Reader questions Fifer’s claims



I am not writing this letter in defense of my beloved Carol Lamb; she is quite capable of defending herself. I am writing partly in amusement at attorney Greg Fifer’s letter to the editor published March 26, 2009, in The Tribune, in which he attempts to appear serious, but his pathetic distortions are comical.

Fifer points out that Carol Lamb does not disclose whether she is a party to the cases in question. Fifer does not point out that he was the beneficiary of Judge Cody’s ruling in January that upholds the Floyd County Plan Commission’s approval of Bob Lynn’s Lafayette Ridge Subdivision. This approval and Judge Cody’s ruling clearly violates the explicit and unambiguous terms of the Floyd County Subdivision Control Ordinance and the Floyd County Zoning Ordinance. I challenge anyone who questions this to simply read those ordinances; they are written in plain English and are enforceable law, although obviously, not always enforced.

Caution should be employed to make certain that the ordinances referred to were in force at the time that Lafayette Ridge was approved. Copies of these ordinances can be acquired from the Floyd County Plan Commission office — ask for Floyd County Ordinance No. 68-1 (amended 2005) and Subdivision Control Ordinance and Floyd County Zoning Ordinance No. A67-4.

Fifer says that Carol Lamb urged that Judge Cody be replaced by a judge less committed than Cody to administering the Floyd Circuit Court in a fair, prompt and impartial manner. That is a gross misrepresentation by Fifer.

Another is Fifer’s statement that “Ms. Lamb hopefully speaks for a very small minority of Floyd County citizens that would have judges ignore the import of properly enacted laws in handling decisions ...”

Fifer’s purpose in using the word, “hopefully,” is unclear. Carol Lamb’s letter accurately points out that Cody did ignore the import of properly enacted laws (Floyd County ordinances). So much for Fifer’s “bedrock American values.”

Fifer reminds us that a trial court’s ruling can be appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, but he doesn’t mention the probable cost. The appeal of Cody’s ruling on Lafayette Ridge has been filed at an estimated cost of $8,000 to $10,000.

When offended parties simply cannot afford the money to follow through with a court case or an appeal, the case is then used as a precedent in subsequent procedures. This unfortunate fact of life has led to the phrase, “money talks.”

— George Mouser, Floyds Knobs



Reader: Take action on renewable energy



Renewable (thermal) equals wind power. The energy power source is the new approach that combines eight natural and six man-made technologies in a structure that is an on-demand power plant with five sizes of structures and output.

This is an approach that answers many questions of cost for structure and output that is from nature and will help the power grid on a local basis and is not dependent on wind or solar to run after startup.

Many that are worried about the environment or power costs — this is a plan with more than 40 years of research from around the world to make our world a better place in our lifetime.

Take action and get involved today — visit kennynabb6@win.net for this less costly approach from nature’s own.

— Kenny Magers, Nabb



Reader: Not everyone has access to NA-FC Web site for Resources answers



I attended the Resources for Results public hearing. After the brief and confusing PowerPoint presentation summarizing the findings of the committee, short statements could be made, but they would not take questions. They stated we could write our questions on the back of a card or e-mail our questions. The questions with responses, we were told, would be posted to the corporation’s Web site — no date was given.

The issue at hand is the possible closure of schools. The schools in question serve children from predominantly lower-income families. I would assume that a great number of the parents and public that will be most affected do not have Internet access to either e-mail their questions or to read the responses.

I hope that the corporation will consider another means of communicating their crucial answers to public queries other than posting to the Web site. Ideally, they will ensure that every parent will receive this information in writing. Anything less, in my opinion, would be disenfranchising lower-income families.

— Trish Schneider, New Albany