To the editor:
I've been reading the comments in the Victoria Gazette from fellow citizens of Victoria and other surrounding areas regarding the proposed Copeland institution project over the last few months and want to highlight some of the facts behind the opposition to this very important public policy decision.
The common theme, of the recent articles in support of this proposal, is that building this institution is the only course of action for this particular public need.  And, if you don't agree with the proponents, shame on you!  And apparently, you are then categorized as a self-centered non-Christian neophyte.
When preparing arguments, you are taught to first argue the substance and merits of the proposition you are support-ing.  If this is not a strong argument, then argue the procedure. 
Finally, if you have nothing else, as a last resort, personally attack the opposition.  It appears that is where we are head-ed, judging by the level of discourse.  What's next?  Fist de-cuffs at Cuzzy's after the city council meeting?
I find this type of argument divisive and personally repugnant.  I would hope that as rational citizens, we could raise the level of our public discourse and argue over the merits of the proposal and not the morals and ethics of the people behind the positions.
To that end, let me explain the high-lights of the argument against this proposal ...
Whenever a community attempts to address a civic need, I believe it must first ask itself, What does a specific proposal bring to the community?  Does the proposal warrant the expenditure of community funds, time, goodwill, and other resources?  Does the proposal support the atmosphere of the community and will it in the future?
Do the majority of residents of the community support it, or is it so divisive that it will pollute future public policy discourse?  Finally, does the project proposal itself address the need it seeks to correct?
My opposition to Mrs. Copeland's proposal (I should mention that there is no actual "official" proposal yet; however, for sake of another argument, let's pre-sume there is one) is that it does not address any of these fundamental policy questions.
The proposal does not address what benefit this institution gives to Victoria other than an opportunity to serve those less fortunate ... which, by the way, there are many other more beneficial and less divisive means to serve this portion of our population.
At first blush the proposal seems to be self-supporting, in that minimum pub-lic funds and resources will be needed to build and operate.  However, with a little investigation, serious weaknesses are ap-parent.  For instance, suppose the charter school fails.  Then who picks up the tab?
The proposal relies on large corporate funding for its initial capital outlay; how-ever, there is no mention of how operating funds will be generated and maintained.  If these funds become difficult to obtain, will the quality of care for the children and the physical residence deteriorate?
This is a divisive issue.  In several local communities, it has already generat-ed negative press and publicity.  As Mr. Stumpf stated in his column (Gazette, July 2001), "We don't want to be like Brooklyn Park nor Maple Grove."
Todd A. Corbo, Victoria, Minnesota

To the Editor:
It appears as if the editorial pages of The Victoria Gazette are where the citizens of Victoria and other surrounding areas will scrutinize the location and construction issues of the Copelands' children institution.  I think this topic merits another public discussion, but that requires those that choose to hide behind their pens to come forward.
Many opinions have played out on these pages of the Gazette, most of them criticizing the residents who have questioned the Copelands' plan.  I was present and spoke at the Victoria city council meeting in June.  We wanted to know more facts about this proposed project.  We had very specific questions.  Questions still remain because, as of yet, there are no answers.
I've read various submissions to these pages of letters accusing the people who have raised opposition to this plan as having a "knee jerk reaction" to it.  It seems to me that attacking those who do not share the same opinion of this project, without being present to hear the questions or concerns brought forth in a public forum, is a "knee jerk reaction."  Were these people at the city council meeting to voice their opinions or answer questions?
Members of the "press" have misconstrued quotes to paint a one-sided view of this discussion.  All objectivity has been lost in the translation of reporting the "facts."  Not once has any reporter ever called anyone quoted to verify a quote or fact about any statements made during that city council meeting.
Members of the clergy have criticized, accused, and pontificated about those who hold a different opinion than theirs.  Since when, in this democratic society we live in, is it not okay to question or influence the public policy decisions of our elected officials?  This is not a private issue, but a very important public issue for the City of Victoria.
No one truly questions the spirit that carries this project.  I believe that some-where in the throes of this controversy there is a heart that wants to help the children that would be impounded in this complex.  Neighbors with whom I've spent many hours discussing this topic have completed hours of research, weighing all the details and examining both sides.
One question that remains a common thread in this discussion is, Why do professionals in the children and family services agencies oppose this institution?  Because all the facts emphasize that this type of institution is not an ideal environment or these children.
Where is the business plan?  What are the benefits this project brings to Victoria?  Do Victoria and Carver County have the infrastructure to support an institution of this size for children with special needs?  If not, what measures will be taken to ensure we do?
The fact is that, in concept, it sounds nice.  Build an "orphanage" and it will all work out.  Before we make a quick, un-educated, misinformed decision, let's examine the issue from all sides.  This project holds the future of many lives in its hand.  I think that fact alone requires a well thought out plan.  Click here for more letters to the editor.