Proposal to drill at Meander isn't new; questions remain

Proposal to drill at Meander isn't new; questions remain
EDITOR:
Regarding your editorial of Feb. 26 on gas drilling on the MVSD property -- 25 years ago I represented the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District in a lawsuit brought in federal court by General Motors seeking to require the MVSD to open its land to gas drilling.
GM was the holder of a lease previously owned by a driller and under which a gas well had been drilled some 10 years earlier. That well, together with the lease, gave GM the exclusive right to drill on the MVSD's 5,000 acres once the directors (there were only two at the time) gave their permission. The lawsuit turned, in part, on whether the directors had in fact given permission for further drilling.
In the course of the trial there was conflicting testimony from experts on both sides as to the safety of drilling. Ultimately the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of the MVSD and upheld its refusal to allow drilling after the district court had found against it.
In the intervening years, much progress has been made in the technology and safety of gas drilling. To permit drilling would obviously require a balancing of risks. That very circumstance exists every day with vehicular traffic crossing the Meander Reservoir, in many instances with vehicles that pose a risk to the water supply.
While The Vindicator's suggestion of a public hearing is timely, the MVSD should first retain several independent experts in the field and solicit their unbiased views. Only then can the directors make an informed judgment as to the wisdom and safety of further drilling.
Atty. DAVID C. COMSTOCK
Poland
U.S. war veterans deserve
to be treated like royalty
EDITOR:
I'm greatly distressed by the news of our young men and women who have sacrificed so much by losing a limb or just coming back home totally incapacitated are being treated worse than an abandoned street dog.
This is totally unacceptable. Someone needs to be fired. Some heads need to roll.
For the service these young men and women have rendered and at a great cost to their livelihood, they should have the very best care, housing, etc. Treat them like royalty. They deserve it.
CHARLES ELLIS
Youngstown
Evaluating superintendent is responsibility of the board
EDITOR:
This letter is in response to a Feb. 28 story in The Vindicator that stated that board members placed other priorities such as construction and the financial review as reasons for failing to evaluate the superintendent and for having her contract roll over for another year.
I have been a school board member for 10 years and have taken advanced studies in school law, school finance and superintendency. I am very aware that there are major responsibilities of the board. Some of those responsibilities are the employment of the superintendent and treasurer and the formation of policy. Included in the employment of the superintendent and treasurer is their evaluation, according to the Ohio Revised Code. The Revised Code gives the time line, when, how and why the evaluation must occur in a selected time period.
Personally, I take this responsibility as part of my sworn oath that I took in becoming a board member of the Youngstown City School District. My evaluation was completed in the specific time period and was given to the committee chair who was to conduct the evaluation. As board members, we cannot let any factors prevent or delay this process. Leadership is essential for effectiveness.
There are still things this board must do before I am ready to say "yes" to a levy vote. Therefore, I will continue to do additional research in fiscal management and suggest effective steps that are necessary to insure that our students receive a quality education.
We must not place undue financial burdens on a community that is already facing high unemployment and very stressful social and economic conditions.
LOCK P. BEACHUM, Sr.
Youngstown
The writer is a member of the Youngstown Board of Education.
There's a way for Poland to be one: unincorporate
EDITOR:
I attended the Streetscapes meeting where the dreams of putting a boulevard on West McKinley (state Route 224) from Walgreens to the Boardman Township line were discussed. Their thoughts are that by slowing down the 35,000 cars that pass through each day, some of them will stop and shop in the village.
People go out of their way to go to Struthers, New Middletown and other areas shopping, banking, to work and the post office to avoid going through the village of Poland.
Slowing down traffic will only drive people away from the village and upset those that have to pass through if they are detained.
If the boulevard is put in with donated money, who will maintain it later and at what cost?
The village of less than 5,000 people wants the township of 15,000 people to join them to become one. Boardman and Austintown townships did extensive studies on becoming a city and found it was cheaper to remain a township. A township cannot impose an income tax on your paycheck. Do we need more taxes?
The cheapest and best way for the village to become one is to become unincorporated. They are part of the township and they could make life easier by becoming one.
Let your elected officials know what you think. Attend township meetings. Write them, call them or e-mail them, but speak up. We choose to live in a township and not a city.
The next township meeting is 5 p.m. Tuesday.
CONNIE COLOUTES
Poland
Veteran: VFWs must bansmoking at all Ohio posts
EDITOR:
I read the article about the public forum on the smoking ban. I was particularly interested in the VFW member's remarks and the idea that he fought in a war for the right to smoke.
I am a 64-year-old Vietnam veteran and have been a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars since 1969. I went to 'Nam in 1967 when "everybody & quot; smoked, when the American Red Cross handed out "goody bags & quot; that included writing materials, shaving gear, tooth brushes and a four-pack of cigarettes. The ship's store sold cigarettes for 1 a carton. I smoked a pack to a pack and a half a day. I was addicted to nicotine.
I did not go to 'Nam to fight for the right to smoke. I went to fight for freedom, for the right of the Vietnamese to be free and because Presidents Kennedy and Johnson said that if communists took over the Far East, it would eventually come back to us. I was 25 years old. I did my duty.
Five years ago, my breathing was getting pretty bad and I got into the six-month smoking cessation program at the Youngstown VA Clinic. It was tough. I am happy to say that I have been smoke-free since then and do not consider myself an ex-smoker, but a non-smoker. I do not ever wish to smoke again and I don't remember smoking as having been fun or a great reward. I have since been diagnosed with COPD and mild emphysema.
Back to veterans' rights. I fought for freedom. I smoked, used foul language and drank like a sailor because that is what we did. I did not specifically fight for the right to do these things; I fought for freedom and democracy. Among the purposes in the Constitution of the Veterans of Foreign Wars is "... to maintain true allegiance to the Government of the United States of America, and fidelity to its Constitution and laws. & quot; And it is the duty of all commanders in the VFW to & quot;insist that all business and activities of the organization be conducted in that they do not violate any applicable governmental law, ordinance or regulation. & quot;
As a veteran and an officer of the VFW, I say that any member who smokes in a VFW in Ohio is in violation of that VFW's national charter. Veterans fought for the right of a majority to decide what is right for the society. It was put to a vote: 58 percent of the voters said no smoking in public places. Live with it. Or change it legally.
WILLIAM BOLASH
Lowellville
The writer is junior vice commander of VFW Post 2799, New Springfield.