To the Editor:
I was very disappointed to hear our new Republican State Senator Pete Miller repeating liberal talking points in his refusal to defend Indiana's marriage laws.
Unlike what the Senator said, the Marriage Protection Amendment does not take away anyone's right. It simply reaffirms our existing logical definition of marriage.
Ironically, it is Sen. Miller's opposition to protecting marriage that places the rights of future generations of Hoosier children at risk because it makes them less likely to grow up in homes with both a mom and dad. The Senator's refusal to defend the importance of husbands and wives means that he is OK with allowing radical activists to dramatically redefine marriage in Indiana, rather than turning it over to a vote of the people.
Homosexuals are free to live as they choose, and the marriage amendment does not change that, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all of Indiana including what is taught concerning sex and family in our elementary schools. Children are confused enough by various sexual messages today. Let's not confuse them further by letting our laws say that two men are the same as a mom.
Senator Miller spoke as if Indiana were considering something unusual. He even repeated the scare tactic that preserving marriage as a husband and wife is somehow bad for the economy. He claimed that the marriage amendment would hurt Indiana jobs and business recruitment. Thirty-one states have amendments. He should have looked at them before siding with liberal activists opposed to family values.
Just a few months ago, CNBC profiled "America's Top States For Doing Business" using input from the National Association of Manufacturers and the Council on Competitiveness. Nine of the top ten business-friendly states have marriage protection amendments. None has same-sex marriage. States with same sex marriage landed at the bottom of their business performance data.
The US Chamber of Commerce recently looked at the top states for middle-income job growth. Seven of the top ten states have Marriage Protection Amendments; non have same-sex marriage. Likewise the Bureau of Economic Analysis looked at states with the highest growth in personal income between 2000 and 2010. Eight of the top ten states have marriage amendments; non have same-sex marriage.
CEO Magazine recently surveyed 543 Chief Executive Officers asking them to rank the best and worst states for business and job growth. All of the top five have marriage protection amendments. Four of the five worst business environment states must have agreed with Miller's advisors. They refused to protect marriage and have civil unions or court ordered same-sex marriage.
Simply put, if Senator Miller will not stand up for natural marriage, he should at least stop listening to liberals and allow Hoosiers to decide this issue by supporting passage of the amendment, which places it on the ballot next November.
Chamber of Commerce, Enterprising States 2011- http://ncf.uschamber.com/library/2011/06/enterprisingstates-2011
CEO Magazine study- http://chiefexecutive.net/best-worst-states-for-business
Garv D. Houser
To the Editor:
Having been professionally involved in the wastewater profession over the past 20 years, I feel very confident in saying that the Avon/Washington Township community is privileged to have a utility service provider that has the financial, managerial and technical expertise that the West Central Conservancy District does. In addition to an award-winning operational staff, we have a Board of Directors that has done an outstanding job of managing finances despite the challenges of being a relatively young utility.
For the past 12 years, Paul Allen has been one of those directors, providing valuable leadership in many aspects of our community. Prior to retirement, Paul was the National Finance Director for the American Legion, bringing sophisticated, yet sound, fiscal policy to the WCCD. I also applaud Paul's efforts in reaching out to the Town of Avon, over the past year, in order to move us all forward with respect to our common interests in securing and managing our water resources. Paul is a man of integrity and has the experience & vision to lead the WCCD and the Avon community forward.
Please join me in supporting Paul Allen for Director of the WCCD by voting at their offices on February 15, 16, 18, and 20.
To the Editor,
This is a response to the 26 January 2013 Flyer head line "Trustee continues support of involuntary annexation"
"For now, Hodson is vowing to continue supporting Avon in its efforts to protect the township for involuntary annexation from outsiders."
The outsider he mentions is Plainfield. FACT: In Plainfield's 100 plus year history, they have never involuntary annexed any farm properties in Washington Township.
FACT: The properties that have been annexed into Plainfield that are within Washington Township were all Super Voluntary Annexations. That means that 100% of the owners made the decision to be annexed by Plainfield, not Avon.
These owners made their decision based on what was best for their properties. The properties that they and they alone, were responsible for, to include but not limited to purchasing, making loan payments, paying taxes, etc. The did not leave the decision up to the public officials of Avon, whom they had no voice in electing. The same officials that could involuntary annex their properties into Avon at any time for reasons that best suits the Town of Avon and not the property owners.
"He referred specifically to the southern border, where Plainfield has annexed property as far north as 100 South."
This is a veiled reference to our farm properties along 900 E and 300 S. FACT: We are the only owners that have challenged the Town of Avon in this "involuntary annexation" attempt. Through out Indiana it is acknowledged that most property owners can not afford to "remonstrate" against an involuntary annexation ordinance, because it is prohibitively expensive.
Predictably, the other three areas that were part of this "latest land grab" are now part of Avon.
It is important to remember that it will be just as expensive for Avon to take this to court as it is for us. Never forget, its your tax dollars they will be wasting.
You, the tax payers need to ask yourselves this. If Plainfield has never involuntarily annexed any property in Washington Township, and with the knowledge that the Town of Avon and Washington Township are in the process of joining, why are they proceeding with this action?
Could it be that they are afraid that the voters will again vote this action down at the polls?
"We're reaching out to those people affected by that and also giving testimony at town council meetings when they have that."
FACT: Two members of our family stood before the Avon Town Council at two separate council meetings, and there was "ZERO" dialogue from their side. We expressed our desires and there was "NO" response from any council member when asked if there was any questions.
So much for reaching out when you do not agree with their agenda!
"Hodson said of involuntary annexations. Even if it means annexing property against its owners wishes before someone else, he says it serves Avon and the Township well."
FACT: This is a veiled reference to our decision to fight this action in court if necessary. Also, the "before some else" is again referring to Plainfield despite the face that Plainfield has never involuntarily annexed any farm properties in Washington Township.
"It preserves our community and our fire territory," Hodson said, Every time another entity come in and annexes, it takes away from the territory our fire department serves. It dilutes the tax base and could result in fewer firefighters and stations."
FACT: When another entity annexes property within Washington Township, that entity becomes responsible for the fire protection of that property. Therefore, it should be logical to Mr. Hodson that Washington Township tax revenues would decrease because Washington Township is no longer responsible. Common sense and fiscal responsibility would dictate the draw down in size of its firefighters and stations which would and should be commensurate with this reduced responsibility.
It's hard to believe that in America we are fighting this battle.
FACT: We property owners in the county/township can't vote for the Town Council, we therefore have no representative to voice our concerns and possibly alter its actions.
Among other things, this is a battle of "No Taxation Without Representation"
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that was one of the driving forces for our American Revolution!
To the Editor:
To the freeholders of the West Central Conservancy District:
On Feb. 20, from 4-7pm, you have the opportunity to vote for the board seat currently held by Paul Allen. I am supporting Paul and asking you to do the same.
Paul has served the WCCD for 12 years so his experience will serve the district well. He has chaired the board for the last two years and has worked hard to make sure all of our outside consultants such as our engineers and banks are giving you, the freeholders, the best bang for your buck. During his time as chairman he also has led the district to refinancing existing bonds creating a savings of over $170,000 per year.
Paul is a hard worker and has earned my respect as a fellow board member.
Two years ago when I was elected to the board, I was uncertain of who on the Board of Directors had the best interest of the freeholders in mind as they made their decisions. Today, there is no uncertainty in my mind that Paul has and will continue to work hard for our best interest. Please join me in supporting Paul with your vote on Feb. 20. You may also file an absentee ballot from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Feb. 16 from or 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Feb. 18.
WCCD Board Member