>
Minshew is wrong about air quality — and Fernandina residents could pay the price
Commentary
FERNANDINA BEACH - At last week's workshop Commissioner Genece Minshew said she's worried Fernandina Beach could spend money on air-quality monitoring and "not solve anything."
She noted that WestRock reports emissions data to regulators and remains in compliance with its permits. She points to other possible sources of odors and pollution, including private wells, railroad traffic, shipping activity, marinas and the Port of Fernandina. And she questions whether additional monitoring would lead to meaningful results.
But those arguments don't justify doing less monitoring.
They make the case for more.
If residents are concerned about the air they breathe and there are multiple potential sources of pollution, the answer isn't to stop asking questions. It's to gather the information needed to determine what is actually happening.
That is why Minshew is wrong.
The fundamental issue before the City Commission is not whether residents have already proven a pollution problem exists. The issue is whether city leaders are willing to find out.
Every major environmental health issue begins with data collection. Communities don't discover pollution problems by ignoring them. They discover them by measuring, testing and evaluating evidence.
If monitoring ultimately shows the air quality is safe, then residents gain peace of mind.
If monitoring identifies concerns, then city leaders have information needed to advocate for corrective action.
Either outcome benefits the public.
Minshew's own comments illustrate why additional monitoring is needed.
She argues that WestRock is operating within its permit limits and that there are many potential sources of odors and emissions, including private wells, railroad traffic, shipping activity and port operations.
But if that is true, the case for more monitoring becomes stronger, not weaker.
The purpose of monitoring is not to prove the paper mills are responsible. The purpose is to determine what is responsible.
Compliance with a permit does not answer every question about community air quality. Nor does it address the cumulative effects of multiple emission sources operating in the same area.
If residents are smelling sulfur, if independent monitors are raising concerns and if multiple potential pollution sources exist, then gathering better data is the logical next step.
Without that data, city leaders are left debating theories rather than evaluating facts.
What makes Minshew's position particularly troubling is that this is not an abstract environmental debate.
Fernandina Beach hosts two major industrial facilities whose emissions have generated complaints from residents for decades. Citizens have repeatedly raised concerns about odors and potential health impacts. Organizations such as Conserve Nassau have begun building independent monitoring networks precisely because many residents believe existing monitoring is insufficient.
The City Commission should be leading that effort, not standing on the sidelines debating whether the information is worth obtaining.
No responsible elected official would argue against testing drinking water if residents feared contamination. No commissioner would refuse to inspect a bridge because there was not yet proof it was unsafe.
Air quality deserves the same standard.
Public health decisions should be driven by facts, not assumptions.
The amount of money being discussed for additional monitoring is insignificant compared to the potential cost of ignoring a genuine problem. Respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease and other pollution-related health conditions can impose enormous burdens on families and communities. Even if the risk proves small, citizens deserve confidence that someone is paying attention.
Minshew frequently speaks about transparency and citizen engagement. This issue presents an opportunity to demonstrate both. The transparent course is to gather more data. The citizen-focused course is to take residents' concerns seriously.
Instead, the city appears poised to delay, study whether to study, and continue debating whether obtaining information is worth the expense.
That's the wrong approach.
Fernandina Beach has spent millions on parks, parking systems, recreation planning and other quality-of-life projects. Surely understanding the quality of the air residents breathe every day ranks among the most important investments a city can make.
The commission should move forward with a comprehensive air-quality monitoring program.
Protecting public health is not a luxury item to be considered only after every other priority has been funded.
It is one of the most basic responsibilities of government.
The question before the commission is simple:
Do city leaders want answers, or do they want assumptions?
Residents deserve answers.
Comments
8 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
ejanicke
Mike,
The smokestack photo you chose for this commentary was a bit much... Clearly an AI generated overreach. It doesn't pass the smell test and clouded your discussion's credibility. A little less (photo) drama, please.
Gene Janicke, Fernandina Beach
Monday, June 8 Report this
Mark Tomes
Good points. Also, just because our local industries are operating within permitted regulations and guidelines does not mean those regulations or guidelines are healthy. Sometimes we need to change the levels of contaminants permitted because we find out that they are too lax and are causing or contributing to health problems. Even if our mills and other industries are operating within EPA guidelines, that doesn't necessarily make it safe (especially with the current federal administration's relaxing of guidelines regarding healthy air and water), but it does mean we should continue monitoring all the time.
Monday, June 8 Report this
KStadelman
A cogent argument that is well made. Especially since one of those industries is seeking to expand in a new direction. Maybe instead of a memorial bench for my late wife, I'll sponsor an Air Sniffer with her name and dates on it!
Monday, June 8 Report this
AcurtNA63
When I moved here more than forty years ago, I was told it was the smell of money. The mills are significant contributors to the prosperity of our city. It is better than in the past, so it seems current regulatory efforts are satisfactory. However, Rayonier should find a better site for its ethanol plant.
Monday, June 8 Report this
Glad2Bhere
Totally agree that relatively inexpensive testing (thank you Conserve Nassau!) is both appropriate and needed, With two huge manufacturing facilities in the city already. Additionally, the County Vision Plan for our next 5-10 years includes serious off-island development with manufacturing, a huge data center, and way more. (Data centers are energy and water hogs, and documented polluters.) Simple inexpensive routine testing should be set up now in the city AND county, so that sources of pollution can be identified and monitored (and prosecuted if needed) as development continues. Our success both economically and safety/QOL depends on keeping air pollution very much under control. While we appreciate closely watching the budget, this is a small but priority investment we should make.
Monday, June 8 Report this
PopeJA
Some good points and monitoring is always a good move. But monitoring for what? It has become common to assume if you can smell it it must be dangerous. Often, that is not the case. Growing up in Chicago during the 50s through 70s was hardly a clean air paradise , but millions seemed to do just fine right into old age. So be careful not to equate bad smells to danger unless we are willing to deny a good living to so many people for no other reason than assumed environmental purity. Rainforests can stink pretty bad, too, but that doesn't mean they are toxic.
Monday, June 8 Report this
DouglasM
There is nothing like the smell of burning brakes from a speeding logging truck trying to stop at the Beech Street light. Ask the folks eating at T-Rays's. But it drifts away.....
With the topography of this island and the normal diurnal wind patterns to occasional blustery nor'easters, I don't see how any air molecule can hang around long enough to be a nuisance.
I'll go with Genece on this one.
Tuesday, June 9 Report this
Mingnmilo
Self-reported data from any manufacturing corporation is assumed to be biased in favor of the corporation. What business provides information with self-reporting that shows they are NOT in compliance?
Prove it. Put out the monitors and determine the facts exactly on what the air quality is. Relying on the manufacturing entities to tell you is the fox in charge of the hen house. Independent scientific measurement provides facts that either sustain or disprove compliance to law.
Tuesday, June 9 Report this