Editor:

In response to Tim Clark’s comments at the County Commissioner’s meeting July 10th.

I appreciate Tim J. Clark’s enthusiasm for public discourse, but it’s essential to ensure that discussions are rooted in practicality and genuine community interest, rather than political maneuvering. Let’s examine some of the claims and proposals he has made regarding the ORV ordinance.

Postponing the First Reading

Tim’s call to postpone the first reading appears to be more about delaying progress than seeking genuine improvement. This ordinance has been in discussion for over a decade, with multiple opportunities for input and collaboration. Unfortunately, Tim has consistently refused to engage constructively despite direct invitations over the past three years. Each attempt was met with hostility and a refusal to work together.

Further delays only serve to hinder potential benefits for our community and reflect a lack of decisive leadership. At what point do we prioritize action over endless delay tactics? Are we to table all issues for ten years?

Requesting More Information and Public Meetings

Tim’s suggestion for ‘a few more hours’ of information gathering overlooks the extensive efforts already made to engage the public. This isn’t about gathering information—it’s about stalling the process. The data is out there, and residents are informed. His approach seems more about dragging feet than driving progress. Tim is counting on the November election to put him in office as a commissioner, allowing his personal opinions to trump what the county residents seem to support in mass. It’s a political move rather than a genuine effort to serve the community.

Improving Communications

Tim criticizes the current communication efforts, yet he fails to acknowledge the comprehensive strategies already in place. The Brown County Democrat and social media sites have all been actively utilized. Even his call for improved communication rings hollow when he ignores the tools already at his disposal.

The Brown County Matters Facebook group, which he directly administers, boasts 3,200 members and has been discussing this issue for over three and a half years. Additionally, Brown County Chatter, with 14,500 members, underscores the extensive awareness of this topic.

Tim’s personal website continues to present a one-sided view. Perhaps people are simply fatigued by his constant commentary and are choosing to disregard any public media he’s involved in. Since Tim lacks substantial opposition, it’s evident that this is yet another tactic to hinder progress.

Holding Another Public Meeting Before the First Reading

Holding another public meeting before the first reading is redundant and inefficient. This proposal from Tim smacks of political grandstanding rather than practical governance. The first reading itself is designed to incorporate public feedback, and any additional meetings can follow as necessary. As a candidate for County Commission, one would expect Tim to advocate for progress in a timely manner. If Tim were to become a County Commissioner, would we anticipate the same results of delayed actions and secretive behind-the-door discussions? This approach raises serious concerns about his commitment to transparent and efficient governance.

Comments and Responses

Tim’s endorsement of a Sunset Clause is a recipe for instability. This would create a temporary ordinance that may lead to uncertainty and confusion. Instead of fostering a stable environment, he proposes a measure that panders to short-term political gains rather than long-term community benefit. As Tim has demonstrated, he doesn’t support this ordinance. His opinion is out of touch with what the majority wants. Is this his ‘Trojan Horse’ to easily allow the Sunset Clause to lapse, stripping the residents of Brown County of another freedom if he is elected?

Seventy-nine other Indiana counties have passed similar ordinances, and none include a Sunset Clause. None have repealed their ordinances. Why is that? The perception of issues and grand gestures of creating nightmares for residents is just that—a perception, not reality. Tim’s tactics are designed to instill fear rather than address facts, diverting attention from the true benefits of the ordinance.

History and Perception of a “Done Deal”

Tim suggests this ordinance was a ‘done deal’ from the start, ignoring the multiple public meetings that have taken place. This kind of rhetoric undermines the hard work of many in the community who have engaged in this process. It seems more like an attempt to sow distrust than to foster transparency.

Specific Comments on the Ordinance

Tim’s concerns about nonresidents using ORVs fail to recognize the statistics and overlook the reality that 79 other counties in Indiana do not experience these issues. This is something any forward-thinking leader should consider when making decisions. His focus on restrictions rather than opportunities reflects a lack of vision for our county’s future. Instead of seeing the potential benefits, Tim chooses to dwell on hypothetical problems that haven’t materialized elsewhere.

Incomplete and Misleading Information

Tim’s claim of incomplete information in the Brown County Democrat is misleading. Efforts have been made to provide thorough and balanced coverage on this issue. His criticism appears more aimed at discrediting local media than genuinely addressing transparency concerns.

The local media may not have reached out to Tim, perhaps because his stance has been well-documented and his persistent hostility towards our local government officials has become tiresome to many. His ongoing projection of negativity may have led to a lack of interest in soliciting his perspective.

Numerous times, the county attorney was asked if the ordinance can effectively ban non-residents. The outcome wasn’t to Tim’s liking.

Why should Brown County go against the precedent set by 79 other counties and attempt to restrict what has been widely accepted across Indiana? This ordinance is about aligning with state-wide standards and benefiting from the proven success of similar regulations in other counties. Tim’s stance is an outlier, not a reflection of the broader consensus.

Economic and Community Impact

Tim’s fearmongering about the impact on our community ignores the positive aspects of this ordinance. The county road system is set up in a way that makes it impractical for extensive recreational use. The idea of someone traveling with a truck and trailer, parking on the side of a county road, and unloading a $30k machine for leisurely country cruising is impractical and unlikely. This is yet another fear tactic aimed at stalling progress.

Furthermore, the ordinance specifically excludes the town of Nashville and by Indiana State Statute, other incorporated areas of the county. It’s clear that Tim’s concerns about widespread tourism are unfounded—where would thousands of tourists go, and why would they choose Brown County over other destinations? Brown County isn’t comparable to vacation hotspots like a beach in Florida; most visitors are here for a day or weekend, enjoying our unique local attractions.

Tim’s stance is more about creating problems than providing solutions. Instead of embracing the potential benefits of responsible ORV use, he chooses to sow fear and doubt. Our focus should be on enhancing local recreational opportunities while preserving the character of Brown County, not on baseless fears.

Conclusion

Tim J. Clark’s proposals lack the practicality and vision needed to lead Brown County effectively. His suggestions seem more geared towards political positioning than genuine community improvement. As we move forward with the ORV ordinance, it’s crucial to focus on balanced and decisive action that serves the best interests of our residents, not the ambitions of political hopefuls.

We must prioritize thoughtful governance that enhances our community while respecting the diverse needs of our residents. Let’s continue to advocate for progress that benefits all, rather than allowing fear and misinformation to dictate decisions. Brown County deserves leadership that is committed to transparency, progress, and the long-term well-being of our community.

Call to Action

Let’s continue to engage with our community with a clear vision and purpose. We owe it to our residents to move forward thoughtfully and effectively, avoiding politically motivated delays. Our focus should be on making informed, timely decisions that benefit Brown County as a whole. Instead of attacking ideas, let’s strive to improve them and make them more effective for our entire community, especially when they have the widespread support of our residents.

Tim’s vision appears lacking in productivity, forward thinking, and responsiveness to the people of Brown County. At all of the public meeting, we’ve seen a large supportive crowd with only a few dissenters. This overwhelming support should be a clear indicator of what “We, the people of Brown County,” truly stand behind.

Why is there such pushback on this topic from a minority of opposers? Does the politically motivated voice of Tim Clark outweigh the clear majority support?

I invite you all to attend the next Commissioners meeting and show your support for this ordinance. Join us on July 17th at 6 p.m. in the Salmon Room. Let your voice be heard and ensure that one man’s fear-mongering tactics do not derail what 86% of Indiana counties already enjoy.

Paul Hazelwood

Brown County Resident