Lynne’s mining saga

To the Editor:

Back in 2009 a group of county board supervisors spent three years trying to lease public lands in the town of Lynne for a mine in a vast wetland area upstream of the Willow Flowage. The public was opposed to the proposal, and most importantly, so were the people in the local area of impact.

After the legitimate concerns of taxpayers had been disrespected for three years by the committee in charge, the Lynne town chair informed the county that the town would block a rezone of the area to “Manufacturing and Industrial,” a prerequisite for the construction of a mine at the site.

The county board chair at the time, Ted Cushing, was reported in a local newspaper saying, “If they chose to exercise those powers, then so be it. Personally, I think everyone who pays taxes in this county should have a weigh-in on this because that’s the only way you’re going to get a true cross section in terms of a correct answer (to the question of whether mining proposals should be sought).” “Cushing added that the county board could move in that direction next month by approving a public referendum on the issue.”

Ultimately, after a summer of bizarre manipulations at the committee level, in 2012 the county board finally listened to the owners of the property in question and squashed the leasing scheme for good.

The referendum question would have to wait for six more years, resurfacing in the wake of Tom Tiffany’s repeal of the wildly popular “Prove it First” law. The repeal of the law was interpreted by some as a requirement that mining must take place and must be promoted regardless of what the local taxpayers thought about it. In Oneida County a metallic mining ordinance was passed to promote a mining district in the county, removing several important protections including essential local controls, by allowing metallic mining as a matter of right in those zoning districts where sulfide deposits were known, including Lynne. Local concerns during public meetings and at the public hearings were disrespected and rendered moot by elected representatives Tom Tiffany, Dave Hintz, and Scott Holewinski who were all pushing a mine at Lynne.

Five days after the June 6, 2018 “public hearing” on the new ordinance, the planning and development committee met to discuss the hearing results, but the meeting eventually turned into a discussion of the next move to push a mine when Mr. Holewinski decided to stray off the agenda and discuss leasing public property in the town of Lynne. It was during these “off agenda” discussions that the referendum question resurfaced. Mr. Holewinski was convinced two days later to drop his proposal to lease Lynne until after the referendum results were known.

The supervisors pushing the referendum were those most rabidly pushing a mine at Lynne and they were the same supervisors that ignored the facts on the ground year after year that was the basis for the public concerns and opposition. Had those supervisors been listening, the result would not have been surprising when more than 62 percent of voters rejected leasing Lynne for a mine.

Tom Tiffany, perhaps unhappy that his latest mining fantasy is floundering, has infected our county government with a radical, anticonservation group from Texas. Perhaps Scott Holewinski thinks he can jump-start a mine by putting language from this Texas group, that is anticonservation and promotes metallic mining in the county, into the comprehensive land-use plan.

It’s ironic that some of the same supervisors that insisted on the referendum question now want to ignore the answer to the question. The people of Oneida County are the owners of the Lynne site and they clearly do not want a mine there. Isn’t it time that our elected representatives start listening to property owners, taxpayers, and voters and start advocating for local control and the protection of our water resources? 

Karl A. Fate, Crescent