| From: | Charles Nielsen, Owner, Wolverine Retail Systems |
| To: | The Dexter Township Planning C ommission, The Dexter Zoning Board of Appeals, The Honorable Residents of Dexter Township |
I attended last Thursday's (7-26-2001) Township meeting, regarding the proposed Marathon gas station at the corner of North Territorial and Dexter- Pinkney roads. We heard an abundance of highly technical information, mind boggling numbers, and concepts that were new to many of us. The developers attempted to re-assure us that we should feel comfortable with their proposal, and that we should trust their expertise, as well as the expertise of all of their sub-contractors. They wish us to believe that they have the situation under good management, and they have a plan to handle all foreseen and predictable events. This master plan relies on layer after layer of sensors, pipes, instrumentation, retaining barriers, slopes, controlled water flowage, tests wells, detention ponds, curbing, valves, alarms, electronics, modems, cables, conduits, pumps, switches.... And if all or some critical components should fail to perform; well they all have "insurance". So now you are compelled to digest and understand all of this information and make a critical decision with long term consequences, based upon this information.
Certainly it is overwhelmingly clear that the citizens from this area are not comfortable with this plan. Their representatives demonstrated that the developer's plan only addressed one part of the process of contamination. The developer's plan certainly did not answer to the reality of diffusive flow. The citizens are not convinced that the developers can guarantee that this facility will be benign to the environment in the short, and even more so the long term.
I very much respect the responsibility you hold and do not envy the burden of this seemingly tough decision. Let's face reality, if you permit this development, quite possibly any members that said yes may not be re-elected. They may even lose respect from many that trusted them. On the other hand you could say no, and then face the possibility of further action against you from the developers. The classic no-win situation.
If I could indulge your patience a little longer, I would like to present some information (and maybe some opinion) that should demonstrate that this decision may be easier then it at first appears. I like high technology and embrace it. I own a local cash register/computer company and have many customers around this area. I have been involved with all aspects of my industry for almost 30 years. Of course I was interested in all the technical aspects of the developers proposal. Assuming it performs on par with the developer's claims, I would have to salute such a wonderful system. As the developer's experts advanced through their presentation, I became aware of a parallel to my own industry. I am continually faced with new machines, software, and systems. Occasionally I work with a "Beta test". This means we are taking a tested (by the vendor) machine or system and installing it at a customer's place of business. The customer and we will have an agreement and understanding that they are the "first" to actually depend on it to perform as advertised. The customer accepts the threat of down time, lost data, and sometimes total chaos, displayed right in front of their valued customer's eyes. Do problems and chaos arise? Yes; and without exception! Keep in mind that these systems have been tested, components often have known mean time before failure rates, and statistics have been compiled. Measures have been taken to help insure against operator error. The "beta" test just puts the system into the "real world"; with real people running it. The purpose is to discover the weak components and find the appropriate solutions. There also exists a lower level of test called "alpha test". In this situation we are dealing with untested components, software, and/or integrating systems. These systems have no "track record" what so ever. These tests are wrought with problems. They are so prone to failures that none of us at the retail level would dare to impose this on one of our customers.
Now please consider this. The developer's plan depends on a complicated array of sensitive and critical components, and the people operating them to "insure" the public's safety. Many and major components of this system have either not been used together, or in the case of the "Bentomat" barrier, not used in this application at all. We heard no plan for long term back-up power for all these components They have no "track record", no re-assuring "real world" statistics, in some instances only numbers recited out of a manufactures sales brochure, and no answer to diffusive flow what so ever. AND NO GUARANTIES. But they do have insurance. They are compelled to carry risk insurance because they are in a high-risk industry. As we all know insurance does not prevent accidents or repair damage or death. It only attempts to put a value on something and financially reimburse the carrier for its loss. So would you submit your selves, your families, and countless others we care about, present and future, to a "Beta" test? Worse yet, we did not hear a description of a "beta" test, this ladies and gentlemen, is an "alpha" test! Do you wish for a Guarantee? I will give you one...I guarantee we would have mishaps at this facility if constructed. It is really only a matter of when, how often, and how severe. Another "Guarantee": we will experience diffusive flow type contamination given enough time. Maybe a molecule at a time, but molecules start to add up. Should we expose this environment to any contamination? What level are you comfortable with? There is one glaring difference in my comparison of this proposal to an "alpha test" however. In my test scenario, business owners and their employees will get inconvenienced and frustrated when things go wrong. Time, data and money may be lost. In the gas station scenario citizen's property, health, even their very lives are at stake.
This is not the time and place to test this system. It is simply not wise to test a new concept in an area that is especially vulnerable to the consequences of its threats. If it was a sound decision to approve this project then why not approve a toxic waste facility across the street from one of our schools? If it could be demonstrated that the facility could be contained, controlled, disaster plans are in place, and we have complete confidence in the people managing it, then why not? Why not; because this is a prelude to disaster, because we have all read and seen the news headlines about these disasters. How often does the question come up, "why was this facility built here"? We can prevent Dexter Township from being one of these headlines. You have the power to say no, our loved ones and we will not be the subjects of this "experiment". We have the God given right and responsibility to stand up for and defend our well being, in brave defiance of our fear of reprisal, knowing we made the right, logical, and compassionate decision. Now is the opportunity to demonstrate that we will not succumb to the pressures and influence of a few, and indeed we will strongly defend the interests and well being of the many. We the people therefore beckon our honorable commissioners, and put great confidence in their judgement, to take this opportunity to go on record as having the fortitude to stand up and say NO. And we thank you for the tremendous amount of time and work you have all devoted to this decision.
Respectfully,
Charles Nielsen
If you have comments about this issue, send email to NoGasStation@aol.com