Residents tell Whitfield commissioners odors, PFAS and development harm south county communities

A string of public commenters at the Dec. 8 Whitfield County commissioners meeting told the board that long-standing PFAS contamination, recent industrial facilities and poultry operations are creating persistent odors and health problems in the county’s south end.

Martha Bradford of Redwine Cove, who identified herself as a PFAS advocate, described personal and neighborhood health struggles: "It is so sickening. It is nauseating," she said of emissions she links to a processing plant at Carbondale Park. Bradford said she has been treated at multiple major hospitals and that many neighbors have experienced cancer. She urged the board to act on odors and community needs, including grocery and medical services.

Richard Hall told the board the company Essentia Protein Company (described by the speaker as producing pet-food ingredients) emits a smell that prevents children from playing outside and forces residents to shop in neighboring counties. He and other speakers also complained that construction traffic for a recently approved data center is using Tilton Road despite posted restrictions.

Philip King of Dalton criticized the county’s development strategy, saying growth has been pursued without adequately weighing pollution, traffic and rising local taxes. He told commissioners that a recent data center deal later received a "50% tax abatement from the joint Whitfield Authority," an assertion the meeting record did not document further. "We're not seeing the benefits," King said, noting property-tax increases in recent years.

Other speakers — including Rose Dean, Stacy Doran, Karen Roark and Sandra Ellis — echoed concerns about odors, children's outdoor time and local infrastructure. Karen Roark raised detailed complaints about drainage and roadwork that, she said, encroached on private land and remain unresolved despite county contact. Multiple speakers asked commissioners to visit the affected neighborhoods and to prioritize preservation and residents’ health over additional industrial approvals.

Board response and follow-up: commissioners acknowledged the concerns and said staff would follow up. No formal enforcement actions, health-study commitments or company representatives responded during the meeting. Several speakers said they had submitted petitions or met privately with staff to oppose past rezoning requests; at least one rezoning item in the meeting was postponed at the developer's request.

What remains unresolved: residents made several substantive claims — including unusually high local cancer rates and a specific tax-abatement arrangement — that were asserted but not documented during the meeting. The board did not produce testing data, regulatory findings or company statements on the record; follow-up from county staff or outside agencies would be needed to substantiate the health and regulatory claims.