The Quarry, Part II

It is hard sometimes to write about the things going on around me. Take this quarry thing, for instance, which I started writing about this morning.

A part of me wanted to testify. I wanted to say to the officials, "Don't do this to my neighbors."

I wanted to say don't make my neighbors have to run air purifiers that have filters that look like this within a day:




Don't make them worry about asthma and bronchial problems and wonder if the industry down the road is to blame.

Don't make them wonder if the red rainwater that falls around here sometimes comes from the industry down the road. It's preferable not to have red rain at all.

Don't put that quarry five miles from our historic county seat and then expect it to withstand 30 years of continuous blasting (I don't care if the blasting expert said that amounts to "only" 30 minutes of blasting. It still shakes the house.).

I wanted to say those things and more, but I did not. I could not because I write government articles for a living and it is necessary to maintain objectivity in my work with the paper.

What I did was write several articles about it, as professionally as I could. The first was what I normally write, a "hey folks, here's what's coming up before the planning commission." The second was an update with a slant that officials were doing something new - they were actually checking for endangered species. It was also news that they'd found some.

Then I wrote about the planning commission meeting and then the meeting yesterday where the proposal for a new quarry was denied.

I am fairly sure my articles were not slanted to show my opposition to the project, but I can never be sure and it is always something I watch for. I try to write objectively.

At least one person thought I was in favor of the project. But when you're writing about an emotional issue, people often think any mention of the other side means you don't favor them. It's not a situation the messenger can win in and I no longer try. I do the best I can.

My editor did write an editorial opposing the project. He opposed it when it first came about three years ago, too. I'm not sure he could have been objective about my work on this issue because he was very much against the project.

For my part, I conversed with people who lived far enough away (about five miles) from the proposed industry to think they would not be affected. I tried, and failed, to convince them that they were wrong. At least, they did not show up to voice their concerns as I'd hoped.

Fortunately this time the proposal fell through. But what about next time?

Because there will be a next time.

Actually none of this is what I originally sat down to write this morning. I wanted to write about this issue from the standpoint of business and how corporations are killing us.

I wished to point out that living near an industry, and "near" can be defined as next door or miles and miles away, is challenging. There are so many unknowns in the things people do to make money. It is all about the dollar and not the environment or quality of life for those who are already in residence.

Who cares about endangered spinymussels or historic buildings or people with asthma, anyway?

I do.

I guess that's really what I wanted to say.