Dear Editor:

Here is what I think about what you think:

Editor Pam Pritt does a great disservice to a necessary and long overdue political dialogue. She unnecessarily inflames her readers when she attempts to cram into four short quarter-page columns the large complex and colliding issues of property rights, environmental preservation, infrastructure, jobs, tourism, property values, community planning, community health and eminent domain. She has wrongly tried to reduce these difficult interrelated issues to rather trivial remarks about people doing "pretty much whatever they like" and County Commissioners being "disingenuous" about past positions.

She advocates by default a shoot-em-up wild-west frontier impliedly saying: This problem of planning for the future is just too big to handle and is out of our hands. When County Commissioners Reta Griffith, Joel Callison and James Carpenter had the temerity to advocate taking the Sharp Farm, I opposed that action as a misuse of governmental power to advance a private purpose.

Advocating reasonable planning for the future and encouraging a community dialogue is not disingenuous to my feelings about private property. I fully appreciate "self determination" and "personal freedoms and liberty.” In the country these concepts are strongly rooted in land ownership. In fact, I have heard it said that Jefferson meant "ownership of real estate" when he wrote "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. I, too, am a landowner and farmer, albeit small, and want the full fruits that come with this privilege. However, the other side of the coin is the fact that none of us owns enough land not to be affected in some way by the actions of the surrounding community or our neighbors. Tranquility, property values, air and water quality and your view are some of the things you prize in the ownership of your land but which are not totally in your control.

So I think there is a balance to be struck between you and your neighbors to maximize the self interests of both; this balance is the goal of planning. If there is no discussion and no planning these various points of view will never have a chance to coalesce.

When voices rail against planning by reducing the conversation to the perceived evils of zoning and invoke the power of self determination and property rights (which are good causes), they are, in fact running up a flag of surrender saying "I can not have a say or influence about anything beyond the extent of my front gate.” It boils down to a "no action position" under a smoke screen of empowerment and property rights. The two have the most power if used together....property rights AND planning.

I do appreciate the fact that the editor has put these issues into print. I just wish she had done so in a less inflammatory way.

Martin Saffer
President
Pocahontas County Commission

Dear Editor:

This is in response to your editorial of February 11, 2010.  I appreciate your thoughts concerning the issues of the Linwood quarry proposal and Highland New Wind Development's wind turbine proposal in Highland County, Virginia.  More specifically, you spoke to the aspect of property rights, and to my application (or lack thereof) of such rights to these proposals.

I must admit that, thus far, I have been thinking of these projects less from the perspective of property rights and more from the perspective of community consensus and concern.  And you are correct, thus far I have responded to primarily one side of the quarry issue.

Since space is limited, I will focus specifically on the quarry.

In your editorial, you asked, "Which is it?"  Was I disingenuous in campaigning on property rights, or did I change my mind and decide property rights are not important after all?

I want to assure you, I was not disingenuous nor did I change my mind.

I believe nuanced issues such as these cannot be pigeonholed into black and white slots.  I think that the attempt provides no practical answers, and simply serves to perpetuate one's confusion.  To provide a patent answer of "black" or "white" is, by implication, to kill any further opportunity for reasoned discussion.  To answer "black" or "white" is to amend to the ruling, "and therefore I will no longer think upon this."  It is, in effect, to say that I will no longer listen.

There is a lot more to discuss regarding the Linwood quarry.  In speaking with Cindy Butler of the West Virginia State Rail Authority (the state sponsoring entity for this proposal), she says there is $1.5B in funding and $50B in requests.  By the dollars, each proposal therefore has a 1 in 33 chance of being funded.  Ms. Butler advises me that the chance of this proposal being funded is "slim."

Looking beyond the proposal, to my knowledge, although the Linwood quarry is dormant, it is currently permitted.  Waco Oil and Gas might have plans independent of the proposal.  In looking ahead, I have contacted Waco Oil and Gas, and although Ike Morris wasn't in at the time, I was assured that he will be glad to speak with me and that he will contact me at his earliest convenience.

The rights of property ownership come with one caveat:  nobody owns property that isn't beside somebody else's property.  And that somebody else has the same rights as does the one.  Thus there is the question of the greater right.  Which is it?  The one's or the else's?

There will never be an easy answer to such a question.  I think we just have to take these issues one at a time; i.e. no two quarries are alike.

To the voters, I promised you I would listen.  I also promised you that I would stand for you.  My actions to date on the Linwood quarry are not without question, but nonetheless I was glad to listen to the many people that day, and I was glad to stand for their concerns in my official capacity.  Be assured, I look forward to listening to other perspectives on this matter.

Lastly, I greatly appreciate the letters to the editor from Nanette Beckwith and Ron Tibbs.  Their thoughts were very well stated and received.

To all, as you have questions and concerns, or just want to share your thoughts and comments, please call me at 304-456-5212 or email me at fleming42@gmail.com.  It is an honor to work for you, and I remain,

Respectfully Yours,
David March Fleming
Pocahontas County Commissioner
Dear Editor:


Does the proposed recovery center add up?

While I applaud the sheriff and the county commission for wanting to help substance abuse individuals I question the logic put forth by them to open a Recovery Center.

Should the county win the grant, the money as stated would only go for the facility. That leaves the county to make up all operating costs  to include the salaries for the executive and clinical directors and support staff. No figure for this was reported. The sheriff says such funds, which would also include housing costs for the inmates, utilities etc., could come from “donations, fees, grants and department funds.”  Yet he again does not say how he expects to get such funds to cover the enormous costs. Has he secured any pledges or grants?   And what fees is he talking about?   The Sheriff’s department does not have the authority to initiate any “fees.”  Will participation in the program be mandatory or voluntary?  Will the individuals still be under arrest?

The sheriff goes on to say that detox would still have to be done elsewhere. So that still means transportation costs. Sheriff Jonese also states that the “residents” would continue AA classes and seek employment while at the facility. Who will conduct these classes and will they be done at this facility or elsewhere? How will they seek employment?  And if they are housed in a remote rural area and have employment, how will they get to these jobs if indeed any are available? Will the “residents” have their own cars or will they have to be transported?   

And nothing was said as to whether this facility is a secure place in need of guards or if the “residents” can just come and go as they please.

In my humble opinion this is a potential boondoggle project and if indeed the county wins this grant it would be like winning a huge logistical and financial headache.

Could it be that this project is just a way for the county commission to make us think they are doing something positive?

Could it be that this project is just a way for the wife of the sheriff to be appointed executive director so that she has something to do? 

Could it be that all of us as taxpayers will in the end have to foot the bill for this very expensive pie in the sky? And what would happen if the facility had to close?   Would we, the citizens, have to pay back the grant? 

It is time the county commission looked this “gift horse” in the mouth to make sure it has all its teeth and is not diseased. Has anyone really thought this through? In my mind none of what is purposed adds up. In the absence of real financial accounting I would urge the county commission to withdraw its grant application and not lead our citizens into an obligation we cannot afford nor want.

If the sheriff used all of his resources as he promised to clean out illegal drug use in the county there would be no need for even transportation costs, let alone a facility.

Joel Rosenthal
Hillsboro