Column for Jan. 10, 2008

Does LaPlante favor la plant d'ethanol?

By the time this column is published, the latest Selma Town Council meeting will have taken place and a scheduled public hearing will have been held about the proposed rezoning request in Selma's extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to accommodate the construction of a proposed ethanol plant. These plans were detailed in last week's edition of "The Selma News" as well as in other local media outlets. The rezoning request has already passed the Planning Board and is now going through the process necessary to become reality. I am predicting that the public hearing will have brought forth some "great moments in sports," so to speak.

There is opposition being generated by Tony Tetterton, who lives nearby in the Selma ETJ, as reported in the paper. I have respect for Tony for several things. First, he is willing to "put his money where his mouth is" for the causes in which he believes. I don't see that too often nowadays. Regardless of anyone's opinions of his positions, you have to respect the willingness to take a stance and get involved. I do not agree with Tony on everything, and he knows this. We have, however, developed a good working relationship because we are willing to listen to one another's opinions and concerns. I have allowed him to share with me at length on various topics. Some I have agreed with him about, some not so much. None the less, I hope that he will get his due consideration, especially since he has spent significant time and effort to become educated about the things in which he believes.

That being said, the entire ethanol plant plan for the Selma area is only in the process of having a parcel of land rezoned. The ethanol company has not even bought the property yet. It would be some time before a plant is actually built, if at all. I personally serve on the Planning Board, as do other fine citizens of the booming metropolis of Selma. This request came before the board, we met with the representatives from East Coast Ethanol, and we looked at the zoning map and requirements. We did remark about the necessary upgrades to the roadways to accommodate the plant, its method of delivery, and other items of interest. However, our duty was not to debate the merits of an ethanol plant. Our duty was to determine whether or not it was appropriate to rezone residential and farm land to an industrial application. To that end, I was amenable.

There are arguments against the ethanol plant, as enumerated in last week's newspaper, so I will not get into them here. I also will not debate the merits of those arguments in great depth here. I will save that for my talk show. I personally am for progress and development when it is appropriate and beneficial. Is this the case with the proposed plant? I personally don't know yet. I do know that there was one quote from Mayor Hester with which I take issue, or at least wonder why this would be a consideration. He said, "If the plant is constructed, it will have a positive impact on Selma. It could add $100 million to our tax base. That's significant for the town." I agree that such an addition would be significant to our tax base. However, the proposed plant would not be within the Selma town limits and therefore is not subject to taxation by the town. As I understand it, Selma would have to annex that property in order to realize any such benefit.

There are also issues about court precedents that require Selma to take the zoning of Pine Level, the nearby ETJ jurisdiction. Do I think that Selma should have to take what another town does into consideration when determining our own town's destiny? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I think that Selma should totally ignore what other towns have for requirements of zoning just because we are an autonomous entity and should act as such. I have a hard time with another town determining Selma's jurisdictional authority and influence and vice versa.

I also have the thought that I am not fond of the very concept of an extra-territorial jurisdiction. I have a hard time with allowing a town to regulate people and businesses that are not getting to have a say in the governance as people within the town get to have with their vote. There should be the town limit and that is it...period. Either a property is within our town borders or it is not. Either it is within our jurisdiction and its owner(s) pays taxes and gets the same services and say in governance as others in town or not. There should be no property, person, or business held in limbo. That is just plain unethical. Unfortunately, that is how the State of North Carolina has determined that towns should run their affairs and we have to deal with it.

There is a balance to be struck somewhere, I am sure. The town leaders wish to expand Selma, as do I. There is the ongoing concern between freedom and regulation. There is the feud between development and environmentalism/preservation. What is the right answer for Selma in this case? Again, I am not sure. You will probably read the results of the public hearing in this issue of the paper. Hopefully I was able to be there in person and will be addressing this issue further if it develops.