Dissenting Opinion
LINDGREN
FOU1~1DRY CASE
I
concur
with
many
of
the
points
made
in
the
original
opinion.
I also
support
views
in
the
dissenting
opinion
of
Mr.
Kissel.
They
do
not contradict any specific items in the original opinion.
Based upon the assumption that the Pollution Control Board can insist
upon adequate assurance of compliance within a reasonable period of time
(as outlined by Mr. Kissel),
I dissent from the original opinion.
I feel
that
the variance should be approved.
Though I am concerned over
the nuisance to persons
living in the vicinity
of Lindgren Foundry if it is permitted to operate as proposed by the new
owners, my concern is even deeper
for the workers who will be denied an
opportunity to work and make a living if the variance is rejected.
Persons
who would be affected by nuisance emissions have already enjoyed a 6-month
reprieve.
Meanwhile, workers have suffered a financial hardship which,
according to the testimony, may become permanent if the variance is denied
with the result that the new owners abandon the project.
Put another way,
the nuisance will be terminated within 9 months (7 months net operating
time) whereas the unemployment status of some workers
is indefinite at
best.
Much is made of the additional cost of upkeep of houses due to foundry
emissions, but a professional painter testifying for the prosecution
stated that emissions from the foundry did not cause deterioration of the
paint.
Most of the witnesses bought their homes while the foundry was in
operation.c To the extent that their allegations are correct about the
effect on upkeep,
they almost certainly benefitted from a lower purchase
price.
I cannot judge the validity of the statement that the foundry will close
unless a variance is granted.
If the new owners have used it only as a
threat to obtain a variance, they demean themselves and do an injustice
to
the free enterprise system in which most Americans believe.
Samuel R. Aldrich
Member, Pollution Control Board
SRA:lf
/7
A~
:‘~~
