Are you smurfin' me again? Liberal pablum in the local paper? Just shoot me.

I just read the opinion page of today's The Selma News, for which I write a weekly column. I was amazed at the letters to the editor this week. Though I like and respect Ray Jacklitsch, I am bewildered at his suggestion that the public and media are "lynching" Mayor Hester for his comment about a lynching. He is correct that there is little uproar about other issues in town, however, wrong is wrong and jumping on a situation such as this one is not the wrong thing to do. When you have a bombastic man attempting to steamroll over others and neo-fascist like run a town, then it is merely the law of sowing and reaping.

Ray's comment that baffles me, however, is that if the Jernigan building was spruced up and made prettier that the abhorrent behavior that was witnessed earlier this month at a town council meeting would improve. That is just plain absurd. Bad behavior is not brought on by an ugly room. It is brought on by an ugly heart.

I also read with interest the letter from Dr. Walt Caison. He and I do not see "eye to eye" on a good many things. For instance, his use of the term "democracy" in his letter. We do not live in, have never lived in, nor will we ever have a democracy in this country. We are a REPUBLIC. There is a HUGE difference. Another big difference in opinion is the reference to the use of the word lynching as part of "America's racist heritage." Sorry, but the word does NOT have racist connotations, the term was NOT used in reference to someone of another race, and lynchings were not always racially motivated in this country. So PLEASE STOP perpetuating the lie and racial guilt. That makes no sense. An educated man should have sufficient reasoning capability to see this simple point and concede it.

What I do agree with Dr. Caison about is the asinine complaining by Chucky Hester regarding the fact that there was a large crowd at the meeting for the public hearing. I agree that the approach by Hester is arrogant, laced with intimidation (just not from the lynching commentary), and suppression. Hester was obviously either afraid of or angered by the crowd of people who attended the meeting. Participation in the governmental process and just plain exhibiting citizenship should never be something for an honest man and good elected representative to fear or over which to take umbrage.

The Smithfield Herald speaks on Mayor Hester's comments

First, a newsy article.

Some want mayor to quit
Comment made at Town Council meeting draws fire
By Jordan Cooke, Staff Reporter

SELMA -- Sylvia Henry had just settled into her seat last Tuesday night when Mayor Charles Hester called the monthly Town Council meeting to order.

Henry, of Jordan-Narron Road, had come to join more than 100 other people opposed to the rezoning of 106 acres near West Blanche Street. A South Carolina company was seeking the rezoning in hopes of building an ethanol plant on the land. The plant, if approved, would abut a parcel of land that Henry and her four siblings stand to inherit from their mother.

From her seat at the back of the meeting room, Henry didn't hear the next words Hester spoke. But based on the reactions from some in the crowd, Henry knew it must have been something controversial.

"All of a sudden, people in the audience were giving him up the country for what he said," Henry said.

Hester, viewed by some as a polarizing figure in town, had made the following remark: "We have a big crowd here tonight, bigger than we are used to handling. We have people in our community that stir up big crowds and we have one here tonight. Maybe one day we’ll have a lynching, and we won’t have to worry about that anymore."

Several people fired back at Hester, calling the remark rude and distasteful. One resident, Erin Downey of Campground Road, said Hester’s statement was a racial slur.

Hester apologized for his comment and, days later, told a reporter he regretted what he had said. "It was one thing I said, and I shouldn't have said it," he said. "I'm sorry."

But one man in particular said Hester's apology didn't go far enough. Tony Tetterton, owner of RVacation Campground on Campground Road, said he didn't consider Hester's statement racist. Rather, Tetterton said the comment was "a hateful remark" that was "unmistakably addressed toward me."

Tetterton said it was common knowledge that he had printed a flyer speaking out against the proposed ethanol plant. Tetterton said he thinks his efforts frustrated Hester.

Also, Tetterton suggested that Hester had a vendetta against him for speaking out against involuntary annexation last year. "I think what it all boils down to is that I was one of the people willing to point out that what the council did with the annexation was unlawful," Tetteron said.

Friends Tom and Kara Kuebler say they think Hester resents Tetterton for his passion for issues that concern him. "If there's an issue he’s concerned about, he voices his opinion," Kara Kuebler said of Tetterton. "He gets right in there and questions things like the annexation."

"That's been one of the big points of opposition with them," she added, referring to interactions between Tetterton and Hester. "There’s also been the quiet zone [for trains] issue. That was fine that they did not opt to approve that. But in my opinion, the mayor considers Tony ... he expects opposition from him. He expects things not to run smoothly because Tony questions things."

Tom Kuebler said Tetteron is just a "concerned citizen" whom Hester is trying to "demonize." He said Hester’s remark shows he is not fit to remain in office. Both he and his wife are among some Selma residents who want Hester to resign, he said.

"I would like to see him out of office," Kuebler said. "The thing that frustrates me is that he is deciding things for us that ... we don’t have a say-so in in any way, shape or form, except for what we can say at the town meetings."

"My mission is not to personally oust the mayor from office," Tom Kuebler added. "I'm just concerned about the decisions he makes because they affect us. He seems like a vindictive man, just for the comment he made. Here is a man with power that can abuse it."

Tetterton said he too would like to see Hester resign. He said Hester’s remarks at the Town Council meeting not only insulted him personally but also degraded the town.

"As an effective business leader for the community, what outside business would want to come to Selma now knowing they have to deal with someone like [Charles] Hester?" Tetteron asked. "He [Hester] has definitely tainted the ground. On a professional basis, he has tainted the ground with his remark."

"He should step down as mayor," Tetterton added. "You can't, in a public forum, suggest that someone should be lynched and expect that no one would be upset."

When asked by a reporter to respond to statements about his character and effectiveness as mayor, Hester repeatedly declined to comment. And when asked by phone if he had any concerns that his silence would add fuel to his critics’ fires, Hester responded in an unexpected manner.

He hung up.

And the editorial in the Herald.

Selma mayor crossed the line

Mayor Charles Hester thinks he knows what is best for Selma — say, an ethanol plant — and he has no tolerance for people who oppose his will. That is likely why the mayor wanted to lynch the person who rallied his neighbors against the proposed plant last week.

It's tempting in the aftermath to call for the mayor's resignation; he crossed the line when he called for a lynching. But perhaps demanding Mr. Hester's resignation goes too far. Recently, a Golf Channel announcer suggested that Tiger Woods' fellow players might want to lynch the world’s No. 1 golfer if they hoped to beat him on the course.

That announcer got suspended but kept her job.

Besides, Selma needs Mr. Hester and his leadership, particularly his fiscal conservatism. What it doesn’t need is a monarch, and we're willing to give Mr. Hester another chance if he now realizes he cannot impose his will on Selma. Last week, he faced a room full of people who did not share his vision for Selma, and while that no doubt frustrated the iron-willed mayor, we hope it opened his eyes too.

We hope also that Mr. Hester will take from this episode that running Selma is a partnership that requires compromise. Just as important, we hope that Town Council members now know that the mayor’s voice is not the only one in Selma government and policymaking.

Mr. Hester has been generally good for Selma. He has restored fiscal discipline while courting business investment in town. And if he truly learned a lesson last week, we think Mr. Hester will be an even better mayor.

Who should be the one lynched, Mayor Hester? Keep that up then look in the mirror.

I was at the meeting. My audio recording started in the middle of the comment. Somebody else got the comment on video. NBC17 is carrying the story on their web site. Don't blame me, I voted for William Overby.

SELMA, N.C. - Some residents in Selma attended a public hearing, not expecting to hear Mayor Charles Hester begin the meeting with offensive remarks, resident Tony Tetterton told NBC17 in an email.

The comments were recorded on video.

City leaders held a public hearing to discuss the rezoning of a tract of land for industrial use for a proposed ethanol plant.

At the beginning of the meeting, Hester commented that there was "one" that "stirred up the crowd" and then suggested that there should one day be a "lynching".

The Mayor did apologize for making the comment.

NBC17 called the Mayor's office about his remarks, but has not received a call back.

The video is now on youtube.com.

Ethanol plant in Selma or not?

I am on the Selma Planning Board and was at the meeting on Dec. 10, 2007 when the board approved the rezoning request for a proposed ethanol plant in the ETJ of Selma (outside the town limits but still within the zoning and planning reach of the town's jurisdiction). Since that meeting, I have been in conversation with one main opponent of the plant. I have had discussions with a town council member on the proposed plant. I have read articles and seen videos online about ethanol plants.

There are several main arguments against the plant. They consist of objections to the rezoning request based upon legal precedent, the keeping of harmony with the neighboring town's zoning, and improper zoning based upon definitions of what is and is not "spot zoning". Other arguments are that the plant will use a lot of water for production, especially during a drought. Also the possible pollution aspect is being touted.

Is all of this true? I really don't know for several reasons. Not all ethanol plants use the same technology, will be the same size of physical plant, and have the same methods of production. One thing for certain is the end product being the same. Unfortunately, ethyl alcohol is not a bad product and is needed in various processes. As far as being a source of an alternative fuel, I believe it to be a load of bunk.

The town council will hold a public hearing on the rezoning request tomorrow night. I will plan on being in attendance and possibly recording audio of the discussion from the public input commentary and from the council. I will probably be writing my column for this week on the topic. I have been thinking about the column all weekend and I believe I know what direction I will take in the scribbling of my paltry column.

I am quite frankly surprised at the comments by Mayor Hester. He keeps talking about improving the tax base and how this may help Selma in that matter. Hello??? The proposed plant is NOT inside the town limits.

Here is the Selma News article on the plant.

Selma could soon be home to an ethanol manufacturing facility capable of producing 110 million gallons of ethanol per year. Not everyone views this in a positive light.

At its December meeting the Selma Planning Board approved the rezoning of a piece of property located along West Blanche Street in Selma from residential-agriculture (RA) to industrial-2 (I-2) with a special use permit to allow for the construction of the facility.

The Selma Town Council will make the final decision on the matter following a public hearing on Jan. 8 at 7 p.m. inside the Jernigan Building on East Anderson Street.

During the planning board meeting Keith Parrish, a representative of East Coast Ethanol, who is the potential buyer of the property from the Parker heirs, spoke about the project. Grace and Bruce Parker, requested the rezoning on behalf of the heirs, who plan to sell the property to East Coast Ethanol.

Parrish said plans are to build a 110 million gallon ethanol manufacturing facility on the property, most likely along West Blanche Street. He said the facility should provide a minimum of 45 full-time jobs.

Parrish told the planning board company engineers are looking at the best access point to the property, which he believes will be at West Blanche Street, with the majority of traffic entering and exiting on Highway 70.

Planning Board Chairman Dennis Davis told Parrish that there needs to be a traffic study done, because West Blanche is not made for heavy equipment. He said because this is such a busy thoroughfare, road improvements to West Blanche and potential turn lanes or stacking off of Highway 70 will have to be a part of the special use agreement.

Parrish said that the vast majority of product (corn) and any equipment would come by rail, and that much of the ethanol will be transported out by rail.

Davis reiterated that West Blanche is a secondary-type road and that the special use permit will require upgrades and improvements to the roadway.
It was determined that the majority of the property surrounding the Parker heirs’ site is already zoned I-2.

Parrish introduced Lee Denton, project manager, who has an office in Benson.
Parrish told the board that the ethanol company will be going public with its stock offer soon, but is in the process of filing with the Securities Exchange Commission, so are limited on how much information can be released to the public at this time.

Tony Tetterton, who owns RVacation Campground on Campground Road, not far from the proposed site, is against the rezoning effort. He said the plant would be situated in a mostly residential area, not an industrial area.

He also has concerns about the amount of water the facility will require and the effect that will have on the water table in surrounding areas. He contends that an ethanol manufacturing plant of this size will produce more than 200 tons of pollutants each year and that those pollutants will affect a several mile radius beyond the plant.

"The thing is, if this plant were constructed just two years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency would have required it to reduce emissions 95 percent," said Tetterton. "That would take the 200 tons to an average of 10 tons a year, a much more manageable amount. Two years ago any plant that produced more than 100 tons of pollutants a year was considered a major polluter and had to adhere to these guidelines. Now, those who produce in excess of 250 tons of pollutants each year are considered major polluters. That’s quite a jump. So, this plant most likely won’t have to attempt to reduce its emissions."

Tetterton has been distributing a flyer, detailing water consumption and the types of toxins that could be released into the air surrounding the plant.

"The information on the flyer comes from the Environmental Protection
Agency and from ethanol producers' websites," said Tetterton. "There are three processes by which ethanol is produced – dry mill, wet mill and one new experimental process that is being tested now. The air pollutants listed are those that are produced through a dry mill process. The wet mill process also produces air pollutants, similar to those produced through the dry mill process."

Tetterton admits that he does not know which process the plant plans to use, but said it is highly unlikely that the experimental (and cleaner) process would be used.

"There is only one such plant under construction in the nation," said Tetterton. "The process is in the testing phase and it is unlikely that it will be used in the Selma. Of course, there is no way to know what process will be used, because the company planning the plant is being so tight-lipped about it, waiting to go public."

He said a plant utilizing the cleaner process takes about 200 people to operate. Since East Coast Ethanol is estimating about 45 employees, Tetterton says there’s no way they plan to use this process.

Information on Tetterton’s flyer states that is three gallons of water is required to produce just one gallon of ethanol. That's 330 million gallons of water a day or 904,000 gallons a year.

"Experience shows that this will reduce the water table for miles around the plant, drying up wells," said Tetterton on the flyer.

The list of "hazardous and toxic air pollutants" on the flyer include acetaldehyde, acetic acid, ammonia, benzene, dichlorobenzene, ethyl acetate, formaldehyde, manganese, toluene, and xylene.

Tetterton is encouraging Pine Level and Selma area residents to attend the public hearing on Jan. 8 to discourage Selma leaders from granting the rezoning of the property, thus preventing the construction of the ethanol plant.

He also has asked residents to contact their town leaders in Selma and Pine Level to voice their concerns, if any.

Selma Mayor Charles Hester said the plant is not definite. The only issue at the moment is one of rezoning.

"We’ve just been asked to rezone the property," said Hester. "If the plant is constructed, it will have a positive impact on Selma. It could add $100million to our tax vase. That's significant for the town."

He said there will be no incidences of hazardous or unsafe pollution because the plant would be required to obtain permitting that would prohibit contamination.

"Ethanol is made from farm products, so the farming community could benefit from such a plant in Selma," said Hester. "It will bring jobs. Those who come into town to construct the facility will stay, shop,a nd spend money in Selma. I believe the beneifts would far outweigh any negatives."

Here is the Smithfield Herald's article on the proposed plant.

A South Carolina company is expected to ask the Town Council on Tuesday to rezone a 106-acre plot just east of town for commercial development. The project would be one of the first ones in North Carolina.

East Coast Ethanol of Columbia, S.C. hopes to build an ethanol plant on the site, located along Selma-Pine Level Road about one mile from the town limit. The plant would produce 110 million gallons of ethanol from corn, the company's Vice President Keith Parrish said.

Parrish declined to discuss at length the plans for the plant, citing as a concern that his company is currently in the process of registering with the Securities Exchange Commission. But Parrish did note that construction of the facility, which would initially employ about 45 people, could begin as early as 2009. The cost of the project could exceed $200 million, he added.

Selma Mayor Charles Hester said this week that a company representative met with the Selma Planning Board Dec. 10 to request that the property be rezoned. He said the planning board recommended approval. The Town Council then called for a public hearing for Jan. 8.

"In the event that this does happen, it could potentially be a major development for the town," Hester said. "It could have a major impact on our tax base. That would be important for us."

East Coast Ethanol was formed in September 2007 through a merger of four ethanol companies in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, Parrish said. The plant in Selma was originally planned by Mid-Atlantic Ethanol of Benson, one of the four companies that merged.

The Selma plant would come with its challenges. Among them would be providing enough water to supply East Coast's needs. Reports indicate that the company would require about 1.2 million gallons of water a day. Tim Broome, county utilities director, said East Coast's demand for water could pose a problem if the company were allowed to draw from public water systems. Designating so much water for the ethanol plant "could shorten the life of our resources," he said.

Broome suggested as an alternative that the plant rely on reclaimed water for its production. He said Johnston has more than enough reclaimed water in reserve to meet East Coast's need.

"It might not be preferable, but we have plenty of reclaimed water, and using it wouldn't put any strain on the public water system," he said. "But of course these decisions are totally up to the county commissioners."

Should the Town of Selma approve the rezoning request and any subsequent requests for development, East

Coast stands poised to be among the first companies to build an ethanol plant in North Carolina. Five plants have been proposed in the state, but so far only one — a $100 million refinery in Hoke County — is under construction.