In this episode, we present a slimmed down version of the RNR and interview Phil Quinn, a candidate for an at-large seat on Richmond’s Common Council. We get to hear Phil's views on why he's running, the local political climate, education issues, the Arboretum land sale, CAFOs and more.
Tell us what you think about this episode of RNR. You can post your comments below, e-mail us, or call (765) 997-1727 and leave us a voicemail. We appreciate your feedback!
RE: Phil Quinn interview
Comment by Pat Williams — Tuesday February 27, 2007 @ 9:58 amAdmire his community activity but anyone who supported Arboretum sale cannot receive my vote. It is a short term solution to a big time problem. I will always maintain that there were plenty of unused sites for retail expansion without cutting down trees in such a valuable community resource.
His comment concerning CAFO's was troubling in that he thought originally he would support as many as possible and then see how the water quality etc. would be impacted. Just like the trees in the Arboretum, it would be too late by then.
Pat: You're right, my comment about putting in as many CAFO's in as possible wasn't very clear and sounded troubling when I heard it. I should have stated my reference for as many CAFO's in the midwest as opposed to the whitewater valley. I've read some articles that have shown an impact to the health of neighbors and air quality around their homes within a 5 mile radius of a CAFO. It may not be considered conclusive by federal or state standards, but CAFO's aren't coming into our area with a Surgeon General warning either. The state and local governments have let the CAFO's in and now it is important to keep EPA inspections on time and evaluations of the ground and air quality studied on a regular basis.
We'll have to disagree on the Arboretum. Yes, the frontage was cleared and I honestly don't believe anybody is in favor of just tearing down trees. People in this community aren't like that. The trees came down because that frontage had huge value and it was so much smaller than the overall landscape and that frontage wasn't being used by the arboretum staff. The development does look better than any other commercial development we've had recently.
Look at the amount of traffic that has increased for the surrounding businesses. A vacant gas station was re-started due to that development. That's good for the consumers, the city and even our non-profit organizations like the Hayes Arboretum.
There are still major issues that Richmond faces including economic development, education, and the retention of young adults that are the future of our community. I would enjoy a conversation with you regarding those in the future and am available at 966-3521 or philq@kicks96.com. Thanks for your input and I hope we'll be able to agree on other issues to make this community better!
Comment by Phil Quinn — Wednesday February 28, 2007 @ 10:20 pmPhil, the development has no sidewalks in front of it. This appears to conflict with the transportation goals of the city's new Comprehensive Plan which repeatedly refers to be inclusive of "non-motorized" transportation. Personally, when people are discouraged from walking into a shopping area, it's hard for me to see how it looks better then the pedestrian-friendly downtown which hosts a number of locally-owned businesses.
Also, your response regarding the Arboretum ignores perhaps the most important reason for preserving it: its role in maintaining a clean aquifer, supporting an independent water supply for the city. It's yet to be seen whether this commercialization will lead to contamination of the aquifer, as already happened in Martinsville, Indiana. I would rather we hadn't taken the risk.
Comment by Mark Stosberg — Monday March 5, 2007 @ 12:07 am