As the Associated Press reports, "the proposal would have created a system to dry sludge from the community's wastewater treatment system. Michigan State University said it was willing to buy a ton a day for its power plant."
If approved, the sludge dryer project would have turned a liability into an asset since we currently pay $38,000/year to give the crap away. But according to a Michigan Public Radio story I heard this morning, “Opponents questioned the need for the project.”
Opponents questioned the need to abolish slavery too.
Opponents questioned the need to send a rocket to the moon.
Opponents questioned the need to give women and people of color the right to vote.
Opponents questioned the need to create the national parks and highway systems.
Opponents questioned the need for public schools and transportation.
Opponents questioned the need for separation of church and state.
I would expect people on both sides of any issue to have questions. And I would expect everyone to listen to the answers and then come together to identify what’s in the community’s best interest, not for factions to advance personal agendas, mount attack campaigns and mischaracterize the facts and the motivation of those with whom they disagree.
Guess which scenario played out in Delhi Township.
I’ve also heard more than one politician pander to the electorate by claiming, “The voter is always right” in recent days. That, too, is a bunch of crap.
Were North Carolina voters right to amend their state constitution to discriminate against gay people? They overwhelmingly voted yesterday in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal union recognized by the state. (Same-sex marriages were already banned by law but proponents decided they need to disallow civil unions and other types of domestic partnerships just to be safe.) The vote makes North Carolina the 30th state to adopt a ban on gay marriage. (I’m ashamed to admit that Michigan is among them.)
Were voters right to mandate term limits for politicians instead of using the regular election process to get rid of those they didn’t like? Experts on both sides of the aisle insist that the lost institutional memory and inability to establish positive working relationships within the shortened time frame have led to increased partisanship and gridlock at the state and federal levels.
Were Michigan voters right in 2010 when they chose a spewer of clichés who refused to offer specifics to be governor instead of the guy who the media christened an “angry mayor” – only to find out after Election Day that the angry guy with the record would have been better than the evasive nerd who proceeded to trash the democratic process and rob from the poor to give to the rich?
Were voters right in 2004 when they re-elected Dubya, arguably the worst president in the history of the United States?
Are voters right to base their selections on mudslinging and misrepresentation, appearances and endorsements, slogans, sound bites and spin rather than careful research and a commitment to leaving a better world for our kids?
No, the voter is not always right. Sometimes the voter really screws up. Like yesterday. And sometimes I’m more disgusted by the ugliness of today’s politics and the ignorance of the electorate than I can express.
Excellent, Patrick!!! The Delhi voters chose to be fearful of debt, debt that would have created a net positive for them. Penny wise, pound foolish.
ReplyDeleteFirst, regarding the facts and careful research: you state the township would sell 4 million gallons annually in the first paragraph...that is the volume of wet sludge that would be dried. The remaining product, approximately 25% of the wet volume, would be sold assuming MSU would be able to obtain the required permits.
ReplyDeleteSecond, you declare 2,471 voters ignorant because of their vote. Perhaps the lack of data showing harmful amounts of pharma/chemicals in the soil where sludge was applied was unpersuasive. Perhaps the lack of data showing harmful amounts of the same compounds in our water was unpersuasive. I don't know why each voter cast their vote as they did, but rather than label all those opposed as "ignorant", I suggest examining the strength of arguments made supporting the drier. 60% of the votes cast didn't seem to think the arguments were worth "a measly $1.20 per month".