The Mans­field 2050 meet­ing: Con­fu­sion, con­flict

The Covington News - - OPINION -

Yes, I am a rocket sci­en­tist spe­cial­iz­ing in deep space propul­sion. How­ever that is no as­set when it comes to un­der­stand­ing the rea­son for the ex­treme “Plan.” I would like to point out that the ses­sions are un­like any­thing I have ever ex­pe­ri­enced due to the fact there are no ob­jec­tive points made by the pre­sen­ters. It is like, “Hey, it’s all good!” And we know bet­ter than that.

Most ed­u­ca­tional fo­rums which I have at­tended of­fer the good points and the bad points. This one does not of­fer any­thing ex­cept what the pre­sen­ters are sell­ing which is the 2050 Plan and Trans­fer­able De­vel­op­ment Rights.

I have never been in a sit­u­a­tion to have to sit through a Time Share Condo sales pitch nor a sid­ing sales­man pitch (who I un­der­stand will not leave your house till you sign on the dot­ted line) but from what I’ve al­ways heard, this is about what we have here.

My feel­ings, had I hired these ex­perts, would have been to make pos­i­tive and neg­a­tive points, one by one. Tell our people both the good and the bad. Would any­one agree that there is sel­dom any­thing is this life­time that has no neg­a­tives at­tached to it?

I re­ally don’t know where to start. There is mis­in­for­ma­tion ga­lore in these ses­sions. You would have to be pretty dumb not to see them. There are so many that dur­ing the first meet­ing I had four pages of ques­tions. I got to ask one, ac­tu­ally. Dur­ing the first half of the Mans­field meet­ing, I only had three pages, got to ask two, and left early along with sev­eral oth­ers be­cause none of the people ask­ing hard ques­tions were called on again.

Just as an ex­am­ple, one man asked, “Who is we? Were there any pri­vate cit­i­zens on these pre­lim­i­nary plan­ning boards?” The an­swer was a list of per­sons and groups but for some rea­son there was no defin­ing an­swer. It would have been so sim­ple, Mr. Hall, if you had just an­swered, “No.” You never did.

And you stated, the county had a 35 per­cent in­crease in jobs over the past sev­eral years and my ques­tion to that would have been, “Where did you get this in­for­ma­tion?” You can­not just say things that sound good with­out proper doc­u­men­ta­tion. Ac­cord­ing to the Wash­ing­ton Post, the aver­age em­ploy­ment across the US is 63 per­cent. Now, if you take 63 per­cent of New­ton’s pop­u­la­tion you find that of the 100,000 people, 63,000 are em­ployed, ac­cord­ing to the na­tional aver­age. If you say the county has had a job in­crease of 35 per­cent you are say­ing New- ton had a job in­crease of 23,000 new jobs. I chal­lenge you on this fig­ure along with a lot of other off-the-wall com­ments you made.

People are nat­u­rally un­com­fort­able with any­thing they don’t un­der­stand. What they do un­der­stand is this pro­gram is be­ing pushed down their throats whether they like it or not. It has cre­ated a huge void in trust be­tween the tax­pay­ers, vot­ers, cit­i­zens of Cov­ing­ton and New­ton County and the elected of­fi­cials. I pre­dict no one will be re­elected in the event this mea­sure passes un­der any cir­cum­stances. Don’t tell me this is ver­sion one and ver­sion two will be bet­ter and ver­sion three will be the fi­nal ver­sion with all the prob­lems ironed out. You people who are be­ing paid to do this deal aren’t go­ing away as long as you are be­ing paid to con­tinue on and ‘bet­ter’ is a rel­a­tive word. “Bet­ter” for who?

Sa­muel Martin Hay III

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.