An article in the OBSERVER and another in The Buffalo News has brought information about a battery storage facility meant for an area off Brigham Road across the street from the entire west side of Dunkirk. Less than a mile away sits the Dunkirk Junior-High School, and the School 5.

I’m all for progress for the city. We all know we need development. But I am NOT in favor of desperate measures. Those of you unsure what such a facility is should Google it to get a clearer picture of what it entails.

Let’s remind ourselves of other rushes to building — or tearing down. Without adequate planning Urban Renewal was embraced back in the 1970s. It was meant as a quick fix to urban blight. More than 200 buildings were torn down, most to be replaced with nothing. Without adequate pushback by well thought through questions and investigations, the city simply forged ahead without much thought. Another more recent boondoggle was Athenex. Built with tax breaks and assistance from the state some years ago, the building sits empty.

Now officials are backing something potentially more dangerous..

A number of cities in New York State alone have banned these battery storage facilities or established moratoriums on their being built so that more investigation might occur..

These include: Lackawanna, The Adirondack area , Staten Island, Town of Oyster Bay, Town of Carmel. Town of Warwick, Town of Usher, Troy, Syracuse, Salina, Lysander, Oswego, Rochester, and more. Google “List cities and communities opposed to building battery storage facilities” and more lists across the nation will be shown.

Googling that list also brought up “Common concerns driving opposition and those concerns included:

— Fire hazards: Fears of “thermal runway” that causes fires that are difficult to extinguish and which can burn for days.

— Proximity: Projects located too close to schools, homes and business.

— Environmental concerns: Risks of toxic fumes and groundwater contamination during incidents.

Here are questions that Dunkirk council needs to address publicly:

— This GCI Company of North Carolina wants $46 million “in sales and mortgage tax breaks and a payment in lieu of taxes through 27 years” for them to build. It is a $500 million project — why does little Chautauqua County need to give a company eager to build a facility that expensive our tax breaks? I say they need to fund it or don’t build. Think: Athenex.

Vince DeJoy states the city and school district will receive the benefits of this business. If so, exactly how much. Will we get reduced energy rates in some way? Exactly how.

If fire should break out exactly what toxins might be emitted. Every single health concern must be listed.

If fire breaks out will there be an evacuation? For how long? And what is the plan? Where would we go? Specifically how would the two schools be evacuated? If we are out of our homes who will pay us for hotel rooms elsewhere? If fire breaks out and toxins spread what will it take to clean those up? How long would we potentially live out of our homes.

The project will be “eventually owned” by a company in France –does that free them from responsibility as they are a non-American company? Again, if disaster strikes, how does Dunkirk make a company in France respond?

If our houses drop in value because buyers have to take into account they live near a storage facility — who is going to pay for that? Anyone living within four to eight blocks of the facility — should you start selling now before your homes decrease in value?

Finally, who disposes of spent battery units (apparently they last 10 to 15 years)–and to whose landfill do they go?

I know it has been said the latest facilities are “safer.” Nevertheless, I want answers. This is not just about being “afraid” of new technology. It is about thinking before we act.

When these questions are answered, let the public decide. I vote no until every question is answered.

Diane Andrasik is a Dunkirk resident.