests were put to the administrator who was present at the meeting to have all the information including technical specifications of the plant presented to us on paper. This would be very helpful and if disseminated to all Alcores owners would go a long way to helping us decide whether to back the project or no.

The second meeting was a very different affair .At this, meeting which also took place on site, a few residents met with a representative of Calahonda E.U.C. It was very clear to me that this representative was absolutely against the project” over my dead body” was how he put it .His reasons were clearly stated. No permission would be granted to build anything on the land below Alcores. No permission would be granted to improve the track for access to the proposed plant. The proposed plant would be sited too close to the community. Any proposal would have to have the endorsement of all the other surrounding communities. The water from Alcores was piped to the local golf course, which had just been granted a further 20year franchise by Calahonda E.U.C.to use wastewater free of charge in exchange for driving range and green fee concessions for Calahonda residents. He did not believe that the current marshy and occasionally smelly conditions at the bottom of our valley had anything to do with our sewage.

The representative also put our minds at rest concerning water bans and shortages in the area. Local reservoirs were, he said; in very good shape one at 100% capacity and another in the 60% range. No Water ban was envisaged or likely and there is nothing to stop us continuing to use our drinking water to water our gardens. I was very reassured by this gentleman, who whilst clearly against our particular project was nonetheless open to any representation which we might make. He invited us to urge the president and the administrator of Alcores to meet with him to discuss this matter . I asked him directly whether he was personally in favour of recycling projects like the one we proposed and he said he was but seemed to have reservations. So I think there is hope there. The problem will be timescales; planning permission will require a lot of licence granting and local consultation.

Two other issues need clarification in my view.

The project itself seeks to harness the best available technology to recycle waste water for the use of our community at a discounted price .at this time in the history of our planet we cannot afford to turn our back on such an obvious contribution to our own wellbeing.

I believe the distrust levelled at those who have brought this project forward is misplaced and misinformed and I hope it is not being fermented in order to serve the wider objective of removing the present administration. I have always found Fernando courteous and helpful and I am certain that we will find that an audit of our accounts will demonstrate his efficiency and honesty. The fact that he is an administrator for other communities and also a partner in an educational provision company with our vice president is not of any concern, this is an entrepreneurial society and many people run multiple businesses. A whispering campaign is not the same as hard evidence nor is it necessarily free of malice and subjective motivation.

I have listened very carefully to explanations given by parties involved in the genesis of this project and apart from the obvious and regrettable point that its original presentation to us was for a number of reasons very poorly handled I am certain that nothing underhand or dishonest has been done and nothing but a slightly naive and optimistic desire to see positive and forward looking change has motivated those involved indeed I would stake my life on it. For what it is worth I remain very impressed by the quiet and straightforward dignity of Fernando our Administrator who is conducting our affairs to the best of his ability despite the continual sniping from all sides. We should beware lest we jump from the frying pan into the furnace.

Are you asleep yet?!

Hugh Thomas