Full disclosure needed

In the latest edition of Salem Township’s Messenger, Supervisor Gary Whittaker gave his spin to Salem residents regarding the pending lawsuit against the township by the developers in the Urban Services District.

The lawsuit relates to the previous township board’s vote to rezone 91 acres along M-14 from agricultural/residential to general commercial. As many within the community recall; current Trustee David Trent —handpicked by Whittaker to serve on the current Board of Trustees —also served on the previous board that voted in favor of the rezoning. Specifically, Trent was one of four board members who voted in favor of rezoning the property in question.

Subsequent to the prior board’s vote to rezone the strip of property along M-14, Salem residents had submitted enough signatures to put the issue on the November 2012 ballot where they overwhelmingly voted against the rezoning. The referendum, however, was later ruled invalid by a Washtenaw County Circuit Court’s finding that the signatures had not been filed in a timely manner according to state law. The organizers behind the referendum mistakenly were assured by then Clerk David Trent into thinking that they had more time to gather signatures when in actuality they did not.

The most recent ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals reversing the Washtenaw County Circuit Court’s decision to nullify the referendum is an obvious win for the residents of Salem, but it is not the final say as the developer has already filed an application with the Michigan Supreme Court to hear the case.

In the meantime Trent still sits on Salem’s Board of Trustees and Whittaker continues to obfuscate the facts related to the issue. The people of Salem deserve transparency and full disclosure from their supervisor, unfortunately they’re receiving neither.

Brian Uherek

Salem Township

Tired of traffic in Lyon Township

Lyon Township is the fastest growing community in Oakland County. This brings with it the traffic that we are now experiencing.

Let’s look at the reason. We have a master plan in Lyon Township that is a diverse plan which provides for industrial, business, planned subdivisions, one acre and half acre lots, farming, etc. If followed we would have a great township.

What is happening is our planning commission and township board is giving every developer that comes into the township density bonuses and zoning changes. This is what is causing our traffic and high-density sprawl concerns.

Why does the planning commission think that they have to okay every developers request for a density bonus and a zoning change against our Master Plan? Why does the township board think that they have to approve everyone?

Every voter in this township should look closely at who they vote for on the township board. Look at how they vote on these planned developments and zoning changes. We have the treasurer of our township, a member of the board, who is the liaison to the planning commission, who votes on the planning commission and also on the Board of Trustees. We have members on the Board of Trustees, including our supervisor, who votes yes on these changes of zoning and density bonuses.

We also have trustees that openly say it’s a good thing that we have all these planned developments and it’s good that all of the people are coming to Lyon Township.

Both our planner, supervisor and many members of our board feel that the concessions from the developers are a plus for the township. I disagree, the added sewer and water lines are not needed if we build to the Master Plan, as the lots will be large enough for wells and septic tanks. The added traffic from the higher density lots create a serious traffic hazard for our existing residents,

Township officials have taken surveys in the past about future growth. The results were, to keep the township as rural residential. We neither have the roads or infrastructure to handle the growth.

Why do we have to destroy a great master plan? A lot of thinking went into it; why do we have to give it away to the developers? Tired of the traffic on Ten Mile and Milford Roads? What is the big rush? Develop to our Master Plan.

John Noel

Lyon Township

Questions equity issue

I am very much in favor of gender pay equity. As Rep. Julie Pawlecki pointed out in her guest column, we already have gender pay equity laws on the books and they should be enforced. However, I am very much opposed to more legislation and increased bureaucracy until I can be convinced that legitimate widespread inequity exists.

I doubt the claim by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research that women earn 30% less than men. Specifically, I doubt that if any such disparity exists that it is based solely on gender bias. How is that information gathered and documented, especially as she pointed out, when companies are not required to disclose wage information. Are they just using wages earned by gender (as reported on income tax returns) and not accounting for other factors such as experience, education level, time on the job, proficiency, etc.

She uses the terminology “for doing the same work.” How do you determine that it is the “same work?” Unless you are referring to simple manual task jobs, such as operating a cash register or tightening nuts on a production line, how do you know that two people are doing the same work? You cannot go by job title alone.

I worked more than 22 years in retail, much of that time as a buyer. There were 80-100 buyers in our company, both male and female, old and young, seasoned and less experienced, heterosexual and homosexual, married and single, black, white, Asian and other ethnicities. Some had undergraduate degrees while others had master degrees. Some were buyers for $3 million departments while others purchased for $30 million areas. We had annual review appraisals and raises (or not) that were based on performance to goals for our specific areas as well as the total company performance. By the job title, buyer, it sounds like we were “doing the same work.”

Although the work was similar, it was by no means the same. That is why people were promoted from lower buying jobs to more challenging buying jobs. If two buyers were in comparable jobs, but one had been there and producing results for 10 years, they likely were making more money simply because they had been there longer and had earned it. A buyer who was a black woman with several years of experience would likely be making more than a new buyer who might be a white male. Would you conclude that this company was paying males or whites unfairly?

She said, “Some might blame factors such as a woman’s choice of career...” It tends to suggest that she, or some, are comparing income across all fields and occupations, which certainly would not be logical. As to her point about the teaching and nursing professions, my wife taught elementary education in Michigan for over 30 years and received the same pay as all other teachers in her district with the same degree and seniority, regardless of gender.

I think that this issue is a micro, not macro, problem. We don’t need to waste more taxpayer dollars on new commissions to study this problem on a large scale. Those dollars could be better spent pursuing more legitimate individual cases of abuse. Nor do we need more legislation that burdens employers or invades our privacy unless it can be shown to produce a greater benefit.

With more detailed and specific wage evidence to support her position, I would be willing to review it and reconsider my position. In the meantime, I will be urging my representatives to not support her bill or the other bills in her equity package.

Dale Goodrich

South Lyon

Global warming response

I wish to address some of the confusion evident in the questions posed about global warming in a recent Letter to the Editor.

The science of climate change is based on actually measuring atmospheric CO2 concentrations of air in ice cores that were up to 800,000 years old; for earlier geological times, about 3 to 5 million years ago, CO2 concentrations and temperatures have been inferred from less direct methods. Computer models use this measured data to estimate future trends. More details can be found in the report “Climate Change: Evidence & Causes” jointly published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society .

As far as the CO2 levels go, OSHA and climatology are looking at two different outcomes. OSHA’s standards are intended to keep you from suffocating, whereas climatology is looking at how much CO2 is needed to produce a rise in atmospheric temperature that will make the planet uninhabitable.

The “toxic” waste from wind turbines (~48,000 total number of operating utility-scale wind turbines) is practically non-existent, certainly in comparison to internal combustion engines. In 2014, there were about 90 million commercial vehicles and passenger cars produced globally. Not only is “toxic” waste produced during their manufacture, but these engines will continue to produce pollutants year after year after year. This does not include such hidden costs as lung damage, asthma and premature deaths from air pollution; birth defects from mercury fallout; damage to buildings, timber harvests and ecosystem services from acid rain.

Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats (USAToday, Sept. 15, 2014).

The Ohio State Chemical Looping Process is still a laboratory curiosity. In a best-case scenario, the first full-sized commercial plant is not expected any earlier then 2020.

Monckton is a journalist and a PR flack who is well known to artificially inflate his own credentials and misrepresent the content of scientific papers. ( ). He even claims that he has developed a cure for AIDS, multiple sclerosis, the flu, the common cold, food poisoning, and HIV. ( ). With that kind of background, it is no wonder he was excluded.

Gary Krause


Protect state’s water

Michigan is proudly known as the Great Lake State. It has one fifth of the world’s fresh water.

People who are enduring a drought (like California) know how very precious water is. It is easy to take anything for granted when we have so much of it. We have drinking fountains in every public building. They are handy quenching our thirst and for locating the bathrooms).

There are many drilling companies that think it is their right to destroy this very precious natural resource. I’m talking about the fracking companies. Hydraulic fracturing is a process where extremely toxic chemicals are blasted into the earth in order to break up shale. this process is done with such force that it causes an earthquake. The toxins from this blast and from the broken shale seeps up into our well water.


Our bodies are 60 percent water and fresh drinking water sustains our lives. It is our responsibility to protect it now and for future generations. for more information, go to the website

In solidarity,

Colleen Crossey


Dangerous legislation

This summer, Gov. Rick Snyder formed a “Prescription Drug and Opioid Abuse Task Force.” It was an important move and perhaps an even more important acknowledgment — Michigan is facing a prescription drug abuse crisis.

According to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, a record 1,533 people lost their lives to a drug overdose in Michigan in 2013, with prescription pain killers resulting in more deaths than any other drug.









We strongly urge lawmakers to reject this dangerous legislation.

Fred Campbell

Michigan Society of Anesthesiologists president

Truth about vehicle warranties


It’s the law that consumers can have routine repairs performed by their local independent repair shop or do the work themselves without affecting the warranty. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), prohibits a manufacturer from voiding the vehicle warranty because service was done by a non-dealer.



Rich White

Car Care Council executive director

What do you think?






Read or Share this story: