Here are questions BiL posed after the first two community meetings on SK hynix's $3.87B plan, with responses officials offered Friday evening, as neighborhood protest continues
🗳️ 🚫 The City Council should vote NO on the question of rezoning the R1 area to I3, keeping the industrial footprint to a minimum in this densely populated residential area.
Since SK hynix will build at Site A regardless (as stated multiple times), there's no need to expand the industrial zoning for unnamed, unknown supply chain partners who have yet to be evaluated and questioned.
That's the compromise in all of this: NO to the rezone.
Sadly, the environmental concerns being raised are answered only in the abstract or high level. I don't understand why SK hynix cannot provide the specific raw data and details from their existing packaging facilities. More in-depth discovery is being deferred to the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and other processes.
And yet, even then, there will be unknowns as it isn't a complete and comprehensive analysis, but one governed by the current rules and regulations. We'll know more, but the picture will still be incomplete.
For example, one defense offered by SK hynix is adherence to the Stockholm Convention regarding 550 types of PFAS. However, are are over 7 million PFAS known (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in PubChem: 7 Million and Growing, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10634333/).
"In 2021, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revised the definition of PFAS to include any chemical containing at least one saturated CF2 or CF3 moiety. The consequence is that one of the largest open chemical collections, PubChem, with 116 million compounds, now contains over 7 million PFAS under this revised definition."
Obviously not all of them are used by SK hynix, but I have not read about any evidence that the ones that are have been studied for impacts on health and the environment.
What inputs used and outputs generated are not regulated and/or monitored?
There's more questions than answers at this point. We need more knowledge and data. Having only a little over a year to discuss SK hynix is not enough time for a decision of this gravity.
The article from Eugene enumerated the total cost to the community in regards to subsidies, credits and incentives. It would be useful to see what West Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, and the state are bringing to the table for this project. Small businesses, of course, do not have access to subsidies or credits like these huge projects do, but instead end up footing the bill, as does the average Joe and Maryanne Taxpayer. It would be heartbreaking to see this community invest heavily in a project to only see it be abandoned when the going gets tough. What guarantees do we have in this regard?
🗳️ 🚫 The City Council should vote NO on the question of rezoning the R1 area to I3, keeping the industrial footprint to a minimum in this densely populated residential area.
Since SK hynix will build at Site A regardless (as stated multiple times), there's no need to expand the industrial zoning for unnamed, unknown supply chain partners who have yet to be evaluated and questioned.
That's the compromise in all of this: NO to the rezone.
Sadly, the environmental concerns being raised are answered only in the abstract or high level. I don't understand why SK hynix cannot provide the specific raw data and details from their existing packaging facilities. More in-depth discovery is being deferred to the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and other processes.
And yet, even then, there will be unknowns as it isn't a complete and comprehensive analysis, but one governed by the current rules and regulations. We'll know more, but the picture will still be incomplete.
For example, one defense offered by SK hynix is adherence to the Stockholm Convention regarding 550 types of PFAS. However, are are over 7 million PFAS known (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in PubChem: 7 Million and Growing, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10634333/).
"In 2021, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revised the definition of PFAS to include any chemical containing at least one saturated CF2 or CF3 moiety. The consequence is that one of the largest open chemical collections, PubChem, with 116 million compounds, now contains over 7 million PFAS under this revised definition."
Obviously not all of them are used by SK hynix, but I have not read about any evidence that the ones that are have been studied for impacts on health and the environment.
What inputs used and outputs generated are not regulated and/or monitored?
There's more questions than answers at this point. We need more knowledge and data. Having only a little over a year to discuss SK hynix is not enough time for a decision of this gravity.
Will there be a video of the presentation this morning?
And will there be a recorded video of the City Council meeting available later?
I'm not sure about the panel being recorded. It was streamed in the Bean room, so it could have been archived.
All the people from the City reading these comments, can you please reach out and let us know where we can find a copy?
The article from Eugene enumerated the total cost to the community in regards to subsidies, credits and incentives. It would be useful to see what West Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, and the state are bringing to the table for this project. Small businesses, of course, do not have access to subsidies or credits like these huge projects do, but instead end up footing the bill, as does the average Joe and Maryanne Taxpayer. It would be heartbreaking to see this community invest heavily in a project to only see it be abandoned when the going gets tough. What guarantees do we have in this regard?
This story from April 2024 goes through the incentives revealed during the announcement: https://www.basedinlafayette.com/p/we-won-inside-the-chase-for-a-387b
SK hynix also is in line to get $450 million, plus up to $500 million in loans, from the federal CHIPS Act: https://www.basedinlafayette.com/p/white-house-450m-from-chips-act-going
Thanks Dave!
The line that always stands out to me: That would allow the bulk of the additional property tax revenue tied to the new facility to go to the IEDC.