Column for Jan. 24, 2008

Analysis of rezoning public hearing

On January 8th, as readers of this newspaper know, there was as part of a town council meeting, a public hearing on the rezoning request of a tract of land to change to industrial from agricultural and residential use in Selma's extra-territorial jurisdiction.

During that hearing, there were many impassioned pleas to vote against the rezoning. There were many concerned area residents from Selma and Pine Level, as well as the outlying areas thereof. There were calls for a recall of any town council member who voted for the rezoning request. There were people giving allegedly expert testimony. There were demands for the education level and the identity of the issuing institution of higher learning of said degrees of education. There was a lecture on the four types of loam on the proposed site. There were accusations of "spot zoning" and illegal configurations of zoning in that area.

The problem that I had with most of the well meaning public commentary is that most of it was emotionally based, including the so called expert testimony. I saw little reasoned and informed public commentary. I understand that this is an issue that will bring many passionate views. Industry wants to encroach upon the quiet, countryside way of life. I get it wholeheartedly.

Here are some of the problems with the public hearing, as I saw it, inappropriate opening commentary by the mayor aside. I am just calling it as I see it. Keep in mind, too, that what I am about to write may not necessarily reflect my personal desire in this entire situation. First, there were automatic assumptions of chemical pollution, "light pollution" (not that I believe there is any such thing), noise pollution, and foul odors that would come as a result of the proposed plant. My simple commentary is that only one person in the room aside from the men representing the interests of East Coast Ethanol seems to have been anywhere near an ethanol plant. Certainly, nobody amongst the public has been anywhere near a modern day plant.

Next was the absolute ridicule of the government standards by which the plant would have to abide. There were people claiming that the EPA does not know their business and there was a great degree of distrust in government regulations expressed. At the same time, there was an extolling of the virtues of the USDA and their standards and reports. What in the world is supposed to make anyone think that one bureaucracy is any better than another? They are just two suckers on the same tentacle of government regulation and thievery. That was, in my opinion, a serious double standard and only detracted from the validity of the public commentary.

I was dismayed with the sheer arrogance of claims of lack of "due diligence" upon the part of the plant investors and contracted agency. What people just may not understand is that the project is nowhere near the stage of the investment in soil sampling, scientific investigation, and site planning to the extent expected by some in the crowd. A company is not going to invest literally tens of thousands of dollars into expensive surveys and testing until they are confident that they can advance with the project. The rezoning is an essential first step in the process. This is not the first plant ever built by the contracted company, so they do know what they are doing in site selection and process. In fact, they have built the vast majority of such plants in the country.

I found it ironic and hypocritical of one man to denounce the credentials of the men representing East Coast Ethanol and their contracted agency while he himself did not have the credentials of a soil scientist. Yet, he lectured people on the soil of the proposed site, cited the USDA studies of the area, and at the same time decried and debased other authorities. First of all, since when is a company obligated to fly in every chemical engineer or member of its engineering and scientific crew for a simple rezoning public hearing? Yet they were derided for not having these experts present. Furthermore, I have personally worked on huge construction projects where the soils present became a non-issue. Entire industrial and educational facilities under my jurisdiction have long ago emerged from fallow kudzu fields. Innovation and money is all it takes to mitigate those problems.

The public hearing was for rezoning. It was not a debate over the merits of an ethanol plant. The process of an ethanol plant takes a lot more steps of regulation than simply getting a piece of land rezoned to industrial use. Even if the land was rezoned, this facility would still have to obtain a special use permit from Selma to even think about operating. Furthermore, there are mountains of county, state, and federal regulations with which they would have to comply before even thinking about building. I found the assumption that there is going to be a plant built after this public hearing absurd, emotional, illogical, and borderline stupidity. For this reason, I also found it absurd that anyone would even consider calling for a recall of any town council member for voting for a rezoning of the property in question.

Another concern expressed by one citizen was the safety of the plant. Again, we are dealing with heavy government regulation. It is also just plain good business sense to have fire mitigation planning on site. My background is in this very field, I am the vice chair of the Johnston County Local Emergency Management Planning Committee, and this year will be the chairman of the county committee. The expressed concern of cooperation and training with local fire departments will be a non-issue, I assure you. I will personally be responsible for working closely with county Emergency Management and will be in regular contact with most every fire department leader in the county. With any such facility in the county, I can safely assure that this will be a non-issue.

The claims of emissions from the facility may or may not be a moot point. There have been great advances in pollution control. Just as there are catalytic converters and other emission controls on automobiles, there are going to be some new innovations in industry. I am not defending the industry position, I am just being realistic and honest.

Let us assume for a moment that the zoning of the tract of land in question will stay as it is, i.e., agricultural. Let us also assume that the land will be used as such. A hog, cow, or poultry farm would also have a great degree of emissions. Cow flatulence is never fun. Hog waste can be smelled for miles, as I have found out from my extensive travel throughout North Carolina. Poultry, whether turkey or chicken, can also give a "fowl" odor (I could not resist that pun, sorry). There is always a degree of noise associated with farming. Livestock makes noise 24/7 when there is a concentrated population. That pretty much destroys the noise argument against the ethanol plant.

Irrigation and/or watering of farm animals also takes a certain degree of water to do so, as will an ethanol plant. They may not be equal amounts, but the increased demand is still a certainty.

I say this to show that regardless of the use of the land, even under its existing zoning, there would be issues, complaints, and problems. What I do know is that one way or another, that tract of land and its surrounding area will eventually be developed.

With all this having been said, do I want an ethanol plant on the outskirts of Selma? I personally have relayed my opinion to some of my elected representatives on the town council. That is the best way of getting my desired result. Being emotionally driven, staying uninformed or subjective, and railing against the unknown are not the effective nor desired methods of accomplishing my desired end.

Regardless of my personal opinion, I have had plenty of opportunities to think about this topic and look at things from both sides. I do believe that I have the ability to be objective rather than subjective. For this reason, I have offered to the town leaders to be one of the town citizens to travel to take up East Coast Ethanol's offer to visit an ethanol plant. Unlike the comments from one of the citizens at the meeting, I do not want to visit one of the worst plants in the country in order to explore one. I want to see one exactly like what is proposed for Selma. To see anything else would be illogical. Will the town actually take up East Coast Ethanol on their offer? Will I get the opportunity to go? I have no idea, but I would certainly be fair either way.

That is the whole point of this column today. I want to be fair, not emotional. I am not an ethanol apologist. As a matter of fact, I am not a fan of ethanol as a fuel source, nor of the government boondoggle that has given us ethanol as such. However, I can still be open minded enough to at least be objective. I hope others can be as well.