« People are too easily offended »

Local Catholics are taking offense to a comment made by District 4 Commissioner Kevin Kenerly during last month's commission public hearing.  In responding to a proposal for a solid waste transfer station near Beaver Ruin Rd. and I-85 and adjacent to the Holy Vietnamese Martyrs Catholic Mission, Kenerly made a comment to which church members took exception:

“If you do outgrow that piece, it’s still Timmer’s Chevrolet to me,” [Kenerly] said.

I watched the hearing live on the Internet and live twittered my thoughts as I watched. I recall the comment and I simply do not see what is so offensive about what Kenerly said.  I took it as a compliment, that the church could experience enough growth in membership that they could outgrow their current facility and would have need to move a larger church elsewhere.  I cannot confirm that that was what the commissioner meant, but that is how it came across to me.

I seriously doubt Commissioner Kenerly was trying to offend anyone.  To me this is just another instance of the hair-trigger sensitivity of American culture in the 21st century. Too often, people somehow manage to get offended at an innocuous comment; perhaps, due to the prevalence of hypersensitivity in our society, there is a subconscious predisposition  for us to take offense by default.

In my opinion this reaction is much ado about nothing and only serves to distract from the real issue here: should the proposed waste transfer station be built in this area?  This question does not hinge whether a group is offended, but rather on a question of land use, material impact and private property rights. Hopefully, future consideration of this issue will not be hijacked by a cathartic discussion of who has been offended by whom.

Note (8 January 2009):  After I reread this post today, I recognize that it was more mean-spirited than I really feel.  I apologize for that.  It is not that I am not sensitive to the church's concerns.  I simply do not have a lot of tolerance for people constantly taking offense at things which, to me, seem fairly minor or even innocuous.  Maybe I am listening to too much Neal Boortz!  Regardless, I still strongly feel the real issue here is one of land use and I would hope that everyone would focus on that as opposed to Commissioner Kenerly's remarks.

Comments

[tuxe]

It is easy for those who do not involved to bla bla bla,
Mr Kenerly saying that he doesn't care if all tenants move out and business building owner will have no tenants because he already have the tax money collected from those building. What a heartless statement. The people from the church has been saving for 12 years to purchase and build this church. It is not easy to move. They are not that rich like Mr Kenerly family and his buddy land owners or business associates. Ask his pastor brother to build this Solid Waste Station next to his church or ask Mr Kenerly spouse to have it build in his back yard or ask his children to build it next to their school to see what type of action he would made?

What did he approved to build near his property? a ball park .... yeah, that improve the value of his property.

For other peoples, he does not care.

Gwinnett county residents, watch out .... the next trash/landfill will be in your back yard if commissioner Kenerly has his way. I do not know if he did it on his own or under the order of the commissioner chairman Mr Bannister ???? Big question mark here

[FinanceBuzz]

Thank you for reading the Buzz and commenting. Please understand, I am not saying that Kenerly or anyone should try to offend anyone else. I am simply saying, I fail to find the offense. Either way, that is a difference of opinion and not the main point here.

This is a land use question where the interests and property rights of all land owners must be considered. I admit that this is not an open and shut case, either way. Your church was there first and that carries some weight. However, if I am not mistaken, that is an industrial area and would seem the kind of area where such a facility would be proposed. To suggest that the facility should be automatically rejected because does not consider the property rights of your neighbor. As presented in the hearing, the impact appears to be limited, but I can appreciate the possible difference between ideal conditions which would have been presented in the hearing and reality once operations begin. To me, the question comes down to balancing whether there is a significant, material impact on your church and your parishioners as well other neighbors and the economic rights of your neighboring property owner. Normally, I can see a pretty clear lean one way or the other, but this issue carries a greater degree of uncertainty.

Regardless, I hope that all involved in this matter can come to an amicable solution that satisfies everyone's needs. I would urge you, however, to give the benefit of the doubt of the doubt to Commissioner Kenerly. I seriously doubt he meant any offense to your church. If it becomes evident that he did, I would be right there with you in opposing his comments, though I doubt this will be necessary.

Best of luck!