Dear Andrea, We spoke not long ago by phone. I just want to let you know that plans to bring in a private prison here are not going to sit well with many of us. In fact, it will most likely bring about a repeat of the recent Biomass issue. I don’t mean we are opposed to it. I mean we are vehemently opposed to it. It seems that Allen Ricketts and the other Board members don’t understand that Valdosta’s citizens don’t want to be informed of, for example, what finished products and raw materials will be stored in the distribution center slated to locate in Valdosta AFTER the contract has been signed. We have a right to know beforehand what kind of facility it is and what will be stored there. Informing us after the fact is not transparency. This is an issue that will continue to be revisited as long as the VLCIA continues to act unilaterally without considering the wishes of those who live here. We don’t want to be presented with a fait accompli. Also, the VLCIA is really not doing due diligence when it continues to court businesses that raise concerns over the ethical standards of the Board itself. Thanks. Matt Flumerfelt
Here’s Part 1 of 8:
Mayor Fretti Ethics Hearing cont. with Taylor, Harris, and Flumerfelt Part 1 of 8:
Mayor Fretti’s Expenses,
Ethics Hearing, Valdosta City Council (LCC),
Valdosta, Lowndes County, Georgia, 22 June 2011.
Videos by George Boston Rhynes for LAKE, the Lowndes Area Knowledge Exchange.
Alvin Payton, Jr. asked quite a few questions. Continue reading
I was recently reading “Masterpieces of Eloquence,” which includes a speech delivered by the fourth Earl of Chesterfield to the House of Lords in Feb., 1743. “The bill now under our consideration appears to me to deserve a much closer regard than seems to have been paid to it in the other House, through which it was hurried with the utmost precipitation, and where it passed almost without the formality of a debate. Nor can I think that earnestness with which some lords seem inclined to press it forward here consistent with the importance of the consequences which may with great reason be expected from it.” He goes on to say, “surely it never before was conceived, by any man entrusted with the administration of public affairs, to raise taxes by the destruction of the people.”
I find this quote applies exactly, mutatis mutandis, to the present situation. The effects of these toxic chemicals are far more devastating to my mind than the effects of gin. The science panel assembled by Michael is more credible than the assurances of the industrial authority expert. In fact, the emissions from the plant are so close to the permit threshold that they could easily exceed that threshhold on occasion. Would the IA expert then continue to hold the position that there is “No health hazard to the public?” I don’t think anyone who favors the proposal is aware of the enormity that could result if the plant goes into operation. They have left the public health out of their equation. They have just enough science, they think, to push the deal through over the objections of an easily deceived public.
Bruce Bailey, energy conservation advisor for Colquitt EMC, said, “Conserving energy and making things more energy efficient is much more cost effective than having to build a new power plant to supply more power, so we are recommending that as a leading public policy. If our future does include more and more conversions to renewable energy sources, it’s going to be very important that we don’t short-circuit our economy in the short term.”Story by Matt Flumerfelt in the VDT, 15 Oct 2009.
Bailey said it’s important that any policies implemented utilize proven and effective technologies, and he warned that the price for doing nothing could be high.