Wednesday, January 6, 2010

High Point Enterprise DEAD WRONG about Greensboro growth increasing water needs







Yesterday’s editorial places the HIGH POINT ENTERPRISE right up there with the News & Record in the "cheerleading competition" for the Randleman Dam.



In its story “OUR VIEW: The rains come, and the rains go” the newspaper made the following false claim:


“Growth in the region, particularly in Greensboro, outran municipal/regional moves to assure sufficient supplies of water.”

HPE, what growth? Growth in population? Growth in industry? Please explain! I am measuring the growth in propaganda and you just added to it. Thanks to you and the lamestream media for feeding this dam crap to citizens to keep their wallets wide open for the dam! It is no wonder the public is 100% misinformed and thinks water use is escalating. (SOURCE: My 2009 water survey of Greensboro residents)



What are you smoking down there at the HIGH POINT ENTERPRISE? Have you never read the Dam Scam report? (Simply Google two words - dam scam) Have you never seen this CHART?

What part of declining water use do you not understand? Are you trying to help me win a pulitzer?



Bad enough that the N&R has spiked Greensboro's water decline story for more than a decade and continues to carry water for Greensboro…..but even John Hammer writes, “Greensboro needs the water.” Is this one of the few Greensboro scandals Hammer has missed? I am afraid so! I offered him an "exclusive" 2 years ago and never heard from him. Not even the Rhino Times would publish my CHART and correct the citizens' false beliefs. Go figure.


And the Carolina Journal story inferred that Greensboro’s water demand is "escalating." And the  head DENR honchos down in Raleigh also write that Greensboro’s water use is increasing. And now the HIGH POINT ENTERLIES joins the dam cult.

Did the HPE story mention that the City of High Point now claims it does not need Randleman water for 20 years?—NO!


You see, it only seems logical that water use would always increase, so sloppy journalists communicate that "logic" to their readers are paying for the Randleman Dam.

If Greensboro's citizens knew that water use was declining since 1995 and not escalating, do you think they would be so eager to pay for the Randleman Dam? Just like national journalism, local journalism has also reached new lows.


How about you? When will you become fed up enough to pick up the torch and run with my story about Greensboro’s 15-year decline in water use?



I have published 77 fact-filled stories over the past 2 years I have yet to be contacted by any local news agency.

When I was Greensboro's WC manager the N&R, Fox 8 and WFMY TV 2 did dozens and dozens of interviews with me. I often sat next to the anchor at the Fox 8 TV and WFMY 2 TV newsdesks and made live reports . How could I have been such a water expert back then and be so untouchable now?

That makes no sense until you catch on that there is a very effective Randleman Dam fraud and cover-up underway. I'm afraid many of you underestimate its depth and its power.

Mike J Baron reporting because nobody else will. Nobody knows the truth but you. Please join the dam scam effort.




3 comments:

  1. Mike, as I understand it, the water treatment plant will be in High Point. What do you really expect from the local newspaper?

    They're all shills for the powers-that-be.

    Have you tried dropping a comment and a link to DamScam on the Op-Ed? Of course, if the Enterprise is anything like the Courier (in Asheboro), they won't publish the comment.

    People stopped caring about corruption long ago. Now that they're mired in it, it's hard to tell what's up and what's down. At what scandal do you look at first? And I daresay, most folks will take Cone road on this one and say, "Well, sooner or later we will need the water . . . who cares how it happened . . . or that a good man telling the truth got mowed over?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike, can you please send me your email address to curator@greensboro101.com? Thanks, Roch.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's at the bottom of the chart, Roch. Pretty much always has been.

    ReplyDelete