Letter to the Editor

Pie in the sky

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

This letter is in regards to a letter written by one Phil Petersen (Jan. 16) concerning the many issues surrounding the East Loch Estates. As I read the minutes of the proceedings, I began to wonder if these discussions are happening here in Dickinson County, U.S.A. or are they some part of a banana-republic administrative charade. When I read that a certain board supervisor picked up the microphone and apologized to the developers that he is "sorry" that this process is taking "so long" to be resolved, one word came to mind. Can you say BIAS?

Could the decisions reached by our county officials be described as "collusion?" Were offers suggested, were promises floated, were verbal commitments made "off the record?" Was the brand name Cobalt tossed around under the table? What do we even know about these developers? Have they been properly "vetted?" They rode into town promising pie in the sky and our county officials seem to swallow their storyline hook, line and sinker. Can anyone absolutely prove this whole project is not part of an international money-laundering operation? Would the kindly taxpayers of Dickinson County want to unknowingly be involved in such a thing? I think not!

Therefore, may I suggest to you, Mr. Peterson and your large team, headed by one Jamie Hunter, that should you wish to further exercise your resolve, perhaps you should consider lobbying for a special "subcommittee" to investigate said questions. This subcommittee would be granted unlimited subpoena powers, including but not limited to emails, phone records, witness statements, financial records, sim-cards, travel logs etc. between said parties (commissioners, developers, engineers and the land owner). These are all valid questions that need to be addressed. Perhaps the Iowa Attorney General's Office should become involved.

Finally, concerning the possible sanitary sewer expansion, let's get one thing straight right now. These expansion costs must be born fully by the developers. It all boils down to just five words: "No development no expansion needed." Right. Shouldn't these treatment expansion costs be put into the same category as the streets, the street signs, the street lights, sidewalks, curb and gutters, water lines, underground electrical and natural gas hookups, drainage systems, etc. that have to be made for this project to materialize in the first place? "Exercise your right to be informed."

Robert Fox