Letters to the editor July 14

(In response to “Ortonville air quality stinks,” a letter by Patrick George, The Citizen July, 7, page 7)
Bonfire crazy too
Dear Editor
I have lived in Ortonville for almost 15 years, the last 2 here in downtown. I have often wanted to write to the editor as I too have had strong feelings about issues in this town such as the ridiculous disaster of the chicken ordinance, the school board voting to out our beloved bus drivers, the septic/sewer, etc. After reading a letter about our air quality from a concerned and fed up neighbor, I knew it was time to act.
When we purchased our home here downtown I thought we would stay maybe 5 years when my youngest son graduates.. maybe forever. After two years I am thinking for sure we are out of here within five years number one reason? My neighbors are bonfire crazy too, especially right next door. I could have written the letter by Patrick George and sir thank you so much for saying what has been on my mind since I have moved here.
I have chronic headaches and smoke makes it so much worse! On any given night one of my neighbors decides it is a good night for a fire and a lot of times during the day too. A fire would not even be as bad however more often than not it is more smoke than fire because they are burning wet yard waste.
Yuck! I agree with Mr. George and his proposal of scheduled burns though I do not wish to take the fun of summer camp/bonfires away from my neighbors. I know you are supposed to have a burn permit but obviously that is not being enforced. If we had an ordinance for scheduled burns only and then maybe one would have to get a permit for a special occasion for a fire for a party or something..
Possibly we could have better air quality around here. With so many people on oxygen, suffering with COPD, and asthma etc. Mr. George and I can not be the only ones sick and tired of all the smoke! I have commented to face book friends about this and people in other cities and states were shocked as burning leaves etc. is NOT legal there.
In this day and age where smoking is banned not only inside buildings but also on the property of schools, hospitals etc. I believe it is high time we re think our ordinance on random burning downtown.
Heather Dzuris
Sick of the smoke in downtown

Broughton for trustee
Dear Editor,
I support Scott Broughton for Brandon Township Trustee. I’ve been attending board meetings for almost as long as Scott has been in office. He is one of the most honest people I’ve had the pleasure of dealing with. He strives to keep our taxes as low as possible and wants to keep our community rural, farm like and quaint. He will not infringe on our rights as landowners and does not support taking our land for special interests. In my opinion he is the best candidate for this position.
Rick Gibbons
(In response to Don’t support PETA, a letter by Teddi Baird-Ocwieja, The Citizen, June 23, page 6)
Not a PETA fan?
Dear Editor,
I see that you are not a fan of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). I am not sure why you believe and said that “they are against pet ownership and would sooner see your pet dead than living in your comfy home.” For a brief summary of their view on keeping pets, please see https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/. The reason for referencing PETA in my original letter to the editor was because their article regarding citations handed out by the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) to circuses was very clear, easy to read and uncluttered. View https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/circuses/circuses-usda-citations-problems/. If you prefer trying to find information directly from the government unit responsible for animal welfare go to www.aphis.usda.gov/. Please note my word “trying” in the previous sentence because they have removed information so it will not be viewed by the general public. But, that is a whole other topic of discussion.
So, whether you do or don’t like my reference to PETA, it makes no difference. Animals should not be forced to live their lives in cages, should not be “trained” through physical harm, should not have to endure being transported from town to town, they should not suffer for human entertainment. Circuses are not able to properly care for wild animals nor domestic. They exploit them to make money. Period.
Rose Kerr
Groveland Township

(In response to ‘Pond weed spraying OK’d, assessment eyed by council’, The Citizen, June 23, page 4)
Three strikes and out
Over the past several weeks the Goodrich village council has made some decisions that bring their competence into question.
The increase in cost to the residents for garbage collection is one of those decisions. It was reported that only one bid was received by the village and that from the current company servicing the village. No attempt was made to negotiate a more favorable deal. Only a vote to increase the cost of collection and pass it on to residents. Could the council have offered to extend the life of the contract a few more years if the service company would hold their prices? Could the council have offered to reduce the pick-up of yard waste from weekly to every two weeks if the company would hold off any increase? Could the council have offered to reduce the pick-up of recycled materials to a monthly pick-up exchange for no price increase? This is called thinking outside the box, which was not used in this case.
Currently the council is receiving legal advice in the development of an employment agreement for the replacement of the village administrator. Would it have not been more prudent, prior to the decision to nor renew Ms. Sidge’s contract, for the council to conduct their own research. What are the minimum requirements for the job? What is the available pool of potential applicants? What is the agreed to process to be followed in selecting a replacement? Further, no relative or close associate of council members will be considered.
The lack of forethought in the proposal to place a special assessment on the residents living on the pond for spraying the pond. One of the reasons given by the council is that there is no appropriate access for other residents to use the pond. It is not the responsibility of the residents to provide such an access. That responsibility lies with the village and the council. More importantly, the 1972 sales agreement between the village and city of Flint reads as follows:
“The foregoing grant is conditioned upon the grantee maintaining a dam and the impounded water over the lands conveyed herein.”
It is the responsibility of the village to pay for the spraying of the pond as part of needed maintenance.
The council should turn their attention to the more pressing issues facing the village rather than making decisions that call into question their competence. Several members of the council are up for reelection. Residents should consider if the current council is serving the best interest of the village.
Richard Saroli
(In response to Set the record straight, a letter by Fern Organs, The Citizen, July 7, page 8)
One has to wonder
Dear Editor,
Bravo Fern!!! Time to get the truth out about the Groveland Township Fire Department, and the current leadership in the township, before it is too late!!! Unfortunately, I do not live in the township, but my son is a firefighter with the department. DePalma, Ax and others are advocating this change for unknown reasons, as it is clear when the FACTS are studied, that this merger would clearly leave Groveland Township residents exposed and at the mercy of an unknown entity for their safety and well being. One has to wonder, if not demand, what the true nature of their intent on the merger might be…….as it is clearly NOT for the good of Groveland residents, nor the personnel currently serving the Groveland Fire Department.
Stephanie E. Pearce