Editor, Times-Union: This is in response to Brad Clayton's pro-ethanol letter appearing Oct. 13 in the Times-Union. He had questions I wish to address, and also wrote of the claims being made by the remonstrators, which at the very least are misleading and at worst, outright falsehoods. I wish to make clear that we are not anti-ethanol, anti-farmer or anti-jobs. We are anti-proposed site. The proposed facility would be literally on the town's border and that's too close.
How can this proposed fuel plant lower property values? A well-respected local appraiser who has done extensive research has concluded it will negatively affect residential property values. We also have evidence of values being affected by just the possibility of this plant being in our community. We have had homeowners approached by prospective homebuyers wherein the homebuyer inquired about the neighboring no ethanol signs. Upon receiving their answer, they stated they were no longer interested in Milford properties. Others who have moved to the area have said they would not have moved here had an ethanol plant already been in operation.
The claim it will be bad for farmers? We have never made such a claim that I am aware of. If we focus on farmers that grow corn, it would probably benefit them since the company wishing to build the plant claims it will purchase their feedstock directly from growers. This, however, begs the question, is this guaranteed and/or for how long? The possibility exists they could come in and do just as they say but change their policy in a few years. Impacting farmers who raise animals is a concern that cannot be ignored due to the possibility of increased feed prices.
The pollution issue can be answered by referring to the Environmental Protection Agency's Web site and performing searches. Your eyes will grow weary before viewing all the information available. The odor factor Mr. Clayton referred to can be found all over the Internet as a complaint raised by many. Even newer plants with state-of-the-art equipment can emit a disagreeable odor. For an interesting account regarding this subject, visit www.senecafalls.com/temporary/ethanol trip 9-2005 completed 10-28-05.doc, www.senecafalls.com/temporary/ethanol trip 9-2005 completed 10-28-05.doc
Regarding Brian Dawes of the Wawasee School Board and his desire to acquire information from the other side, Mr. Dawes is not the first person to seek information. Numerous private citizens and reporters have contacted Verasun and/or American Milling to no avail. Mr. Clayton supplied some Web sites. In my opinion these sites are not non-partisan. I have visited them in my research and found nothing but glowing reports. But again, they are hardly independent considering their position. The group opposed to the site has gone out of their way to use indifferent sources for information.
Lastly, I doubt I was the only person offended by Mr. Clayton's condescending attitude toward the readers. Though we may not all have attended college, it isn't indicative of our level of intelligence.
Patrick Fraley, via e-mail
Milford
Both Sides Bayh
Editor, Times-Union: Sen. Evan Bayh is playing both sides of an issue.
Senator Bayh recently announced the formation of the Senate Parents' Caucus to develop and promote a pro-family agenda. The purpose of the caucus is to encourage a "government that is more supportive of parents' efforts to support their children, strengthen their character and keep them safe."
Senator Bayh must have forgotten about his concern for parents when he voted against a bill that would have required at least one parent be notified before their minor child obtains an out-of-state abortion (Child Custody Protection Act). Young girls are being taken across state lines without their parents' knowledge to have a procedure that can harm them both physically and emotionally. Apparently, Senator Bayh believes that parents should be involved in their children's lives except for abortion.
Dave Koontz, via e-mail Kosciusko County Right to Life
Winona Lake
Blind Republican
Editor, Times-Union: Ref: Donald Guard's letter, Oct. 17.
I will deal with that! Either you are a blind Republican, or you did not understand what I wrote. I did not say I believed what I found in books or on the Internet. I did say it was "food for thought." You are so quick to judge, from your own tunnel vision, that you don't allow any other views. You are one self-centered individual, and being an ex-marine (that statement will bring an answer that has nothing to do with my letter) you are forever absolute. You are a big man. But, the years of your letters have taught me that your mouth is bigger than you.
I'm going to my Tennessee home for a few weeks, so please don't answer this until I get back. You can not afford a war with me. Like most, all you have is GWB's words. Whereas I have views and opinions from many people. Which both of us can like or not. Like I told you before, I've been an elected Republican, but I'm a very independent person. I dearly love my country, but I do not trust my government.
