This is in response to the spin of the letter “Is This Good Government?” (Press & Dakotan, Nov. 29):

To clarify, county commissioners have attended EVERY local pro-CAFO event, including hog barn open houses, presentations and fundraisers held by Families Feeding Families, a pro-CAFO lobby group.

In contrast, two commissioners attended ONE of the seven events sponsored by Quality of Life for South Dakota and Dakota Rural Action.

The special meeting referred to was held in response to a flurry of “contingent” CAFO building permits along with threats to legally challenge our zoning ordinance. Obviously, with these threats to the county, a special meeting was in order. Let us not forget the actions of the previous commission last December, who held numerous “special meetings” in order to pass a rash of last-minute CAFO permits. Hypocrisy much?

Hog barns are not a permitted use in Yankton County, and require a conditional-use permit. In the past 2 1/2 years, over 20 permits were granted with zero conditions. Since taking office in January, the current commission has heard only one request for a hog confinement. It was granted, with the condition of added water monitoring wells.

A very small number of producers are feeling quite “put out.” It’s no wonder after being given carte blanche by the past commission. They have publicly stated that their rights are more important than — and take precedence over — non-producers and city residents.

The reality is, members of our current commission are representing the interests of the entire county. It’s about time.

(2) comments

Justthinking

Thank you for putting it so clearly.

MJohnson

Ms Radech is doing further damage to the current debate by carelessly throwing out accusations and taking facts out of context. For example, "They have publicly stated that their rights are more important than — and take precedence over — non-producers and city residents". Who said this? This paraphrased accusation only serves to demonize a perceived opponent with a crass Ad hominem attack.

Furthermore, Ms Radech seem to equate attendance to pro-CAFO events with open-mindedness. That is a false equivalency. I could counter, using similar logic, that their attendance is more due to their laziness, unemployment status and have nothing else better to do. These kinds of attacks can cut both ways.

So can we get away the low brow, instinct-based, and emotional wrangle debate over CAFOs? It's far past the time we raise the debate to empirical evidence, logic based conclusion, most importantly context based facts.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.