CHESAPEAKE
Three Chesapeake City Council candidates received campaign donations from businesses connected to the proposed $400 million ethanol plant that was rejected last year.
Candidates Suzy Kelly, Burnie Mansfield and Rodney T. Wilkins each received $1,000 from International Bio Energy Virginia LLC and $1,000 from ITAC Engineers & Constructors, the two companies that would have helped develop the alternative fuel plant on a 97-acre site in northern Chesapeake along the Elizabeth River.
Both Mansfield, the manager of a Chesapeake cement terminal, and Wilkins, who works at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, vocally supported the ethanol plant for several months leading up to the council's 7-2 vote to reject the proposal in November.
B oth candidates acknowledge that they could have benefited from the project. Mansfield's employer, Lafarge Building Materials, was one of several companies in Chesapeake that could have taken advantage of $22 million in potential new cement and concrete business, he said.
Wilkins sought a job at the ethanol plant.
"Please don't let this project slip through our hands," Wilkins told the council the night of the November vote.
Sidney Harrison, managing partner for International Bio Energy Virginia LLC and CEO of ITAC, said Monday that he met Mansfield and Wilkins as he tried to persuade people in Chesapeake and bordering Portsmouth to support the ethanol project. Ultimately, the project was defeated because residents in nearby neighborhoods feared it would create odors, noise and traffic.
Mansfield and Wilkins are "good people that have good sense," Harrison said. That is why his companies are supporting their candidacies, he said.
"We know they have good judgment," Harrison said. "We trust they could serve the community well."
That also explains the contributions to Kelly, he said.
A company controlled by Harrison and several others owns the 97 acres that were slated for the ethanol plant. Harrison said he has no plans of reviving the ethanol project there, but is exploring other options for the property.
Kelly, Mansfield and Wilkins, all challengers, are among 15 candidates vying for five council seats. Three incumbents are running for re-election to the council, and only one of them, Patricia Willis, voted for the ethanol project in November.
"We would have been happy to contribute to her, but we didn't get a mailing from her," Harrison said.
Kelly said this week that she didn't know much about International Bio Energy Virginia and that maybe the company she owns has done business with ITAC. She is not sure why the companies contributed to her campaign, although she thinks it might have to do with her pro-business stance.
"There has been a lack of the private-sector voice on council," Kelly said. "It certainly could be that they want the private-sector voice to be heard."
Donations of $1,000 are considered large contributions in a race that hasn't attracted a lot of donors.
International Bio Energy's and ITAC's contributions were among the largest made to Mansfield, who is president of the city's Council of Civic Organizations and secretary of the Chesapeake Port Authority.
The donations to Wilkins were his only direct contributions of more than $100, campaign records show. If he was elected to the council May 6, Mansfield said he would consult a city attorney before voting on any project that involved Harrison and his companies.
"If it looked like a conflict of interest, I wouldn't vote," Mansfield said. "I feel strongly about that."
Wilkins said he would recuse himself from any vote involving an ethanol plant at the location.
But he wouldn't necessarily recuse himself on every vote involving Harrison.
"If they came with a good company that would be a good fit for Chesapeake, I wouldn't exclude myself from that," said Wilkins, who then added that he would consult a city attorney, too.
"I support industry along the Elizabeth River," Wilkins said. "I've made that clear in the forums."
Mike Saewitz, (757) 222-5207, mike.saewitz@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Missed One.....
The article was very accurate in identifying politicians for hire, but they missed the Ring Leader, who cleverly avoided public attention by voting against the project. This politician had shortly before the vote profited and enjoyed a fund raising event for his benefit; sponsored by the ethanol developers. The politician in disguise was our own Cliff Hayes. Maybe the voters should examine Cliff Hayes financial report. There is a reason he has raised 3 times as much money as any other candidate. Let's VTBO them all!
Smells like an ethanol plant
No wonder these candidates were so willing to promote the ethanol plant. "If you support us-we will support you in the upcoming election". Whispered promises,a few dollars in your pocket and secret agendas...and these people want to be elected to serve the citizens of Chesapeake? Looks like a conflict of interest to me and will taint everything they could ever vote on. City Council should thank the people who opposed the ethanol project for their foresight and diligence in keeping Chesapeake out of the fast declining corn-based ethanol industry. I,for one,will not vote for any of these candidates. Vote for those that think of the citizens first and their own self-interests last.
Screwed up priorities
Yes, it does go to show how powerful the ethanol lobby is these days: it burns more fuel to produce ethanol than it saves and the production of it is running up food prices.
Who cares so long as the corn growers are making a profit? Feed the cars and not the people! Do we have our priorities screwd up in this country or what?
my, how times have changed...
When opponents of the proposed ethanol plant in Chesapeake referenced the world food crisis as yet another reason not to build the plant, we were laughed at and ridiculed as simply uneducated NIMBY's. Less than a year later, opinions are changing as food prices skyrocket, and availability of staples such as corn is drastically declining. The current members of Chesapeake council who voted in favor of the ethanol plant need to be voted out. Don't forget who owns the property where the plant was to be built. Sidney Harrison still has too many people in his back pocket. The ethanol plant would have been bad enough, but we should always be leery of what good ole' boy Sidney has up his sleeve.
Plant based fuels should be banned
Plant based fuels should be banned because of the food crisis they're creating. You can feed a person for a year on the food it takes to fill up your tank once. People have been saying this all during the ethanol push but got dismissed as puppets of big oil or other such conspiracy theory nonsense.
The Losers game of Ethanol
People are killing each other all over the world for food. WHY? Because farmers are growing corn for fuel, instead of for food. This is a proven fact. Chesapeake should want no part in contributing to world hunger. There are numerous industrial companies we can attract, which are more suited for our area that are less harmful to the world and less harmful to the air that our children have to breathe.
Ethics, Morals?
Oh I forgot these are quality's not required in government anymore.
Industries Along The Elizabeth River
I still remember the pungent smell of the Creosote plant when I would cross the Elizabeth River with my mom. 40 years ago..I don't exactly miss that lovely aroma. I bet Ethanol has a fragrant essence as well. Hey maybe some of the fluid would make its way to the riverbed & neutralize the sedimentary layers of creosote encrusted mud in the riverbed..Maybe the alcohol will "cure" the cancerous growths on some of the fish. Saying you will not cast a vote now is not always the same as not casting that vote in the future. Money talks, & ...well you know the rest.
Everyone follow the VTBO plan!
Vote the bums out