Is there something foul in River City? Could be! When three Belle Prairie residents and two businesses can set in motion an agenda to annex over 320 homes and businesses. Could this be collusion between the city and township boards to leave out the township residents? Is the board working for the city or us?
The board will make that decision. I say let the majority of people decide. To the residents of Belle Prairie not in the annexation agenda your taxes will double if they take us out. What will we get? -- A cost of over $30,000 plus water and sewer rate costs over 15 years. A new drilled well $2500 and new septic tank $5000. A far cry from $30,000. Maybe the city wants to expand the craft fair to 10,000 booths and put them along Riverwood after the annexation. I choose to live in the township, not in the city of Little Falls along with many others. I should have the right to decide, not the board.
Power to the people; remember the Constitution -- By the people, for the people! Also, at the meeting on the 21 of August, someone from the audience let fly the rumor that when, and if, the annexation is successful, that the school will sell the soccer fields to a developer for apartment complexes. Fact or fiction? You decide.
Time for major changes
The loss of our democracy cannot be far away here in Brainerd, after reading of the city Council and the mayor's actions of Aug. 20. I am appalled to read that they are trying to censor our elected officials. How can any elected official possibly represent the people without information? It is time for the voters of this city to take action and replace any and all who would support such nonsense. What are the council and the city manager trying to hide that they do not want Bob Olson to have the information he has requested?
It is about time someone has stepped forward and is trying to correct some of the problems this city has. This man represents the people as he was elected to do and now those who were also elected to represent the people and do not, want to stop the one who does.
I am sure that the voters will express their displeasure in the next election. It is time for major changes and I for one will do all that I can to ensure that these changes do take place.
Something for everyone
Recently I've pointed out virtues of energy sources that radical environmentalists are avidly against. Here's one for the eco-maniacs (deceived though they may be): Ethanol is produced and sold as an additive in gasoline and is available in stronger concentrations at some stations by the name "E-85" (85 percent ethanol). We should promote ethanol to lessen fossil fuel dependence. Ethanol also burns cleaner than gasoline for less air pollution.
If we eliminated gas taxes on all products containing over 50 percent ethanol we would promote a cleaner environment and provide thousands of jobs with a booming ethanol industry while creating a huge demand for Minnesota farm crops. Many vehicles sold today can use E-85 without alterations, like the popular Taurus and S-10 trucks, however, we still can't heat the house with it.
Alaska's Prudoe Bay has many trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. It's a nuisance to oil drillers who must pump it back (reportedly enough to heat half of America's houses) into the earth when it comes up with their oil because there's no pipeline to bring it down to the continental states. Canada is also desperate for a pipeline to exploit their massive gas resources. We could work together.
Instead of taxes and fees the government normally requires for drilling, we could give exclusive drilling rights to ANWR to companies that build a gas pipeline. Gas from Prudoe Bay and ANWR would then be pumped into the pipeline, becoming government property which could heat America's schools, government offices and supplement fuel assistance programs while eliminating some coal electrical generation for cleaner air. We'd also have more stable supplies helping us avoid future price spikes.
Cleaner air, cheaper prices, free school heating, help for American farmers, industry and economy, there's something for everyone but OPEC in the 'Thoe energy plan.'
Biased word selection
Why is it that when much of the news media refer to people who are for abortion rights the phrase "pro-choice" is used, but when referring to people who are pro-life the term anti-abortion is used, instead of pro-life?
'The "pro-choice" people aren't called the anti-life people, so the pro-life people shouldn't be called the anti-abortion people.
Isn't much of the news media being biased in their selection of words?
Brainerd Dispatch ©2013. All Rights Reserved.