IBJNews

Board backs site for $2.1B Indiana fertilizer plant

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

County officials in southwestern Indiana are giving the go-ahead on the site picked for a proposed $2.1 billion fertilizer plant even though some residents question whether it is a good spot.

Posey County's Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday approved a permit for the project on 219 acres of farmland in an industrial area near Mount Vernon.

The Evansville Courier & Press reported that some at the meeting told the board they welcomed the plant and the jobs it is expected to create. Other residents raised worries about plant safety, increased traffic and how close the site is to residential areas.

The project has faced questions since Gov. Mike Pence in January withdrew state subsidies because fertilizer made by Pakistan-based parent company Fatima Group was used in bombs in Afghanistan.

The plant still needs other approvals, including a federal air permit, to move forward.

If approved, the Midwest Fertilizer Corp. facility would create an estimated 2,500 construction jobs, plus 200 permanent positions with an average annual salary of $58,000.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • I question the whole deal.
    The city of Greenwood (the tax payers) lost some six to eight million on a "generic insulin" scam...which made the same job creation claims. This is a very, very large project subjecting taxpayers to a very large risk. The county officials do not have to skills to evaluate risk. Venture capitalist should be making the cash investments, not the county taxpayers. Common logic says to stay away from this project. It sounds very good....until one wonders why they need taxpayer money and have little money of their own. Why not get money from investors, not taxpayers.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT