To the Editor:

How enlightening to read in the newspaper that the Country Court decided to turn the old county road shop into another equipment and truck terminal.

Since the county shop moved out, people in this residential area have gotten accustomed to air free from diesel fumes and dust, sleeping without the sound of equipment firing up at all hours, no more concentrated fuel contaminates adjacent to Canyon Creek, and not having kids, local traffic, and other pedestrians dodge increased traffic. The location of an equipment terminal in the middle of a residential area will assure that property value will be going down. A concentration of large vehicles and heavy equipment cannot be considered “low impact” tenants in a residential area and adjacent to a creek. Anyone familiar with equipment would know that.

How enlightening that the Court is looking out for the “county’s financial interest.” How about the county’s long-term interest?

It appears that Potelco will be a relative short-term tenant as their center of activities may require a new site when their work takes them to other locations.

According to the May 28 edition of the Blue Mountain Eagle, 4R Recycling would possibly create six to eight new jobs as well as the possibility of teaming up with the schools to provide work experience or community service opportunities for students. A local full-service recycling center would ease a burden on the garbage landfill and the environment in general, as well as provide a larger recycling base; therefore, Mr. Baron’s recycling business would benefit the people of Grant County and not just the “county’s financial interest.”

I also glean from the recent newspaper article that Potelco intends to use the entire old road shop site for $800 a month. I had been informed by city officials in May 2008 that Mr. Baron’s 4R Recycling only intended to use the north end of the site.

With the Court deciding that money in their coffers has priority, the county’s equipment stored at the site will be moved or sold. This equipment includes the Search and Rescue equipment. Where will the Search and Rescue equipment be stored and at what cost to the County, specifically the Sheriff’s Department?

The County Court did acknowledge the Town of Canyon City has some say in the use of their city through approval or denial of a variance for Potelco, which has yet to be presented to the Planning Commission. Since the Court has already decided to rent the property to Potelco, isn’t this a case of putting the cart before the horse, or did the Court decide it was a foregone conclusion? I smell the increasing odor of self-serving politics and finances in the air and no matter what level those politics are, the odor is foul.

Judy Kerr

Canyon City