Letter to the Editor
To the EDN:
A “BIG” kudos to all the students and parents that attended our first organizational skate park meeting on Monday, March 24 and also to Gene Haukoos for all his hard work that he has provided for us, along with Lisa Loftis for allowing us a place to hold our meetings.
Again, we had a tremendous attendance. Our first step has been taken, and there are more to be followed. With all the enthusiasm shown so far and everyone’s determination, we can make these kids’ dream a success. We have now established different committees where both the youth and parents are involved in.
We now can be known as “Skate Estherville” and will be holding another meeting Monday, April 7 at 6:30 p.m., being held again at Avera Home Medical, 602 Central Ave. We encourage more youth, parents and citizens to please join us. You do not have to have attended before. Any questions, contact me.
Letter to the Editor
To the EDN:
This letter is in response to the Tuesday, March 25, Estherville Daily News editorial “Working relatives and the residency requirement.”
Nepotism, shmepotism! Family members have been working together, side by side, at businesses and companies in Estherville and way beyond for years! Actually, many of the oldest businesses in the area and across the country were started by families and remain family owned even now so the point of saying employees of school districts or any other entity, business or public, is a mute point. It’s going to happen and it already does.
What I think is utterly wrong is the fact that you, the Daily News, thinks residency requirements “only mean employee selection becomes limited.” What? No one ever said a city, school district or any other business for that matter is not responsible for going out and searching for the best qualified candidate for a position they are seeking to fill. After all, didn’t your newspaper publisher come from Marshall, MN?
When that qualified candidate is found, they should be expected to at least live within 10 minutes of the boundaries of his employer-in the school district’s case, that would mean living in Dolliver, Wallingford, Gruver or any of the smaller, outlying communities around Estherville. In the city’s case, I think employees should live within city limits. I know when I left Estherville in 2003 to work in Sheldon, I was told upon my hiring that I needed to live within my employer’s coverage area so why is this any different? That was even in the private sector!
The issue, for me, boils down to where taxes are being paid. I’m sure a superintendent who lives in Spencer isn’t paying Estherville or Emmet County property taxes and I’m certain a city employee who lives outside of the community they serve isn’t contributing to the property tax base of their employer. Furthermore, a person who lives in the community or district they serve spends a majority of his or her time in that place, spending money on everything from going to movies to buying groceries or supplies at Hy-Vee, Fareway, Alco or Pamida-all wonderful establishments and great customers of yours, I’m sure-instead of constantly patronizing the supercenters we all support too much sometimes.
Finally, if a letter was sent to you unsigned, why even mention it? Especially in this fashion! Apparently, the writer didn’t want the letter, or any part of it, published as you specifically cite the rules for accepting letters to the editor on your opinion page. I think your editorial only adds steam to an issue that is dividing people.
The old saying does hold true, “you can’t please all of the people all of the time,” and you should stick to that motto, too. Your Tuesday editorial certainly did seem like it was trying to please only one segment of the community-the entities who don’t favor having their employees support the places they work instead of leaving them each day and supporting another city, county, school district or even state.