The editorial back and forth between State Rep. Tom Rukavina (DFL-Virginia) and Mesabi Daily News editor Bill Hanna over a wastewater plant editorial continues to, uh, well insert your own sewage joke here. Here is an excerpt from Rukavina’s letter to the editor saying he was misquoted in the MDN editorial about being opposed to a shared wastewater plant and community sharing.
The fact is, Editor Bill, that I’m two years ahead of you on this. In the 2007 tax bill, I secured $1.15 million in taconite dollars in order to extend Virginia’s sewer line from its current end point at the St. Louis County Garage all the way to Gilbert so that all of the above-mentioned communities would be hooked together. This is important both for efficiency and also in case of any breakdowns or other emergencies. And, when further studies are done, whether they recommend one big plant for the three aforementioned communities or refurbishing current plants, I will weigh all options and do what’s right for the citizens of the communities involved.
The letter was published with an editor’s note from Hanna saying that Rukavina was accurately quoted saying he supported Gilbert’s efforts to keep their own plant:
EDITOR’S NOTE: Rep. Rukavina is mistaken in his recollection of a news story in the Jan. 19 Mesabi Daily News on area infrastructure needs and the Jan. 25 editorial commenting on that. Rukavina said in the Jan. 19 story, “The idea of Fayal, Gilbert, Virginia and even Eveleth moving waste around to handle the flow is good. But I still think Gilbert should have its own facility, too. Emergencies happen.”
The representative was directly quoted; that was exactly what Rep. Rukavina said.
But who is right? Rukavina was indeed quoted in an earlier MDN story supporting the Gilbert plant (I posted about that here, too). Let’s assume for the moment that Rukavina was quoted accurately. There is still a problem with Hanna’s editorial. Bill, bless his heart, has developed a tendency toward logical fallacies. If “a” is true (let’s say the merits of a shared wastewater plant for the towns in question) and “b” is true (Rukavina was quoted once saying that he believes that Gilbert might need to keep a plant open for ’emergencies’), that does not make “c” true (That Rukavina opposes the project and stands in the way of progress and efficiency).
The larger issue is — from the classic exclamation point-laden Rukavina letter and Hanna’s typically curt, condescending editor’s note — we see that one of the Range’s most important lawmakers and the editor of the Range’s largest, most influential paper are fixing to spend 6-8 months fighting each other when both seem to support a very similar position. It begs the question, why did Hanna pick this fight in the first place? Short of provoking an entertaining exchange on the editorial page it hasn’t changed anything or informed anyone.
How about instead of doing this we build a wastewater plant for the East Range, pave some highways and keep an eye on the taconite money? Right, Editor Bill?
Speak Your Mind