This is a page that transcribes the County Commissioners' decision to vote "no" to the farmers of Creston. In other words, this is the WTF GARY page, because Gary Kreuger's speech was the most appalling of all. 

And then, despite the valley’s best interest, despite overwhelming science on the affects the plant would have on the air-quality, water supply, highway systems, and surrounding school communities, despite the presentations from dozens of citizens, and here and now, despite the boos of the crowd, the commissioners unanimously voted no. 

What? Why

Well, they can’t exactly say, “I’m being bribed,” can they? 

You can download the full transcription of their “justifications” here. Or, you can listen to an audio recording of the hearing here. 

Or, see some choice reasons below: 

Phil Mitchell

"Only 1 or 2 of the properties meet the minimum 80-acre size for this district, so if we choose to include them in the Egan Slough Zoning District we are putting in mostly all but one properties or two, non-conforming properties coming into the district.

Just because someone only owns 13-acres doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right to protect it, Phil. The district is about keeping farmland protected in 80-acre parcels for the future, but if someone currently has a small piece of property, they are allowed to join. There is no rule that says districts have to be cookie-cutter perfect 80-acre squares. That’s just your opinion masquerading as a rule, since we’re supposed to trust you to know what you’re talking about. 

Gary Krueger

"[…] what has happened is we’ve had the public come forward to us and saying they’re going to go right to the Ag-80 zoning basically, and that isn’t how these districts should be created. They should be created with an economic development plan, and then by those things that are on the ground out there, and by public comment, that is when you determine what the zoning could be. However it seems as though we have gone right from public interest to implementation, and I find that inconsistent with our neighborhood plan section of our growth policy."

Gary, what you are illustrating is the protocol for Part Two Zoning. We are simply asking for Part One. You can’t say we can’t have Part One zoning because we didn’t follow the Part Two zoning regulations. That’s like a studentthey can’t receive their math degree because they didn’t fulfill the requirements for a psychology degree, when they didn’t want a psychology degree in the first place. You are making no sense, you idiot.

"I guess when you talk about that, coming out of the agricultural field, agriculture is industrial. It’s industrial in nature in that it employs often 24-hour operations.  A lot of times there’s combining happening late into the night, swathing and canola happens a lot of times at night, semis travel those roads to deliver the harvested materials, hay is delivered on those roads, so the industrial nature of agriculture is already happening in that area."

Gary thinks that one or two combines out in the fields and some grain trucks at harvest time equals 100+ semi trucks on the road 24/7, 360+ days a year between two elementary schools. Sure, a second to pick your jaw up off the floor. 

It should also be noted that Gary has a gravel-pit in West Valley, and one of his semi’s hit and killed a girl walking home from school in the early 00’s. 

Pam:

"As I considered all of the comments and public hearing, most all of it seemed to go back to trying to attempt to stop an individual property from going through a process that they are legally going through, and they are going through that process with two state agencies; the county commissioners do not vote on those permits. I don’t believe as a commissioner that I should be attempting to change rules when any landowner, no matter what they’re doing, is in a legal process that they’re going through. Therefore I cannot support the Egan Slough Zoning District boundary expansion as presently proposed. Anything else?" 

 

Wow Pam, you got us! We surrender! The zoning district is the most efficient and grass-roots angle we have in stopping MAWC. We tried to tell you that but you quieted us. And now you’re claiming that you’ve figured us out on your own!! HOW CLEVER OF YOU. 

 

What is particularly awful about Pam’s reason was that it almost entirely focused on MAWC. But during the public hearing in September, Pam forbade any of the 100+ citizens from speaking about the bottling plant. “This isn’t about the plant,” she insisted. “This is simply on the request to expand the zoning district.” Anytime a citizen so much as implied MAWC would be a bad idea, the commissioners would immediately interrupt and cut-off the speaker. 

 

The bottom line, with all three of them, is that there is no good reason not to let farmers protect even a little of their property. So if you can’t come up with a good reason, make up a rule (Phil), use the wrong rule (Gary), or use a reason that you’ve silenced the community from speaking about (Pam.) 

 

The reaction of the public was like one might see were there something truly vile at hand; such was the look of disgust and shock on many faces. Because of this, I like to refer to these three as “Warts of the Anus,” oozing stupidity like cloudy puss.