Everyone is bleating about the cost of the SFRR-to-Ragged Mountain pipeline. Has anyone else noticed that in order to keep the current system working, we would still have to replace the failing pipeline from Sugar Hollow, or am I the only citizen out here that remembers that plank from the original "State of the Water Supply" reports in the planning process? Regardless of which method you choose there's a pipeline cost involved. So what are the comparative costs of the two pipelines?
The other costs in the system--repair & upgrade to two water treatment plants--would have happen no matter which method you choose as well. These are basic infrastructure costs that have to be done. You have to figure them into both plans, otherwise you are not comparing apples to apples.
All of this seems to me to be very misleading. Dredging isn't a silver bullet, if dredging costs $56 million yet has to be done over and over again. $56 million next year, $56 million 5 years from now, $56 million 5 years after that--not very cost effective. And let's face it, that suggested airport runway only needs to be built once.
For the South Fork to be viable as a long-term water supply plan, you have to figure in the costs of addressing the reasons for its excessive sedimentation. What are those? Does that happen because there's too much farmland and impervious surfacing around the waters flowing to it or are there other causes? If a study were done, it might be found that we cannot sufficiently impede the sediment continually filling up South Fork. Or it might be found that it's possible to do, but the cost of addressing the causes of sedimentation far exceed what we would be willing to pay as a community. Still, this is a plank that needs to be address when comparing possible plans for long-term water supply.
In which case, a Ragged Mountain upgrade would be vastly less expensive over both the near and long term, since that dam does not have a sedimentation issue, due to the limited open-water feeders to that reservoir.
Oh, and the reservoir running under 64? Isn't that a red herring argument? We already have a very long bridge on Earlysville Road which runs over the South Fork reservoir. We're already taking that risk with our water supply--we chose to take it many years ago.
I also want to see a comparison of the environmental cost of losing the trees around Ragged Mountain versus the environmental gains from releasing flows that would bring two streams back to their natural state. Every time someone puts in a new subdivision in Albemarle County, we lose that many trees--it's a cost we're familiar with. But what are the benefits of having natural flows, particularly in the Moorman's (which now runs, I think, at a mere 67%)? Does our natural habitat's biological diversity rest in the headwaters? If so, then restoring the Moorman's could have a greater impact in preserving our overall environment than saving the trees further south at Moore's Creek would. And what is the environmental cost of finding the acreage to dewater all that silt, time and time again? I know we covered this when we were going through the water supply planning process (for years), but those arguments have gotten lost in this kerfluffle. Someone please tell me the environmental gains from the Ragged Mountain plan again?
I'd like the Citizen's Water Supply group to address some of these, since they have chosen to take on the position "New dam = bad." If they want to sell me on their solution, they have to do more than give me a negative bill of goods on the solution that we all thought was so brilliant last year. I'm tired of negative campaigning.
Oh, and the arguments can't be based upon curbing growth. I already accept that growth will slow in the coming years. However, for 3 years running we've had water restrictions in place. It's not the 2002 drought I measure against. I measure against the number of months each year in which we have water restrictions based on lack of rainfall. Those months are increasing. We DO have a growing water supply problem and it's current--it has nothing to do with projected growth in my mind. Perhaps we should make those restrictions permanent--I think there's a strong argument for that. But can anyone prove to me with numbers that permanent water restrictions will address basic water supply over the next 50 years if, every year, we are taking more out of the system than is replaced by rainfall? And can anyone prove to me that there's the will on the part of our residents to permanently change their water use habits to meet those numbers?
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
25 March 2008
21 February 2008
Water Supply--The Combined Form
The Progress, Cville, Hook, Cville Tomorrow, and Cvillenews.com have all covered the water supply debate. To buy wholly into the Cville Water Supply group's position throws out years of discussion and planning. I don't think that's wise. Furthermore, I am beginning to resent the "We should do this, not that" presentation of the arguments. For once, can we get beyond the "my way or highway" mentality surrounding this issue? The only two people I have consistently seen demonstrate an openness to amend plans backed up by practical knowledg of workable solutions are Ridge Schuyler and Tom Frederick. They've been getting short shrift from the media these days, and have certainly taken a pounding in the recent "debates," but they still remain open. For this, they deserve a lot more respect and better treatment than what they've gotten.
I cannot speak for all of us who support the Ragged Mountain Dam/South Fork pipeline option, but I can say that I see the dredging of the SFRR as a separate issue. And I support both.
Dredging the SFRR is, in my opinion, a short-term solution. The problem with the South Fork is sedimentation--specifically a high rate of sedimentation than an expert (and I am not one, but I talk with them frequently) would deem normal. That is true throughout our watershed, by the way. There is too much erosion, too much sediment in our watershed overall (my guess is that it's due to overdevelopment and poor stormwater management practices/systems), and it is silting in SFRR. Until we can get a handle on how to slow and eventually stop that process, the monies we spend dredging the South Fork now will need to be followed up with more monies to dredge it again. How soon, I do not know. But, again, I would guess that, without more monies spent on drastic, remedial buffer repair and streambank restoration, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot.
This I do know: Vegetation takes time to root, that means it will be a while before it can do its job of filtering sedmiment from a stormwater event before it hits an open watercourse like a stream or river. Whether we decide to do restoration work on the open courses that feed the SFRR or not, we will still have a sedimentation problem for years. To me, therefore, dredging the SFRR as a water-supply solution it does not sound like a great option for the near haul. For a 50-year plan, yes, but for a 10-year or 20-year plan, not so much.
As Kevin Lynch has so frequently pointed out, this is the kind of infrastructure project that has to be done in phases. What sense does it make to spend most of your front-end money working on a project that does not have a front-end return?
For that reason, I support raising the Ragged Mountain Dam and building the pipeline from SFRR. But what I would like to see is a combination of these goals. This could be produced by raising the RM dam 20-22 feet (not the full height) and building the pipeline in the first phase. As Tom Frederick has pointed out several times, to apparently deaf ears, this would also satisfy DEQ permits already received.
While that is going on, get a second estimate on dredging and let the Rivanna Basin Commission do its job by reporting back on what it would take to alleviate the sediment issues around the South Fork. Dredging the South Fork once makes sense, because the job might pay for itself given that the airport needs the dirt. Dredging it multiple times if the causes of sedimentation aren't addressed doesn't.
Then, if it seems that the sedimentation issues can be addressed, look into the costs of that project and incorporate them into the second phase of the water-supply project. If it can't be addressed, then look into raising Ragged Mountain the rest of the way.
This is a more nuanced position than I'm hearing out there from the cvillewater.info group. It's not a sexy option, it's a practical option. It allows RWSA to get on with its business of actually proving to the state we're going to do something about water supply while still keeping the dredging door open provided further information proves the project long-term viable.
I cannot speak for all of us who support the Ragged Mountain Dam/South Fork pipeline option, but I can say that I see the dredging of the SFRR as a separate issue. And I support both.
Dredging the SFRR is, in my opinion, a short-term solution. The problem with the South Fork is sedimentation--specifically a high rate of sedimentation than an expert (and I am not one, but I talk with them frequently) would deem normal. That is true throughout our watershed, by the way. There is too much erosion, too much sediment in our watershed overall (my guess is that it's due to overdevelopment and poor stormwater management practices/systems), and it is silting in SFRR. Until we can get a handle on how to slow and eventually stop that process, the monies we spend dredging the South Fork now will need to be followed up with more monies to dredge it again. How soon, I do not know. But, again, I would guess that, without more monies spent on drastic, remedial buffer repair and streambank restoration, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot.
This I do know: Vegetation takes time to root, that means it will be a while before it can do its job of filtering sedmiment from a stormwater event before it hits an open watercourse like a stream or river. Whether we decide to do restoration work on the open courses that feed the SFRR or not, we will still have a sedimentation problem for years. To me, therefore, dredging the SFRR as a water-supply solution it does not sound like a great option for the near haul. For a 50-year plan, yes, but for a 10-year or 20-year plan, not so much.
As Kevin Lynch has so frequently pointed out, this is the kind of infrastructure project that has to be done in phases. What sense does it make to spend most of your front-end money working on a project that does not have a front-end return?
For that reason, I support raising the Ragged Mountain Dam and building the pipeline from SFRR. But what I would like to see is a combination of these goals. This could be produced by raising the RM dam 20-22 feet (not the full height) and building the pipeline in the first phase. As Tom Frederick has pointed out several times, to apparently deaf ears, this would also satisfy DEQ permits already received.
While that is going on, get a second estimate on dredging and let the Rivanna Basin Commission do its job by reporting back on what it would take to alleviate the sediment issues around the South Fork. Dredging the South Fork once makes sense, because the job might pay for itself given that the airport needs the dirt. Dredging it multiple times if the causes of sedimentation aren't addressed doesn't.
Then, if it seems that the sedimentation issues can be addressed, look into the costs of that project and incorporate them into the second phase of the water-supply project. If it can't be addressed, then look into raising Ragged Mountain the rest of the way.
This is a more nuanced position than I'm hearing out there from the cvillewater.info group. It's not a sexy option, it's a practical option. It allows RWSA to get on with its business of actually proving to the state we're going to do something about water supply while still keeping the dredging door open provided further information proves the project long-term viable.
10 January 2008
Who Is Mike Gravel?
Just when I thought I knew who I was voting for...
91% Mike Gravel
89% John Edwards
88% Dennis Kucinich
86% Chris Dodd
86% Barack Obama
86% Bill Richardson
84% Hillary Clinton
79% Joe Biden
37% Rudy Giuliani
33% John McCain
25% Ron Paul
25% Mike Huckabee
21% Mitt Romney
21% Tom Tancredo
15% Fred Thompson
2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz
I also matched Gravel 91% on a blind poll put up at VAJoe.com -- the cool thing about this one is you have simple choices, no prioritization, no slant to the questions, and no clue how it will come out 'til it's done. http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html
Anyone I agree with 91% of the time hasn't a hope in Hades of actually winning at the federal level.
91% Mike Gravel
89% John Edwards
88% Dennis Kucinich
86% Chris Dodd
86% Barack Obama
86% Bill Richardson
84% Hillary Clinton
79% Joe Biden
37% Rudy Giuliani
33% John McCain
25% Ron Paul
25% Mike Huckabee
21% Mitt Romney
21% Tom Tancredo
15% Fred Thompson
2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz
I also matched Gravel 91% on a blind poll put up at VAJoe.com -- the cool thing about this one is you have simple choices, no prioritization, no slant to the questions, and no clue how it will come out 'til it's done. http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html
Anyone I agree with 91% of the time hasn't a hope in Hades of actually winning at the federal level.
14 September 2007
Representivity
I fully admit this is a mini-rant directly derived from the Board of Supervisors' inane approval of the Biscuit Run and Hollymead developments. And it's tangental, not on point. [If you want to get into a really good dissing of that newspiece, Cvillenews.com has a great convo going on here, which has spilled over to the convo on local supes races here.]
\begin rant
What I see in the Albemarle Board of Supervisors and in the Virginia General Assembly is a trend of elected officials who don't know what it means to represent. They spend so much time politicking at the golf course and schmoozing at the tailgate party that they have forgotten what it means to listen to their districts, and put the needs of their regions ahead of their own (or, worse, their friends') agendas.
Once you get into office, your job is to do right by all of the people in your district at whatever governmental level you hold position. If a proposal is (1) against the public good and/or (2) against the public's interest, and/or (3) against the public's will, it is your job to oppose it.
You were elected to listen to us so that you can represent us--all of us, equally and fairly, regardless of what party you adhere to, regardless of what party (if any) we belong to. It's really that simple. Now go do that job for a change.
/end rant
\begin rant
What I see in the Albemarle Board of Supervisors and in the Virginia General Assembly is a trend of elected officials who don't know what it means to represent. They spend so much time politicking at the golf course and schmoozing at the tailgate party that they have forgotten what it means to listen to their districts, and put the needs of their regions ahead of their own (or, worse, their friends') agendas.
Once you get into office, your job is to do right by all of the people in your district at whatever governmental level you hold position. If a proposal is (1) against the public good and/or (2) against the public's interest, and/or (3) against the public's will, it is your job to oppose it.
You were elected to listen to us so that you can represent us--all of us, equally and fairly, regardless of what party you adhere to, regardless of what party (if any) we belong to. It's really that simple. Now go do that job for a change.
/end rant
19 August 2007
Warrantless Search & Seizure ?!?!
From the NY Times:
Way to go, Dem Congress. You handed a lame-duck president with a Napolean complex and an abysmal record on violating Constitutional rights and claiming executive privilege carte blanche to spy on and terrorize his own citizens.
Given our past issues with this administration on precisely these types of surveillance violations, when did you decide it was not a good idea to read the bill before passing it?
Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.
Way to go, Dem Congress. You handed a lame-duck president with a Napolean complex and an abysmal record on violating Constitutional rights and claiming executive privilege carte blanche to spy on and terrorize his own citizens.
Given our past issues with this administration on precisely these types of surveillance violations, when did you decide it was not a good idea to read the bill before passing it?
08 March 2007
NJ Sup. Ct. Supports Condemnation For Slowing Growth
In Mount Laurel Township v. MiPro Homes, L.L.C., 188 N.J. 531, 10 A.2d 617 (2006), the Supreme Court of New Jersey upheld a governing municipal body's desire to slow residential development by ruling that such is a permissible motive for condemning a developer's land. (Mount Laurel made headlines three decades ago for two landmark affordable housing decisions involving land-use planning, Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 67 N.J. 151, 336 A.2d 713 (1975), and its companion case at 92 N.J. 158, 456 A.2d 390 (1983).)
In Virginia right now, we can't even condemn on the solid, scientific basis of lack of supporting natural resources, let alone on something as nebulous as a "master plan" or "public will." But wouldn't it be nice?
In light of the buzz re: growth issues which effect Albemarle and many other state jurisdictions [{cough} Loudoun {cough}]), I'm hoping this take-notice will motivate local anti-growth activists to take a look at New Jersey's growing body of case law, find from that the particular NJ Code §§ which allow for such scope of municipal power, extrapolate the changes needed to mirror those rights and powers, and petition the Virginia state legislature to make the suitable changes.
Obviously, this would be a campaign that would take more than ASAP, but could possibly be accomplished were ASAP to team up with other regional and statewide groups with similar ends.
In Virginia right now, we can't even condemn on the solid, scientific basis of lack of supporting natural resources, let alone on something as nebulous as a "master plan" or "public will." But wouldn't it be nice?
In light of the buzz re: growth issues which effect Albemarle and many other state jurisdictions [{cough} Loudoun {cough}]), I'm hoping this take-notice will motivate local anti-growth activists to take a look at New Jersey's growing body of case law, find from that the particular NJ Code §§ which allow for such scope of municipal power, extrapolate the changes needed to mirror those rights and powers, and petition the Virginia state legislature to make the suitable changes.
Obviously, this would be a campaign that would take more than ASAP, but could possibly be accomplished were ASAP to team up with other regional and statewide groups with similar ends.
05 March 2007
Al Gore's Own Truth
Inconvenient though it might be, Al Gore had to expect that someone would call him to task for not walking his talk. It seems that the Presidential poster boy for global warming is melting under home energy bills that almost reach $30,000/year. Yep, that's all just for his residence near Nashville. It doesn't factor in his transportation fuel and energy consumption while on tour/business.
I'm not sayin' he should put up or shut up, but, Mr. Gore, it's hard to respect your position when you are using 200 X more electricity than the average American household. It's not like we're good at conservation to begin with, as you've justly and ironically pointed out.
I'm not sayin' he should put up or shut up, but, Mr. Gore, it's hard to respect your position when you are using 200 X more electricity than the average American household. It's not like we're good at conservation to begin with, as you've justly and ironically pointed out.
09 February 2007
Hamstringing the Locals
Once again, the State Legislature, in its infinite wisdom, is setting about hamstringing local government. Goddess forbid that the people be allowed to decide anything for themselves, except who to elect as their masters.
Sponsored by John Cosgrove (R-78 (Chesapeake)), the bill
Great. First, the State won't fund any of the mandates it hands down. Then, it refuses to let the Municipalities figure out how to fund those mandates in lieu. Wait.... I think I've made that very same bitch before on this blog. Seems to be a recurring theme.
Is it too much to ask that the friggin' taxophobic eejits in the House keep their psychosis in Richmond and out of municipal government? I'm not saying I favor taxes. I'm saying let us decide whether they are needed and what kind would serve us best. That's all I'm saying. This may be another one for the Randy Pat School of Politics.
Sponsored by John Cosgrove (R-78 (Chesapeake)), the bill
[r]equires each locality to lower its real estate tax rate for the forthcoming tax year, to produce no more than 101 percent of the previous year's real property tax levies when any annual assessment, biennial assessment or general reassessment of real property by the locality would result in an increase of 1 percent or more in the total real property tax levied.
Great. First, the State won't fund any of the mandates it hands down. Then, it refuses to let the Municipalities figure out how to fund those mandates in lieu. Wait.... I think I've made that very same bitch before on this blog. Seems to be a recurring theme.
Is it too much to ask that the friggin' taxophobic eejits in the House keep their psychosis in Richmond and out of municipal government? I'm not saying I favor taxes. I'm saying let us decide whether they are needed and what kind would serve us best. That's all I'm saying. This may be another one for the Randy Pat School of Politics.
Drafting Al
The Draft Al Gore site has remade their soundbyte to match the currents of today's political waters:
A far cry from "wooden" and "uncharismatic," which were the two predominant adjectives to describe Gore's 2004 run. The petition already has 27,228 signatures.
What are the chances?
He's eloquent, passionate, relentless, undaunted. The first political figure to oppose the Iraq war, Al Gore is also the lead champion in the fight against global warming, a passionate defender of our Constitution, and an unyielding voice against the Bush Administration's abuse of power.
A far cry from "wooden" and "uncharismatic," which were the two predominant adjectives to describe Gore's 2004 run. The petition already has 27,228 signatures.
What are the chances?
07 February 2007
Three Meetings and a Funeral
Sunday, Earth Week had its third meeting of the year, and as excited as I am about our line-up of activities, I surely wish ya'll would plan some activities for mid-week. We don't so much have an Earth Week as we have 2 overbooked Earth Weekends with time off for napping in between.
Monday, sometime after everyone said his piece on traffic issues, City Council approved the special use permit so that Compass, the homeless day center, can move into its new home. Congratulations, Compass!
Tuesday, the Rivanna Conservation Society had its board meeting, during which I drank a pot of coffee while we discussed improvements to Schier Natural Area, finding sponsors for the 2007 Rivanna River Days Calendar Brochure (click if you would like to list a river event or become a partner), the best procedure for sharing information from our own proprietorial research with the new Chville Commission on Environmental Sustainability (being both Advocacy chair for RCS and a Commission member, I shook hands with my inner schizophrenic for 20 minutes of discourse), and our Third Thursdays Brown Bag Lunch series on watershed issues (and about 2 dozen other topics).
Then I came home and looked up the results of today's roll call vote in both chambers on HB3113 and SB1403. Both passed. I'm appalled at the short-sightedness of the decision to merge all 3 citizen review boards into 1 entity. It is impossible to find 11 people to sit on the new "Environmental Quality Board" who are expert in all three media: Waste Management, Water Control, and Air Pollution. The new board will not be able to provide the same level of specialized knowledge, attention to detail, and competency that the individual boards had. Furthermore, by taking the permitting authority out of the board and handing it to DEQ, the General Assembly has completely cut the public out of the process. Is anyone else out there feeling that closed government love yet? Doesn't seem like anyone outside the enviro community cares, even though this bill--soon to be law--will effect municipal-level voices in land use, industry, and economic development as well as natural resources.
So, I'm hoping that enough people out there read this and call their state representatives to demand that the House bill's "re-enactment clause" stay in the final, reconciled version of the bill. If the Senate's version ends up on Gov. Kaine's desk, I'll be planning a funeral (or at least a memorium) for the last bastion of public voice in the regulatory process. Let me know if you'd like to come. Rum and tequila will be required; black armbands will be optional.
Monday, sometime after everyone said his piece on traffic issues, City Council approved the special use permit so that Compass, the homeless day center, can move into its new home. Congratulations, Compass!
Tuesday, the Rivanna Conservation Society had its board meeting, during which I drank a pot of coffee while we discussed improvements to Schier Natural Area, finding sponsors for the 2007 Rivanna River Days Calendar Brochure (click if you would like to list a river event or become a partner), the best procedure for sharing information from our own proprietorial research with the new Chville Commission on Environmental Sustainability (being both Advocacy chair for RCS and a Commission member, I shook hands with my inner schizophrenic for 20 minutes of discourse), and our Third Thursdays Brown Bag Lunch series on watershed issues (and about 2 dozen other topics).
Then I came home and looked up the results of today's roll call vote in both chambers on HB3113 and SB1403. Both passed. I'm appalled at the short-sightedness of the decision to merge all 3 citizen review boards into 1 entity. It is impossible to find 11 people to sit on the new "Environmental Quality Board" who are expert in all three media: Waste Management, Water Control, and Air Pollution. The new board will not be able to provide the same level of specialized knowledge, attention to detail, and competency that the individual boards had. Furthermore, by taking the permitting authority out of the board and handing it to DEQ, the General Assembly has completely cut the public out of the process. Is anyone else out there feeling that closed government love yet? Doesn't seem like anyone outside the enviro community cares, even though this bill--soon to be law--will effect municipal-level voices in land use, industry, and economic development as well as natural resources.
So, I'm hoping that enough people out there read this and call their state representatives to demand that the House bill's "re-enactment clause" stay in the final, reconciled version of the bill. If the Senate's version ends up on Gov. Kaine's desk, I'll be planning a funeral (or at least a memorium) for the last bastion of public voice in the regulatory process. Let me know if you'd like to come. Rum and tequila will be required; black armbands will be optional.
06 February 2007
Warner Filibusters, Jams Own Bill
Last Friday, the Senate GOP threatened to filibuster the resolution to oppose Bush's additional troops to Iraq. Ironically, the bill was introduced by our own Republican Senator, John Warner, who ended his conflict of interest in favor of being a stand-up party guy. Warner voted with 48 other Republican Senators to block the bill from being debated and voted upon until 3 alternate versions of the bill--one of which actually supports Bush's surge--could be included in the free-for-all.
Uh... Come again? What measure are we voting on?
Uh... Come again? What measure are we voting on?
01 February 2007
Landes, Striking a Pose, Strikes the Public
As reported by Waldo yesterday, Del. Steve Landes (R-25) introduced HR45, a bill doomed to failure because it threatened to address accusations of closed government, back-room dealing on the part of the House Republicans, who apparently object to the public's right to know what happens on the House floor and in its subcommittees.
We thought Landes struck a blow, exposing a rift between sensible, responsible Republicans who view themselves as representatives of their constituents, and the manipulative, controlling arse-wipe Republicans who believe the people who elected them should be treated like preschoolers and fed an unbalanced diet of all the state government news that they think is fit.
Instead of a blow, Landes struck a pose. Enter House Bill 3113, on which Landes is also listed as Chief Patron. HB 3113 consolidates the State Air Pollution Control Board, the State Water Control Board, and the Waste Management Board--all of which are appointed, expert, citizen oversight boards--into one eleven-member board called the "Virginia Board of Environmental Quality," which will have absolutely no power to issue permits and licenses, nor to hold public hearings on any issues with which it deals. Those duties will be streamlined and given to the DEQ, which has no valid citizen input mechanism and which is not beholden to an electorate for its position and authority.
In other words, Landes, yesterday's darling for defying his fellow House Republicans by asserting John Q. Public's Right to Know about his state government, has done a complete about-face and is now asserting that John Q. Public should have no authority nor voice in the very critical matters of air and water quality and waste control; in fact, no authority in anything having to do with state natural resource distribution, conservation, and protection, including, apparently, land use and industrial placement and discharge.
The only way that I can interpret this 180 is that Landes was lying about wanting to institute a House deliberations broadcast and, instead, was proposing HR45 to save face for himself and/or his party.
Landes is the delegate for the 25th District, which includes western Albemarle, Augusta, Waynesboro, and Rockingham. He comes up for reelection in 2008. May I suggest to concerned Albemarle citizens that you replace him? I don't care if you elect a Republican or a Democrat, or a Libertarian. Just, please, elect someone who thinks that constituents should have a say in government.
We thought Landes struck a blow, exposing a rift between sensible, responsible Republicans who view themselves as representatives of their constituents, and the manipulative, controlling arse-wipe Republicans who believe the people who elected them should be treated like preschoolers and fed an unbalanced diet of all the state government news that they think is fit.
Instead of a blow, Landes struck a pose. Enter House Bill 3113, on which Landes is also listed as Chief Patron. HB 3113 consolidates the State Air Pollution Control Board, the State Water Control Board, and the Waste Management Board--all of which are appointed, expert, citizen oversight boards--into one eleven-member board called the "Virginia Board of Environmental Quality," which will have absolutely no power to issue permits and licenses, nor to hold public hearings on any issues with which it deals. Those duties will be streamlined and given to the DEQ, which has no valid citizen input mechanism and which is not beholden to an electorate for its position and authority.
In other words, Landes, yesterday's darling for defying his fellow House Republicans by asserting John Q. Public's Right to Know about his state government, has done a complete about-face and is now asserting that John Q. Public should have no authority nor voice in the very critical matters of air and water quality and waste control; in fact, no authority in anything having to do with state natural resource distribution, conservation, and protection, including, apparently, land use and industrial placement and discharge.
The only way that I can interpret this 180 is that Landes was lying about wanting to institute a House deliberations broadcast and, instead, was proposing HR45 to save face for himself and/or his party.
Landes is the delegate for the 25th District, which includes western Albemarle, Augusta, Waynesboro, and Rockingham. He comes up for reelection in 2008. May I suggest to concerned Albemarle citizens that you replace him? I don't care if you elect a Republican or a Democrat, or a Libertarian. Just, please, elect someone who thinks that constituents should have a say in government.
Will the State Scrap Its Citizen Advisory Boards?
Consolidating the state water control, air quality, and waste management boards and handing their decision-making powers over to DEQ may make getting permits easier, but it sure won't help the environment. (Times-Dispatch)
Advisory boards are a primary way for citizens to participate in the regulatory process on natural resource issues. DEQ, as a number-crunching organization, may be able to tell you whether a particular construction will have some detrimental effect on the surrounding environment, but DEQ does not always know what's best for a community as a whole. Moreover, and DEQ staffers are not elected to their positions--which means they have no reason to care what a particular community wants and or needs. All they will need to know is whether a plant or farm or special use variation meets their guidelines. In such a system, there would be no balance between what a developer/industry deems possible to do and what the region receiving that development/industry wants done.
This seems to me an excellent plan for short-circuiting any public input in and control over basic natural resource distribution and quality, if that's your goal. It seems that that is Landes's goal.
Advisory boards are a primary way for citizens to participate in the regulatory process on natural resource issues. DEQ, as a number-crunching organization, may be able to tell you whether a particular construction will have some detrimental effect on the surrounding environment, but DEQ does not always know what's best for a community as a whole. Moreover, and DEQ staffers are not elected to their positions--which means they have no reason to care what a particular community wants and or needs. All they will need to know is whether a plant or farm or special use variation meets their guidelines. In such a system, there would be no balance between what a developer/industry deems possible to do and what the region receiving that development/industry wants done.
This seems to me an excellent plan for short-circuiting any public input in and control over basic natural resource distribution and quality, if that's your goal. It seems that that is Landes's goal.
22 January 2007
Red Hot Funding: Election 2008 Goes Private
Updated just 3 minutes ago, the New York Times reports that Senator Hillary Clinton has elected to eschew public funding of her 2008 Presidential campaign, fully confident that she can raise far more in private monies than the $150 million that would be granted her by the public election funds without those pesky spending limits.
Word on the street has it that Senator John McCain, Hillary's opposite member from the Republican line-up is seriously considering doing likewise. The former champion of campaign finance reform just took his name off a bill that would expand the presidential public financing program.
Now that's interesting...
Word on the street has it that Senator John McCain, Hillary's opposite member from the Republican line-up is seriously considering doing likewise. The former champion of campaign finance reform just took his name off a bill that would expand the presidential public financing program.
Now that's interesting...
McCain Opposed to ... Bush?
It's rare that I speak out on military matters in general or the Iraq war in particular, but this tidbit from the Post got me riled. Apparently John McCain, frontrunner for the Republican 2008 nod, has decided he doesn't like Gen. George W. Casey Jr.'s nomination as Bush's new Army Chief of Staff because Casey has presided over a "failure of policy" in Iraq.
My question to Senator McCain: If you think Gen. Casey is unfit to command on those grounds, it is logical to presume you equally think the Commander-in-Chief who devised and instituted that failed policy is unfit to lead. So, why are you still supporting George W. Bush, you flaming hypocrite?
My question to Senator McCain: If you think Gen. Casey is unfit to command on those grounds, it is logical to presume you equally think the Commander-in-Chief who devised and instituted that failed policy is unfit to lead. So, why are you still supporting George W. Bush, you flaming hypocrite?
Barack Not an Island
According to the League of Conservation Voters, Barack Obama's senatorial record on environmental issues is nearly perfect. At a time when most congress members were ignoring inconvenient truths, Obama made speeches about how global warming was a reality we needed to address sooner rather than later. Then why is Grist saying, "Not so much" to his new energy plan? [In a sick twist, they praise Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), notorious for having a hissy fit on the floor when a fellow Senator tried to block his Bridge to Nowhere, for his "progressive" fuel economy proposal this session.]
The love affair between enviros and Obama ended over his introduction of a new coal-to-liquid proposal which would benefit downstate Illinois at the price of adding a lot more CO2 emissions. The Coal-to-Liquid (CTL) Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 is an ill-thought piece of green-wannabe legislation designed to appease some of Obama's squeakiest home-state wheels. According to the Senator's spokesman, Tony Vietor, "Illinois basin coal has more untapped energy potential than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined."
The coal industry says that converting coal into diesel engine fuel would reduce dependence on foreign oil through a new, home-mined fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline. The environmentalists say that's nice, but it's still coal. Coal-mining doesn't meet any standard for environmental protection nor does it lower overall emissions and the United States shouldn't be using South Africa as a model for going green.
The Presidential mantle flaps in the breeze, and it will be interesting to see whether Obama decides to go with his demonstrated principles, which would gain him the national eco-vote, or with his downstate demands, which would gain him a monied interest in his 2008 campaign.
The love affair between enviros and Obama ended over his introduction of a new coal-to-liquid proposal which would benefit downstate Illinois at the price of adding a lot more CO2 emissions. The Coal-to-Liquid (CTL) Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 is an ill-thought piece of green-wannabe legislation designed to appease some of Obama's squeakiest home-state wheels. According to the Senator's spokesman, Tony Vietor, "Illinois basin coal has more untapped energy potential than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined."
The coal industry says that converting coal into diesel engine fuel would reduce dependence on foreign oil through a new, home-mined fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline. The environmentalists say that's nice, but it's still coal. Coal-mining doesn't meet any standard for environmental protection nor does it lower overall emissions and the United States shouldn't be using South Africa as a model for going green.
The Presidential mantle flaps in the breeze, and it will be interesting to see whether Obama decides to go with his demonstrated principles, which would gain him the national eco-vote, or with his downstate demands, which would gain him a monied interest in his 2008 campaign.
21 January 2007
The Richardson File
The Santa Fe Free New Mexican actually has a file on Presidential hopeful, Gov. Bill Richardson, to help all us non-Westerners find local coverage on his NM works and deeds. Bookmark!
Richardson in the Ring
When it comes to '08 candidates, I like Hillary. I really like Obama. But after this morning's interview with Stephanopoulos, I got to thinkin' I might have to look more closely at Bill Richardson, the Dem governor of NM (a/k/a Vips' Big Boy). Why should I bother looking at this long-shot dark horse? Because he came across on TV as competent, sensible, funny, and down-to-earth--all personality traits that appealed to swing voters who went for Bush because he "spoke the people's language."
And because Bill's got the resume from hell, which means that, regardless of his salt-of-the-earth attitude, he probably owes lots of people and, equally probable, lots of people owe him.
It'd be nice, for once, if the United States didn't pick a President based on photogenics, charisma, spin, and sound bytes. I don't have high hopes for it; I'm just sayin' -- it would be nice.
First stop on the Bill Richardson tour was to the Free New Mexican. I found an interesting article there from Feb. 2005, in the run-up to the Gov's election. What makes the article interesting isn't the content. It's the comments section. You want to know whether to vote for a guy, ask the people he's been governing.
Update: To track what New Mexicans think of Bill Richardson now, keep an eye on the Free New Mexican's comments to this morning's announcement.
Update #2: If Richardson was president... (Hardball interview on MSNBC)
And because Bill's got the resume from hell, which means that, regardless of his salt-of-the-earth attitude, he probably owes lots of people and, equally probable, lots of people owe him.
It'd be nice, for once, if the United States didn't pick a President based on photogenics, charisma, spin, and sound bytes. I don't have high hopes for it; I'm just sayin' -- it would be nice.
First stop on the Bill Richardson tour was to the Free New Mexican. I found an interesting article there from Feb. 2005, in the run-up to the Gov's election. What makes the article interesting isn't the content. It's the comments section. You want to know whether to vote for a guy, ask the people he's been governing.
Update: To track what New Mexicans think of Bill Richardson now, keep an eye on the Free New Mexican's comments to this morning's announcement.
Update #2: If Richardson was president... (Hardball interview on MSNBC)
18 January 2007
"Service Fodder" or Valued Employee?
(Wow! I was reading an ongoing debate on George Loper's site and responded to George with some of my thoughts. He actually posted them. I feel honored. So, here it is, reprinted from George's blog, for those of you who don't follow it.)
Dear George,
According to the Washington Post, the minimum wage bill passed the House of Representatives, 315 to 111. The proposed new minimum is $7.25. So, it looks like William Lyster will be firing employees relatively soon.
In his analysis, Mr. Lyster finds it ironic that the Living Wage campaign will necessarily result in fewer jobs. In his response, Mr. Foster finds irony in the concept that Mr. Lyster would bother to keep an incompetent employee on the payroll at $5.15, but wouldn't at $7.50. [Read whole ping-pong exchange at minimum wage index.]
I find irony in the whole debate. Mr. Lyster complains of disaffection among low-income workers, especially in the service industry, characterizing them as either new, uneducated, or possessing addiction problems which result in a lack of concern for and loyalty to their jobs.
I find the opposite to be generally true--disaffection comes not at the beginning of the job, but after the employee has been poorly managed, devalued, and/or mistreated. The term "cannon fodder" refers to footsoldiers put on the frontline in harm's way because they are considered expendable. In the workforce, we are creating "service fodder" by treating our entry-level workers as expendable. Both customers and employers show a jaw-dropping lack of respect to anyone earning poverty-level wages in the service industry.
If an employer invests in his/her employees--and investment can come in many ways, e.g., higher wages, increased educational opportunities, perks and benefits, kindness and consideration, competent management, positive work atmosphere, flexible scheduling, creative scope--then s/he will earn their loyalty and concern, which will, in turn, increase their happiness and involvement in their workplace regardless of their pay scale. Happy, involved workers generally give better customer service.
And since "loyalty" seems to be a buzzword for Mr. Lyster, I should add that loyalty is earned--it can not be taken for granted when most jobs are "at-will" contracts. It might be useful to think of each rung of employees as the "customers" of the next level above--what are you doing to keep them?
Just my two cents.
Tatyanna Patten (electronic mail, January 11, 2007)
Dear George,
According to the Washington Post, the minimum wage bill passed the House of Representatives, 315 to 111. The proposed new minimum is $7.25. So, it looks like William Lyster will be firing employees relatively soon.
In his analysis, Mr. Lyster finds it ironic that the Living Wage campaign will necessarily result in fewer jobs. In his response, Mr. Foster finds irony in the concept that Mr. Lyster would bother to keep an incompetent employee on the payroll at $5.15, but wouldn't at $7.50. [Read whole ping-pong exchange at minimum wage index.]
I find irony in the whole debate. Mr. Lyster complains of disaffection among low-income workers, especially in the service industry, characterizing them as either new, uneducated, or possessing addiction problems which result in a lack of concern for and loyalty to their jobs.
I find the opposite to be generally true--disaffection comes not at the beginning of the job, but after the employee has been poorly managed, devalued, and/or mistreated. The term "cannon fodder" refers to footsoldiers put on the frontline in harm's way because they are considered expendable. In the workforce, we are creating "service fodder" by treating our entry-level workers as expendable. Both customers and employers show a jaw-dropping lack of respect to anyone earning poverty-level wages in the service industry.
If an employer invests in his/her employees--and investment can come in many ways, e.g., higher wages, increased educational opportunities, perks and benefits, kindness and consideration, competent management, positive work atmosphere, flexible scheduling, creative scope--then s/he will earn their loyalty and concern, which will, in turn, increase their happiness and involvement in their workplace regardless of their pay scale. Happy, involved workers generally give better customer service.
And since "loyalty" seems to be a buzzword for Mr. Lyster, I should add that loyalty is earned--it can not be taken for granted when most jobs are "at-will" contracts. It might be useful to think of each rung of employees as the "customers" of the next level above--what are you doing to keep them?
Just my two cents.
Tatyanna Patten (electronic mail, January 11, 2007)
Energy to Go
The new CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 is developing it's own fan club; even the most pessimistic enviros praise its long-reaching effects. In this case, CLEAN stands for "Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation" (you can see why they wanted an acronym).
What makes this particular bill interesting is the related bill H. Res. 66, put forth by James McGovern (D-MA-3) of the House Rules committee, which calls for H.R. 6 to hit the House floor for a 3-hour debate before a vote. IOW, they have bypassed the Committees on Energy & Commerce, Natural Resources, and Sci-Tech, all of which might have had claim to tie this bill up for months. Instead, the House Dems, who have a clear majority, are passing that job to the Senate.
This bill calls for a shift of $14 billion from gas & oil tax breaks to renewable, alternative, and efficient energy. Gas & oil has become the most deep-pocketed, entrenched industry lobby in D.C. In this energy bill, I see the first hard test for the now allegedly Democratic Senate: Are the new conservatives Dems, who were responsible for turning that congressional house blue, willing to put $14 billion where their mouths were last year? If it passes the Senate, Bush will likely exercise veto power, and it will depend entirely upon the margin of the Senate vote whether that veto can be overruled.
So... does the Senate have the will to change our energy future, or will the Senate Dems find a moderate perch on the slippery slope between the left and the right?
What makes this particular bill interesting is the related bill H. Res. 66, put forth by James McGovern (D-MA-3) of the House Rules committee, which calls for H.R. 6 to hit the House floor for a 3-hour debate before a vote. IOW, they have bypassed the Committees on Energy & Commerce, Natural Resources, and Sci-Tech, all of which might have had claim to tie this bill up for months. Instead, the House Dems, who have a clear majority, are passing that job to the Senate.
This bill calls for a shift of $14 billion from gas & oil tax breaks to renewable, alternative, and efficient energy. Gas & oil has become the most deep-pocketed, entrenched industry lobby in D.C. In this energy bill, I see the first hard test for the now allegedly Democratic Senate: Are the new conservatives Dems, who were responsible for turning that congressional house blue, willing to put $14 billion where their mouths were last year? If it passes the Senate, Bush will likely exercise veto power, and it will depend entirely upon the margin of the Senate vote whether that veto can be overruled.
So... does the Senate have the will to change our energy future, or will the Senate Dems find a moderate perch on the slippery slope between the left and the right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
