Great Comments from KM: It appears from comments at the Oct. 1 BOS meeting by Chairman Barber that both Coles Hill and Judy Byrd Mountain (Berry Hill mega park?) have significant uranium deposits. The Danville Pittsylvania Regional Industrial Facilities Authority (DPRIFA) secured parcels for the mega park in the southern part of the county which contain historic Marline leases. July 13, 2009 DPRIFA minutes state, "Mr. Lacy advised an agreement had been reached with Diana Roman and Karen Shoffner for the Authority’s purchase of their property at Berry Hill. He reported a purchase price of $1,864,800 for 504 acres at $3,700 per acre with mineral rights included had been proposed with the understanding the sellers would retain hunting rights until June 30, 2011. Mr. Saunders moved approval of the purchase of 504 acres known as the Roman/Shoffner proper...
ty at Berry Hill at a price of $3,700 per acre for
a total price of $1,864,800 with the sellers retaining hunting rights until June
30, 2011. The Motion was seconded by Mr. Snead and carried unanimously. Mr.
Harville said to make sure the land use is as it should be." As it
should be used...Is DPRIFA hoping to get in on the uranium mining
business. Or, could it be that a deal was struck by some to developed the mega
park (instead of mining it) in exchange for allowing Coles to mine, mill and
dump wastes at his property? DPRIFA consists of elected officials of both
Danville and Pittsylvania. Danville has been relatively quiet on the subject
which is strange since is surrounded by Pittsylvania County where there is
potential for multiple mines.Maybe southern county supervisors and
Danville city DPRIFA members were trying to "protect" the the southern region
from uranium mining? That doesn't seem fair to the rest of the county and
actually offers very little in the way of protection from the negative impacts
of mining and milling. However, that might explain a north-south split on the
BOS. But what about the district in the middle of the county? Politics make
strange bedfellows. The megapark's placement on the NC border is odd in
that will put resident in both states in competition for emploment. Perhaps it
is hoped that NC will complain less about contaminated water from uranium mining
if their population has access to jobs in VA.
It's time for leadership in Chatham
By: | GoDanRiver
Published: October 21, 2012
Is the uranium mining issue tearing the Pittsylvania County Board
of Supervisors apart?
It’s time for leadership on this issue, even if consensus remains
elusive.
This week, three supervisors from the "northern end" of the county
— Staunton River Supervisor Marshall Ecker, Banister Supervisor Jessie Barksdale
and Callands-Gretna Supervisor Jerry Hagerman — announced they were sending
anti-mining resolutions on behalf of their magisterial districts to Gov. Bob
McDonnell and members of the General Assembly.
"The time has come to take action due to lack of interest from our
leadership on the board of supervisors," Ecker said during a news conference in
front of the historic county courthouse. "For several years I have tried to get
a resolution to protect the citizens of Pittsylvania County by keeping the
[state uranium mining] moratorium in place. I have heard almost every excuse in
the book for not presenting a resolution."
Ecker may be out of step with how the other members of the board
feel about uranium mining and milling, but he’s spot on about the need for the
Board of Supervisors to tackle this issue.
If the other four members of the Board of Supervisors don’t feel
the same about uranium mining as Ecker, Barksdale and Hagerman do, that’s one
thing.
The uranium mining issue has been before the public for five
years. It’s been the subject of studies by a number of groups.
It’s entirely possible that Board Chairman Tim Barber, Vice Chair
James Snead, Brenda Bowman and Coy Harville don’t agree with Ecker, Barksdale
and Hagerman on the finer points of this issue.
But they should have more than enough knowledge on the subject to
draft their own resolution.
There is no way, after years of study, debate and
more study, that Barber, Snead, Bowman and Harville don’t have an opinion — as
the county’s political leaders — on the matter or aren’t ready for to bring
something to the full board for debate.
The growing list of cities, counties, towns, business and
environmental groups lined up against uranium mining tells us that opposition to
VUI’s plans is growing throughout Virginia and North Carolina.
It’s time for Barber, Snead, Bowman and Harville to articulate
their views — as elected public officials and county leaders — about this vital
question.
Why is Gang of Four not listening?
By: | GoDanRiver
Published: October 21, 2012
To the editor:
I attended the Oct. 1 meeting of our Pittsylvania County Board of
Supervisors, as well as the quickly called and shortly announced meeting on Oct.
10.
In the first meeting, Supervisor Marshall Ecker motioned for the
board to take a stand against uranium mining in our county, but conceded to
opposition to at least get a discussion of it, which was voted for, 5-2.
Suddenly, less than 10 days later, there’s a hasty, not very well
publicized meeting to vote on a "rescind" ("I take it back") motion. All
supervisors voted to say they didn’t mean it (the "compromise") but three voted
against lifting the ban on uranium mining, while four abstained from voting to
protect our community against this huge steamrolling of our lives.
I must wonder what made this happen, especially in review of a
recent publication regarding Sen. Bill Stanley’s input into our local
government.
At this meeting, Supervisor James Snead voted against letting
citizens be heard, even though it was a public meeting. Citizens were not
heard.
At this meeting, Supervisor Brenda Bowman (previously Sen.
Stanley’s employee) reiterated (from Oct. 1) that she needed for the board to
get together and discuss this, since they hadn’t yet. Well, where y’all been? In
a cave? Haven’t you been hearing from your constituents for almost five
years?
More importantly, at the Oct. 1 meeting, Bowman said that she
represented not only those against uranium mining, but also those in favor of it
— as well she should. But in the final analysis, her obligation is to vote for
the majority of her constituents because it is not her decision, it is ours. We
don’t want this. We have made our voices heard, and for some reason, four people
aren’t listening. That constitutes negligence of duty, and raises many questions
about the reticence of our representatives to represent us.
LINDA WORSLEY
Chatham, VA
