Lilly The Rainmaker:
reaction to "Lilly seeks to close portions of 2 roads"
The Daily Reporter (Greenfield, IN)
http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/

April 30, 2003

Citing a need to prepare for future growth and to enhance security, Eli Lilly and Co. plans to ask the county to close parts of two county roads that intersect the property it owns here.
Monday, April 28, 2003

The Highlights

• Timeline & Affected Areas: "Officials from Lilly’s Greenfield Labs say that within the next 10 days, they will file a petition asking the county to vacate approximately one mile portions of both Meridian Road and CR 100S (Davis Road), the center point of which would be the intersection of the two thoroughfares. Although exact traffic counts could not be obtained for this story, both roads carry hundreds of cars a day. If approved by county commissioners, the action would effectively close more than four miles of public roads to through traffic: Meridian Road from U.S. 40 south to CR 200S; and CR 100S from Franklin Street west to CR 150W." "Once the petition is filed, county commissioners have 30 days to hold a public hearing on the matter."
  
  
• Commissioner Heiden voices his support for the proposed road closures. “I will go on record as supporting those roads closing both from a security standpoint and the good economic value it will present by allowing a tremendous Lilly expansion program. I do want to hear what is talked about at the public hearing, but it seems to me that the upside is so big and the down side very small.”
  
  
• Commissioner Apple voices his mixed emotions about the proposal. At least recognizing the nuisance and inconvenience the closures will cause to the Hancock County community Apple balances his opinion by expounding on the high growth potential of a high-tech company like Lilly.
  NOTE: Commissioner Apple has since recused himself from deciding on this proposal
  
  
• Commissioner Kleiman states, "I've asked a lot of questions, but I haven't had all those questions answered." Most astutely, he voices his concern for the property values of affected residents and the cost to the entire Hancock community of constructing and maintaining alternate routes including US 40 from the additional traffic.
  
  
• Sheriff Nick Gulling notes he's "not thrilled" about the proposal. But also adds that because of their logistical arrangement, the proposal "doesn’t create a major problem" for police protection. The article also mentions that Lilly employs off-duty officers for 24/7 security around the complex.
  
  
• Dave O’Donnell The manager of the physical facilities at the Greenfield complex carries a big stick and a tasty carrot. The article states he "explained that competition is keen among the sites when the company plans expansions. Sites that do not beef up security adequately likely will not be chosen in the future."
  
  
• While some of the individuals who were spoken to recognize the "inconvenience" this proposal will cause, nearly all parties spoken to either point to the amorphous security needs of Lilly and/or the economic benefits to the County.

The Analysis

Eli Lilly (old archive.org version substituted - evidently Lilly no longer has values)

Much like The Rainmaker, Lilly is full of promises yet short on guarantees. Everyone speaks of that pot of gold the County is sure to find at the end of the rainbow Lilly's promised rain will deliver. Yet nobody including Lilly, but most importantly our County, seems to know how much gold is in that pot. And no one, especially The Rainmaker, is willing to guarantee rain. What is guaranteed if Lilly's proposal succeeds is the loss and disruption to our heritage, lifestyle, future, and economic self-determination. What Lilly fails to mention is that the rainbow ends in their backyard, not only through significant tax abatements but through power, influence, and intimidation they take from the pot without consideration to the journey our community has undertaken. Our forefathers invested in our future by providing roads stretching infinitely to the horizon, much like the rainbow, guiding our way towards future rewards. How dismayed they would be to learn of the The Rainmaker who stole from the rewards, the pot of gold our ancestors intended for the entire community. That when it did rain The Rainmaker they worked so hard to please left nothing more than a community divided by the broken roads that once guided their golden dreams.

Dave O'Donnell's remarks captured the essence of the quintessential Rainmaker: waiting in lie, hiding behind ineffectual excuses and veiled threats until the timing is right to pounce on the fears of the victim. And for good measure he's thrown in the old divide-and-conquer routine by evoking sensational events to polarize the discourse. To intimate Lilly had not done any serious thinking about their expansion projects before 9/11 is to deny the known: Lilly has wanted to close Davis road since at least 1998. And to evoke 9/11 over an issue that clearly predates such horrid tragedy is beyond sensational - it's plain wrong. Then, in remarks overflowing with hubris, O'Donnell suggests the standard line of The Rainmaker: if we can't agree right now I'll have to skip to the next town & won't be back. Or, as the article states, "O’Donnell also explained that competition is keen among the sites when the company plans expansions. Sites that do not beef up security adequately likely will not be chosen in the future." This statement is hard to imagine since Lilly's Greenfield complex is their only animal studies lab in the U.S. and only toxicology lab in Indiana.

Beyond undefined economic benefits, Lilly's primary argument for assuming our roads is their aparently newfound focus on security. In Lilly's words at the community meeting on April 28, 2003, "after 9/11, the world is a different place". While horribly true, this statement alone, without reference to other threats, implies Lilly is primarily concerned with international terrorism. In his remarks to the Daily Reporter, Sheriff Gulling rationalizes Lilly's concern as the healthy fear of an international company. Greenfield Laboratories, however, would make a poor target. Generally, international terrorists targeting American interests have two main agendas: destroy icons of American supremacy and kill as many Americans as possible. Contrary to the grim picture Lilly has painted for their Greenfield Laboratory, it would hardly satisfy either criteria. It's a pretty safe assessment to say international terrorists could really care less about blowing up a bunch of cows. As for the importance of the records mentioned in the article, if Lilly was truly concerned about security they would certainty have duplicates at other locations, fire alone is good enough reason for parallel archives. This proposal to fork over public land for a private corporation is without precedent. Does this now mean that any business can take over public lands to satisfy their internal, subjective fears? What about the air space over Lilly, I suppose they want that closed too? Isn't the obsessive electronic monitoring, 24/7 off-duty police, high barbed wire fence and who-knows-what-other-means employed enough security? In the big picture, the significance of a couple country roads to an international corporation with vast resources to bear pales in comparison to the meaning these roads have to our small community.

Commissioner Heiden

Commissioner Heiden's initial thoughts are likely a response of his view from the Northern District whose constituents would be least directly affected. However, as he has frequently demonstrated in the past, Heiden is responsible on matters of public policy and eagerly solicits public input. Since the Commissioners have not attended the community meetings, he has likely not heard the number of concerned residents whose life savings are invested in property, they fear, stands to be greatly devaluated by Lilly's proposal. Perhaps he has not heard from the many residents who have avoided close calls by the prompt arrival of emergency services. Unlike the residents of Central and South Hancock County whose commutes will be longer and whose connections within the community will be cut, he may not yet realize the significance of the concerns we have for our livelihoods and our families. Our upside is unknown at best, and our downside is quite significant and certain. This proposal is more than about just advantaging an international corporation, it's about our community, our families, and our future. I might have a similar perspective if I were a Lilly stock holder from any other part of the world peering in on Hancock County. Perhaps I would have interest in Lilly's objectives without experiencing the near-term effects of the proposal. We are certain Commissioner Heiden will keep our common interests and heritage as members of the same village in mind when deciding the course of our future. As affected members of this integrated community, it is each of our obligations to communicate with him our specific concerns of Lilly's proposal to close our roads.

Commissioner Apple

While Commissioner Apple's open-minded decision process is to be commended, it's not a far reach to imagine that he didn't get burned by the recent high-tech implosion whose effects are even demonstrated in Lilly's stumble last year and subsequent earnings disappointments last month. With corporate responsibility at an all-time low, why place the future of our community in the words of a corporate high-flyer whose Board until recently was populated with the likes of Enron ex-CEO and Chairman Ken Lay? Much as the employees and stockholders of Enron were promised growth and rewards espoused by conflicted interests, our community and everything that makes it the special place it is could end up with nothing more than broken promises and stolen dreams. Unfortunately, this is not the balanced equation Commissioner Apple might perceive or desire. It is wholly unbalanced and unjust; Lilly has everything to gain and nothing to lose while our County has everything to lose and only uncertainties to gain.
NOTE: Commissioner Apple has since recussed himself from deciding on this proposal

Commissioner Kleiman

In his brief remarks, Commissioner Kleiman captures the essence of the proposition. When he speaks of the certain economic compromises the County will incur and of the unanswered questions he seeks, he speaks of the uncertainties and compromises our community faces. With so much at stake, why can't Lilly deliver the answers we all seek? Why dodge and evade direct questions posed by affected citizens? Lilly's proposition requests our trust, that this is the best thing for our community, but Lilly's demeanor, actions and tone do not rise to the significance of disruption and cost this will cause our community. What about our property values? What about the costs of additional construction and maintenance to our roads? What about the cost of the time we will waste in our cars, away from our work and families? What about the cost of the ambulance or police that arrive too late? The equation is difficult to balance...