Why This Page Exists
We are committed to publishing accurate, verifiable information. When we discover that a figure, claim, or statistic we published was imprecise or incorrect, we correct it everywhere on the site and log the change here.
If you saved a screenshot or shared content from an earlier version of this site, you can check this page to see whether anything has changed.
Corrections are listed newest first. All acreage and population figures are sourced from a single internal dataset used across every page, so a correction here propagates everywhere at once.
-
Previously stated: Ewelina Connolly was listed as 'Ewelina Connolly for Allen County Commissioner' on the supporters page and in the FAQ schema answer, framing her as an active candidate for that office.
Corrected to: Connolly narrowly lost the May 6, 2026 Republican primary for Allen County Commissioner District 3 (10,556 votes vs. 10,623 for Paul Moss). Her campaign has concluded. She is now listed as 'Ewelina Connolly' — a community supporter — without the active-campaign designation. Her statement and opposition remain unchanged. Wesley Haffenden won his Democratic primary for Indiana State Representative District 83 and remains listed as 'Wesley Haffenden for Indiana' (advancing to the November 2026 general election).
-
Previously stated: Total acquisition target published as ~1,548 acres, and land outside the rezoning application published as 635 acres.
Corrected to: Allen County parcel 02-11-33-176-001.000-038 (~56 acres at 11819 Redding Dr, Aboite Township) was omitted from the total. This parcel is targeted for acquisition by Heritage Group but is not included in their rezoning application. Adding it brings the total acquisition target to ~1,604 acres and the land outside the current application to ~691 acres (1,604 − 913). Acreage calculated from the parcel polygon via the Indiana 2025 Parcel Boundaries dataset (UTM Zone 16N).
-
Previously stated: 26 landmark popup tooltips displayed a mojibake sequence (UTF-8 en-dash bytes misread as Windows-1252) instead of the correct en dash character (–). Emmanuel Christian School popup text stated "approx. 1.9 miles from site" — this figure was based on the old GPS coordinates. Nine neighborhood distance_mi values were also stale relative to the current refined site boundary polygon.
Corrected to: All 26 mojibake sequences replaced with the correct en dash (–). Emmanuel Christian School coordinates corrected to the verified location (lat 41.01634, lng -85.30133); haversine measurement from the site boundary confirms 0.95 miles — inside the 1-mile screening ring — so popup updated to "approx. 0.9 miles from site". Nine neighborhood distance_mi fields recalculated via recalc-distances.py against the refined boundary polygon.
-
Previously stated: The Little River was described as flowing east out of the proposed site area into Huntington County.
Corrected to: The Little River flows west out of the proposed site area into Huntington County.
-
Previously stated: The "claim vs. reality" zoning callout described I3 (Heavy Industrial) as "the classification required for a quarry and asphalt/concrete complex" — implying the quarry pit itself requires I3 zoning.
Corrected to: In Allen County, the quarry pit is rezoned to a separate Quarry zoning district (the ~524-acre Quarry zone in the filing), not I3. The I3 — Heavy Industrial classification is required for the asphalt plants and concrete batch plant that would operate alongside the quarry (the ~186-acre I3 zone in the filing). The callout labels and headline paragraph were updated on all three surfaces — the YAML data file, the reusable callout include, and the generator script — to reflect this distinction. The underlying 1-mile zoning figures (0 acres I3; 70.4% agricultural, 22.5% residential, 6.7% commercial, 0.4% industrial) are unchanged.
-
Previously stated: The property-value decline model was fit to a single study (Hite et al. 2001) using exponential decay and then multiplied by a 1.22 "industry" factor intended to capture the combined quarry + asphalt + concrete + rail complex. The 1.22 factor's +0.10 / +0.05 / +0.07 sub-weights were author-assigned engineering judgment, not drawn from peer-reviewed literature. Point estimates were reported with a narrative ±20% uncertainty band that did not reflect the actual spread across the supporting studies. Headline figures at the time: ~$261 million day-one equity loss and ~$1.88 billion by year 80 across 4,306 aggregated single-family homes. The page also did not acknowledge that homes close enough to an active quarry to become effectively unsellable drop out of hedonic sale-price datasets entirely — a market-failure outcome the model could not capture.
Corrected to: Replaced the single-study exponential + 1.22 multiplier with a log-linear least-squares meta-regression against six peer-reviewed hedonic anchor points: Currie et al. (2015) at 0.5 mi, Hite et al. (2001) at 1 / 2 / 3 mi (three anchors), Lavee & Bahar (2017) at ~1 mi, and Kolala et al. (2020) at 0.75 mi (sample-weighted midpoint within her 2 km bracket). Switched the functional form from exponential to power-law — exponential plateaus at its intercept and systematically understated close-range impact; power-law rises sharper toward the site boundary and drops more cleanly through the mid-range, better matching both Kolala's near-site bracket and residents' lived experience near operating quarries. The author-invented 1.22 industry multiplier was removed; multi-source (quarry + asphalt + concrete + rail) effects are now argued qualitatively on /the-threat/ rather than baked into the hedonic curve. The uncertainty band is now residual-derived (95% CI = point estimate ×/÷ 2.297) instead of a narrative ±20%. Revised curve: decline = 11.66% × distance^(−0.526); R² = 0.451 across the six anchors. Revised headline figures: ~$193 million day-one equity loss and ~$1.39 billion by year 80 (aggregate is close to the prior number because near-site impact rose while outer-band impact fell — the curve redistributed rather than re-scaled). Per-band decline percentages revised from 25 / 23 / 19 / 15 (old) to 27 / 19 / 13 / 9 (current). Close-range impact is now framed as a floor, not a ceiling: the ~27% point estimate for bordering homes is the value conditional on sale — homes that become unsellable at any price face near-100% equity loss, an outcome hedonic regression cannot capture. All per-home pages, the equity table, and the aggregate dollar figures were regenerated from the new curve. The change was made after a self-critique surfaced that the single-study anchor, the author-invented multiplier, and the omission of market-failure language were the model's most attackable elements under adversarial review.
-
Previously stated: Published acreage math stated 917 acres in the current rezoning application and 631 acres outside the application.
Corrected to: Acreage math has been corrected using explicit formulas from base filing values: rezoning application = 203 (SC commercial) + 186 (I3) + 524 (quarry zone) = 913 acres; land outside the current application = 1,548 total acquisition target minus 913 = 635 acres. The 710-acre industrial/quarry footprint remains unchanged (186 + 524).
-
Previously stated: The site was described as 1,600 acres of industrial development — treating the entire estimated land area as the industrial footprint.
Corrected to: Parcel boundary data confirms approximately 1,548 acres targeted for acquisition. Of those, 917 acres are in the current rezoning application: a 710-acre industrial/quarry footprint (186-acre I3 zone + 524-acre quarry zone) plus a 203-acre SC commercial zone. The remaining 631 acres are Heritage-targeted land not included in the current application.
-
Previously stated: Population estimates within 1, 3, and 5 miles of the site were produced using a centroid point-buffer and a less granular census parsing method, resulting in higher published figures.
Corrected to: Figures were recalculated using area-weighted proportional allocation applied to Census ACS 2023 block groups, measured from the confirmed site parcel polygon boundary (not a centroid estimate): approximately 5,400 residents within 1 mile, 24,600 within 3 miles, and 62,700 within 5 miles.
-
Previously stated: The site boundary polygon used for impact calculations and map display had 14 coarse vertices with higher-precision decimal coordinates.
Corrected to: Site polygon refined to a more accurate boundary with additional vertices and coordinates rounded to 6 decimal places. Census figures recalculated from the new boundary; results are unchanged: approximately 5,400 residents within 1 mile, 24,600 within 3 miles, and 62,700 within 5 miles. Impact ring map zones regenerated from the refined boundary.
📬 Spotted something that needs correcting? Email us at noquarryonhomestead@gmail.com and we will review it promptly.