Recent editorials off base

To the Editor:

Recent opinions submitted to the Sentinel are completely off-base and out-of-touch. In response to Mr. Bradley’s recent piece, he writes as though he is some sort of “father” to Fairmont, and is clearly voicing his disapproval of recent behavior by scolding us all for our transgressions. Mr. Bradley seems to think that because Mr. Lubenow was defeated in a previous election that he is therefore never allowed to hold office ever again. He alleges that councilors Kawecki and Maynard “overturned the vote of Ward 3’s citizens.” Wrong. Ms. Foster did that when she resigned. While it’s true that voters elected Ms. Foster in lieu of him previously, she’s not an option anymore. Just because voters liked Ms. Foster better than Mr. Lubenow in the last election doesn’t mean they necessarily liked the most recent competition better this time. Failure to understand this shows a definitive lack of understanding of our election system. Regarding Mr. Bradley’s allegation of conflict of interest, it would be nearly impossible to find someone in a community the size of Fairmont that isn’t friendly or acquainted with someone else. There comes a point when one has to work with what they’ve got. His example of Mr. Hasek recusing himself from a vote is definitely a good example, but the situation clearly involved potential benefit to a family member. Without showing a direct benefit/gain to the mayor by selecting Mr. Lubenow, such allegations are moot. I strongly suspect that had the mayor cast his vote for someone who was against the community center with such connections, Mr. Bradley’s pen would’ve sat idle.

Recent authors also shower praise on their chosen one. They would have you believe that Mr. Hasek has been touched by the hand of God himself and can do no wrong. Why? Because he thinks like they do, of course. Mr. Koch states that a community center will do nothing to support the community and that new industry and businesses are needed to keep the city alive. He’s correct in that new businesses are needed. However, I find it interesting that he didn’t mention a single thing that the great Mr. Hasek has done to bring new enterprises here. What has he done? Has he stood up on the council floor and screamed for tax breaks and other aid for new businesses? Not that I’ve heard. News Flash: No business is going to move here if the quality of life is poor. No business owner with the slightest level of intelligence is going to try to recruit 500+ employees to a dying community with absolutely nothing else to offer. A community cannot survive when the only thing it has to offer is lake water. While praising Mr. Hasek, Mr. Koch also calls for the removal of Maynard, Kawecki, and Baarts. Why? Because they DON’T think like him, of course. He forgets that these people were ELECTED by the people of their respective wards. Those people don’t answer to him, nor Mr. Bradley. That’s the electoral system. Ward 3 will have a say on Mr. Lubenow at the next election. Mr. Koch’s belief that he can just remove anyone in government any time they cease pleasing him shows a clear lack of understanding of how our government works. In Haiti, maybe, but not here. In the meantime, such calls are nothing more than temper tantrums.

Birds of a feather, flock together. This morning coffee crew thinks that the money in the city coffers is theirs. In their minds, it belongs to them and them alone. All of it. Whatever the reason, whether it be longevity in the community, wise old age, or positions of importance (both real and imagined) these people think that only they have the knowledge and wisdom to spend taxpayer money. Like the ever-disapproving parents, they think that only they know what’s best. While I will agree with Mr. Koch that South Dakota is a bastion of conservative ideals (I lived there and I loved it), I will point out that there is nothing preventing him from packing his bags and moving there. Interstate 90 still leads to Sioux Falls.

Cameron Kamlitz

Welcome