In today's O-D we find a perfect example of how the Utica School Board (but it could also be the regional water board or any other kind of board) allows itself to be manipulated by its management and/or a group of "insiders."
Manipulation Technique 1: Drop a Bomb -- Tonight the board will be reviewing and approving contracts, this time involving a police officer who is under indictment. Apparently this was a surprise to some board members, since Mr. LaPolla (obviously not an "insider") complained about not being notified earlier.
Manipulation Technique 2: Claim an Action is Required -- Supt. Skermont claims that she's just "following regulations" that require school districts to have contracts with non-union employees.
Manipulation Technique 3: Imply that a decision is required NOW -- Raising an issue without warning and citing a regulation requiring action implies that something must be done NOW.
Manipulation Technique 4: Use fear of the Unknown --Raising an issue without warning, citing a regulation requiring action, and implying that something must be done now, suggests "there will be hell to pay later if you don't do what I want."
Manipulation Technique 5: Use insiders to Marginalize the Opposition -- Board Member Pellegrino lauds the efforts of the indicted police officer and proclaims "In America, we are innocent until proven guilty..." implying that anyone who does not approve of the contract must somehow be un-American.
There are probably more techniques being used, but, hopefully, you get the picture. Certain board members always seem to have the inside track, controlling/knowing what will be on the agenda and who will be voting with them to push something through, while other members are unaware that an issue is even going to come up at a meeting. Constituencies represented by the "outsiders" are deprived of their voice. This is not responsible government. It is government serving private rather than public interests.
The single most important thing a Board can do to avoid being a "rubber stamp" for special interests is to set its own agenda, and do it publicly. Contrary to popular practice, Superintendants (or board presidents or chairmen or chief executive officers) should NOT be setting board agendas. Ms. Skermont and her minions are being paid enough to be able to keep track of contracts that may be coming up for renewal, and to advise the Board well in advance of when action may be required. It is Ms. Skermont's responsibility to raise upcoming "action" items as "New Business" for the board to put on the agenda, if it wishes, for a FUTURE meeting: There will be no "bombs," no surprises for Mr. LaPolla or any other board member to complain about. There will be time to determine what is really "required" - and what the consequences might be if the alleged requirement is not met.
The O-D article mentions the prior approval of Dr. Laino's contract. Board President Kline noted that Dr. Laino "was instrumental" to obtaining the grant involved, and Mr. Pellegrino noted that Ms. "Skermont assured the board that every program run by Laino was successful." While these things may be true, it also was recently reported that a significant percentage of Dr. Laino's operating budget went toward her salary -- much higher than the norm for similar providers. This begs the question: Is the Board really getting value for the dollars expended? If these contracts are brought up for approval with little advance notice, there is no time to look at alternative courses of action. Of course, if an "insider" wants to ensure that the contract goes through, leaving no time for deliberation guarantees that result . . . and a private interest will again be served at the public's expense.
If the Utica School Board is serious about serving the public, it will insist on setting its own agenda. If the Board continues to allow others to perform this function, then a majority of its members are serving private interests.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Sunday, September 10, 2006
The Schoolhouse Shuffle ... or Rearranging Deck Chairs . . .
The Utica City School District was back in the news this past week, again reorganizing its administrators and again doing it at Proctor High. (Reorganizing deck chairs on a sinking ship, perhaps?) Mr. Falchi, formerly the principal of the Academy of Business and Finance, will now be principal of ... the Ninth Grade? Can we expect principals of 10th, 11th and 12th grades to be far behind? Is this an admission that the "small schools"/"Millenium" concept hasn't worked at Proctor, which was one of the prototypes (or should we call it an "experiment"?)? We predicted in 2002 there would be problems with the concept. Indeed, other communities have found similar schemes to be failures.
But after spending $37 Million to enshrine the "academies" in architecture, shouldn't the taxpayer at least expect that the original reorganization be given a fair shot before doing something new. Was there a fair trial? The public does not know. Why didn't the "small school" work? The public does not know. All we know is that things are being reorganized again to be more "nuturing" (which sounds like blather from the superintendent to cover up the fact that the school district never really knew what it was doing to begin with).
The Schoolhouse Shuffle is not characteristic of Utica alone. It happens in a lot of other places in one form or another. New York City recently went through a reorganization to centralize authority (because a lot of its local school boards simply were corrupt and unaccountable, producing dismal results) but now seems to be reorganizing again to devolve authority down to local levels. Two things are constant, however. (1) The process of public education is prone to fads (at least it has been for the last 40 years), and (2) the fads wind up costing the taxpayer lots of money while turning our children into guinea pigs. Does anyone remember the "open classroom" (schools without interior walls) concept? Some districts spent 10s of millions of dollars to implement this back in the late 60s early 70s -- with what should have been predictable results -- only to have to spend millions more now to convert the schools to more traditional structures. Of course, with no walls came constant distration. How many children were labled and medicated for ADD when all they needed was a traditional closed classroom? History is repeating itself with "small schools."
Unfortunately, the public usually does not find out about such changes until they are a fait accompli, so they have no opportunity to think about and weigh in on the issues with their school board representatives. School boards, on the other hand, seldom debate the issues at meetings, with members often feeling more comfortable carrying out their "real" discussions in small sub-groups. This is wrong.
While some school board members may have a private agenda, for the most part they try to do the right thing, usually with only criticism as their reward. However, they too often wind up being "rubber stamps" for what their administrators have decided because (1) school board agendas are primarily set by the Superintendents and (2) school boards are overly dependent upon their administrators for information on what is going on in the schools.
As they used to say, "Knowledge is Power," and this applies to school boards, too. Individual members cannot expect to bring the expertise to the table that full-time school employees can. What they can do, however, is cultivate sources of information that are independent of their administrators. This is where a "give and take" communication with the public is necessary. Instead of a few pairs of eyes around the board table, there may be hundreds or thousands of eyes out there attached to brains holding information that may be key to sound decisionmaking. All a school board needs to do is tap into it.
Today's OD promises better coverage of our schools. We look forward to this. In Utica maybe we'll find out what will be done with Mr. Falchi's old position in the Academy of Business and Finance, what the space now taken over by the 9th grade formerly was used for, and what the spaces vacated by 9th grade will be used for. Hopefully we'll also find out how the School Board felt about the reorganization, who was in favor, who was against, and what concerns were discussed ... and if things weren't discussed, that would be important to know, too.
Hopefully the new young reporters will have a bit more energy to ferret out what is happening in our schools ... and why ... and not simply accept what they are told by administrators or board members or teachers or students or even state officials. Hopefully they will do some reading on what other communities are doing -- both nationally and internationally, what concerns people elsewhere, and what schools of education are doing -- all to gain and transmit insight on what is happening locally. EducationNews.org is a good place to start for national and international stories. City Journal's Education topic is good for insight (from a somewhat conservative perspective.)
The new team at the OD can play a vital role in improving the quality of school board decisionmaking by reporting on both sides of issues before decisions have been made. School boards should furnish the media, and the public through their district websites, all agendas for upcoming board meetings (including all supporting documentation), as far in advance as possible. This will allow others to take a look at how their government is operating, and, perhaps, speak out when things don't look right. Board members should welcome alternative viewpoints, think about them, and debate them with other members if necessary. After the decisions have been made, the Board's minutes should also be posted. We have too often seen decisions made out of the public eye and then stonewalling afterward when someone files a FOIL request.
Increased public discourse on education issues must be encouraged. The more the issues are publicly discussed, the better the decisions hopefully will be. . . . Maybe then we will be able to stop rearranging the deck chairs and enjoy the ride.
But after spending $37 Million to enshrine the "academies" in architecture, shouldn't the taxpayer at least expect that the original reorganization be given a fair shot before doing something new. Was there a fair trial? The public does not know. Why didn't the "small school" work? The public does not know. All we know is that things are being reorganized again to be more "nuturing" (which sounds like blather from the superintendent to cover up the fact that the school district never really knew what it was doing to begin with).
The Schoolhouse Shuffle is not characteristic of Utica alone. It happens in a lot of other places in one form or another. New York City recently went through a reorganization to centralize authority (because a lot of its local school boards simply were corrupt and unaccountable, producing dismal results) but now seems to be reorganizing again to devolve authority down to local levels. Two things are constant, however. (1) The process of public education is prone to fads (at least it has been for the last 40 years), and (2) the fads wind up costing the taxpayer lots of money while turning our children into guinea pigs. Does anyone remember the "open classroom" (schools without interior walls) concept? Some districts spent 10s of millions of dollars to implement this back in the late 60s early 70s -- with what should have been predictable results -- only to have to spend millions more now to convert the schools to more traditional structures. Of course, with no walls came constant distration. How many children were labled and medicated for ADD when all they needed was a traditional closed classroom? History is repeating itself with "small schools."
Unfortunately, the public usually does not find out about such changes until they are a fait accompli, so they have no opportunity to think about and weigh in on the issues with their school board representatives. School boards, on the other hand, seldom debate the issues at meetings, with members often feeling more comfortable carrying out their "real" discussions in small sub-groups. This is wrong.
While some school board members may have a private agenda, for the most part they try to do the right thing, usually with only criticism as their reward. However, they too often wind up being "rubber stamps" for what their administrators have decided because (1) school board agendas are primarily set by the Superintendents and (2) school boards are overly dependent upon their administrators for information on what is going on in the schools.
As they used to say, "Knowledge is Power," and this applies to school boards, too. Individual members cannot expect to bring the expertise to the table that full-time school employees can. What they can do, however, is cultivate sources of information that are independent of their administrators. This is where a "give and take" communication with the public is necessary. Instead of a few pairs of eyes around the board table, there may be hundreds or thousands of eyes out there attached to brains holding information that may be key to sound decisionmaking. All a school board needs to do is tap into it.
Today's OD promises better coverage of our schools. We look forward to this. In Utica maybe we'll find out what will be done with Mr. Falchi's old position in the Academy of Business and Finance, what the space now taken over by the 9th grade formerly was used for, and what the spaces vacated by 9th grade will be used for. Hopefully we'll also find out how the School Board felt about the reorganization, who was in favor, who was against, and what concerns were discussed ... and if things weren't discussed, that would be important to know, too.
Hopefully the new young reporters will have a bit more energy to ferret out what is happening in our schools ... and why ... and not simply accept what they are told by administrators or board members or teachers or students or even state officials. Hopefully they will do some reading on what other communities are doing -- both nationally and internationally, what concerns people elsewhere, and what schools of education are doing -- all to gain and transmit insight on what is happening locally. EducationNews.org is a good place to start for national and international stories. City Journal's Education topic is good for insight (from a somewhat conservative perspective.)
The new team at the OD can play a vital role in improving the quality of school board decisionmaking by reporting on both sides of issues before decisions have been made. School boards should furnish the media, and the public through their district websites, all agendas for upcoming board meetings (including all supporting documentation), as far in advance as possible. This will allow others to take a look at how their government is operating, and, perhaps, speak out when things don't look right. Board members should welcome alternative viewpoints, think about them, and debate them with other members if necessary. After the decisions have been made, the Board's minutes should also be posted. We have too often seen decisions made out of the public eye and then stonewalling afterward when someone files a FOIL request.
Increased public discourse on education issues must be encouraged. The more the issues are publicly discussed, the better the decisions hopefully will be. . . . Maybe then we will be able to stop rearranging the deck chairs and enjoy the ride.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Mr. Bruno's slip is showing
Buffalopundit picked up on some of Mr. Bruno's comments made to the NY Post. More is here.
No further comment required.
No further comment required.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Buying Windowdressing . . .
A Million State Senate $$$ are now available to fight the NYRI powerline! While some may welcome this as good news, is it really? Is it money well spent?
People should know exactly what they will get for their money. But no one knows what the result of a lawsuit will be. Spending at lot of money on one does not guarantee success. The money could be spent and the suit still be lost. Then what will be left to show for the spending?
This is a million that could have gone into something tangeable -- like fixing up the crumbling historic aquaduct at Ft. Hunter... or fixing crumbling abandonned buildings at the Utica State Psych Center.
Instead, it will go to pay lawfirms (most likely politically well-connected law firms) to fight a problem that should never have even existed had the State Senators done their job of policy-making. (Is this a case of creating a problem/allowing one to develop and then rewarding your friends with money to solve it? Will the money really be used to buy competent representation against the powerline, or will it buy a "performance" ? Who knows? It's "Senate Republican" money -- suggesting that it is controlled by "leaders" whose true positions may or may not reflect their public statements.)
The Assembly, meanwhile, is looking into making more money available to intervenor groups. More of the same type of thinking.
Our state legislators have no hesitation over spending money -- after all, it's not really theirs, but OUR money they are spending. Offering up huge sums of cash is an easy way to impress some people, and an easy way to deflect from the fact that they have not done their job in establishing a viable state energy policy that is fair to all regions of the state. Again, we should not even have come to the point where we have to fight a NYRI.
The Senate and Assembly have allowed large corporations (even foreign companies) to, de facto, make "energy policy" for us by defaulting in doing it themselves. Instead of policy being set by elected representatives, it will be set by litigation before administrative agencies and the courts. The $ million expenditure represents legislative laziness.
Unless government starts doing what we pay it to do, decisions that affect everyone will increasingly be made by private entities that have the money to get things done themselves -- either by acting within a legislative void or by buying influence. Individuals will have less and less control over their lives because everything that gets done will be from the prospective of what is good for these businesses, not people.
People should know exactly what they will get for their money. But no one knows what the result of a lawsuit will be. Spending at lot of money on one does not guarantee success. The money could be spent and the suit still be lost. Then what will be left to show for the spending?
This is a million that could have gone into something tangeable -- like fixing up the crumbling historic aquaduct at Ft. Hunter... or fixing crumbling abandonned buildings at the Utica State Psych Center.
Instead, it will go to pay lawfirms (most likely politically well-connected law firms) to fight a problem that should never have even existed had the State Senators done their job of policy-making. (Is this a case of creating a problem/allowing one to develop and then rewarding your friends with money to solve it? Will the money really be used to buy competent representation against the powerline, or will it buy a "performance" ? Who knows? It's "Senate Republican" money -- suggesting that it is controlled by "leaders" whose true positions may or may not reflect their public statements.)
The Assembly, meanwhile, is looking into making more money available to intervenor groups. More of the same type of thinking.
Our state legislators have no hesitation over spending money -- after all, it's not really theirs, but OUR money they are spending. Offering up huge sums of cash is an easy way to impress some people, and an easy way to deflect from the fact that they have not done their job in establishing a viable state energy policy that is fair to all regions of the state. Again, we should not even have come to the point where we have to fight a NYRI.
The Senate and Assembly have allowed large corporations (even foreign companies) to, de facto, make "energy policy" for us by defaulting in doing it themselves. Instead of policy being set by elected representatives, it will be set by litigation before administrative agencies and the courts. The $ million expenditure represents legislative laziness.
Unless government starts doing what we pay it to do, decisions that affect everyone will increasingly be made by private entities that have the money to get things done themselves -- either by acting within a legislative void or by buying influence. Individuals will have less and less control over their lives because everything that gets done will be from the prospective of what is good for these businesses, not people.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
The Syracuse Schools Lovefest . . .
While the City of Utica is being asked to kick in $$$$ to the Utica City School District for a new school, Utica's old Superintendent, Daniel Lowengard, and Syracuse City officials were having what the Post Standard described as a "love fest" during Lowengard's "state of the schools" address. A construction project will start (!) with rebuilding 7 schools for $225 Million. The first project will be to convert a vacant old high school building into a new "career and technical" highschool. [Shades of Utica's Millenium Project, perhaps?] Lowengard is thanked and praised for his "leadership."
It is easy to earn thanks and praise if you bring home goodies on someone else's dime. In poorer school districts such as Utica or Syracuse, it would not be uncommon to see the State kick in 90-95 % of the cost of construction. So while Superintendent Lowengard may be viewed in Syracuse as some sort of savior by producing a $225 million project at a cost of perhaps $25 million to Syracuse taxpayers YOU the NEW YORK STATE TAXPAYER in Utica, Binghamton, Watertown, Old Forge, etc . GET STUCK WITH PAYING THE BALANCE without even realizing it! (Just think of all the local businesses that will benefit from the construction and the numerous opportunities for people to take advantage of the spending. Everyone will have their hand out to grab a piece of the action. No wonder they are all falling over each other in the Salt City. Of course, 4 years ago, it was Utica's turn -- with similar fanfare -- and now we suffer the consequences.) If you could build your house by paying only 10% of the cost and have a rich uncle pay the rest, wouldn't you indulge yourself a bit? Now multiply this by the myriad of school districts across NYS. Is it any wonder we are driving jobs and people out of the state? We cannot afford the taxes required to support this scheme.
School districts are encouraged to build Taj Mahals, overbuilt for actual needs. Taxpayers will incur significantly increased maintainance costs down the road. Experimentation (a/k/a risk of taxpayer money) is also encouraged.This seems to have happened in the physical layout of the Millenium Project with its themed "houses" (at Utica's Proctor H.S.) under Supt. Lowengard. The school now requires administrative staff in quadruplicate and will cost the Utica taxpayers for years to come. Contractors, construction unions, teachers' unions, administrators, building supply venders, etc. etc. all get benefits -- but the taxpayers pay and pay -- and the students? What about the students? Let's just say that we don't hear of Utica being held up as a model for other communities.
The problem isn't Mr. Lowengard -- he's only taking advantage of the system. THE PROBLEM IS THE SYSTEM WHICH HAS A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THOSE DETERMINING BENEFITS AND THOSE PAYING THE BILLS. School funding may be a reverse of the usual Albany mandating and Locals paying -- but either way, waste is the result. It's as if those who would benefit lobbied for a system that would encourage high levels of spending.
Instead of thanks and praise, there should be anger and demands from weary New York taxpayers that our laws be changed to require that the people determining government benefits also be the ones responsible for paying for them.
It is easy to earn thanks and praise if you bring home goodies on someone else's dime. In poorer school districts such as Utica or Syracuse, it would not be uncommon to see the State kick in 90-95 % of the cost of construction. So while Superintendent Lowengard may be viewed in Syracuse as some sort of savior by producing a $225 million project at a cost of perhaps $25 million to Syracuse taxpayers YOU the NEW YORK STATE TAXPAYER in Utica, Binghamton, Watertown, Old Forge, etc . GET STUCK WITH PAYING THE BALANCE without even realizing it! (Just think of all the local businesses that will benefit from the construction and the numerous opportunities for people to take advantage of the spending. Everyone will have their hand out to grab a piece of the action. No wonder they are all falling over each other in the Salt City. Of course, 4 years ago, it was Utica's turn -- with similar fanfare -- and now we suffer the consequences.) If you could build your house by paying only 10% of the cost and have a rich uncle pay the rest, wouldn't you indulge yourself a bit? Now multiply this by the myriad of school districts across NYS. Is it any wonder we are driving jobs and people out of the state? We cannot afford the taxes required to support this scheme.
School districts are encouraged to build Taj Mahals, overbuilt for actual needs. Taxpayers will incur significantly increased maintainance costs down the road. Experimentation (a/k/a risk of taxpayer money) is also encouraged.This seems to have happened in the physical layout of the Millenium Project with its themed "houses" (at Utica's Proctor H.S.) under Supt. Lowengard. The school now requires administrative staff in quadruplicate and will cost the Utica taxpayers for years to come. Contractors, construction unions, teachers' unions, administrators, building supply venders, etc. etc. all get benefits -- but the taxpayers pay and pay -- and the students? What about the students? Let's just say that we don't hear of Utica being held up as a model for other communities.
The problem isn't Mr. Lowengard -- he's only taking advantage of the system. THE PROBLEM IS THE SYSTEM WHICH HAS A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THOSE DETERMINING BENEFITS AND THOSE PAYING THE BILLS. School funding may be a reverse of the usual Albany mandating and Locals paying -- but either way, waste is the result. It's as if those who would benefit lobbied for a system that would encourage high levels of spending.
Instead of thanks and praise, there should be anger and demands from weary New York taxpayers that our laws be changed to require that the people determining government benefits also be the ones responsible for paying for them.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Dogs and Ponies?
A "Public Hearing"("Oral Testimony by Invitation Only") re NYRI is scheduled for tomorrow evening at SUNYIT by the NY Assembly Energy Committee to examine:
"how the proposed transmission line will address the State's current energy needs and is consistent with the state's energy policy; public participation opportunities in the Article VII application review process; the potential impact on electric consumer bills; effect on homeowners and business in the proposed area; and environmental and health concerns associated with the proposed transmission line, including the impact on areas of special environmental significance such as national park designation."
WHAT'S THE POINT? The Assembly Committee does not say in its announcement what it hopes to do with the information it will get at the hearing. Close the Barn Door after the horse escapes, perhaps?
The issues to be examined duplicate to a large extent what will be examined in the Department of Public Service certification process -- the very process our Assembly (and Senate) set up under the law .
Does the Assembly (which employs a lot of advisers) really need to hold a public hearing to find out whether or not the NYRI proposal is consistent with the state's energy policy -- the very policy the Assembly (and Senate) fashioned?
"It was almost predictable you would see these market forces dominating the scene, rather consumer interests," says Assemblyman Tonko. If it was predictable, Mr. Tonko, then why did you allow it?
To be fair to Mr. Tonko, he is only one Assemblyman and cannot stop anything by himself. The Assembly is a body dominated by Downstate Democrats -- like the Senate is dominated by Downstate Republicans. Upstate must expect that whatever legislated "solutions" to electric power or other problems will be based on the Downstate perspective, i.e., impacts on Upstate simply go unnoticed.
Don't expect anything productive to come out of this "public hearing" because the hearing has no clear objective. The "invitation only" requirement ensures that what is heard is carefully managed. Do expect plenty of photo-ops, sound-byte-ops and "BS" calculated to impress voters that their representatives are "fighting for them."
Remember, these are the "policy makers" -- the very same people (including the Senate) who have already set the stage for a NYRI to happen with their laws allowing deregulation of the electric industry, delegating decisionmaking to the DPS/PSC, and setting the standards (or allowing a lack thereof or vagueness therein) by which the administrative decisions must be rendered. They can't credibly point fingers at the other party because each party controls one legislative house in New York State. They can't change the rules in midstream. The meeting will be a convenient deflection from their own culpability.
Speaking of the Senate, speculation continues on who NYRI really is. It is not comforting to read of the connection between Mr. Joe Bruno's press secretary and the law firm representing NYRI. Utica area residents are well aquainted with Mr. "Marcy is not in the running for the Chip Fab" Bruno. We also know that the NYRI powerline would split the Marcy Chip Fab Site in two, rendering it useless for that purpose, even as a backup to Mr. Bruno's Luther Forest site. How convenient for Mr. Bruno. It also is not comforting to read of the connections with Mr. Giuliani and a former Pataki administration official.
We've previously asked "Who is NYRI?" and explained why the State should ask for and has a right to this information. The Public Service Commission has a right to ask for this information under its own regulations, but has yet to do so, at least not publicly. The State Attorney General could get this information, but we see the same lack of interest. How about the State Senators and Assemblymembers who now display such public concern over NYRI's proposal? What are they doing to get this information? Most of our area representatives are "Active Parties" in the PSC proceeding. As long as NYRI continues to hide behind its corporate veil (and veils within veils) and those with the power fail to get answers, the public's imagination will fill the voids.
Meanwhile, the Public Service Commission decision process is perking along with its latest Procedural Ruling. One aspect helpful to the pro se litigants is the determination that service by e-mail is acceptable as long as 5 hard copies of papers are served on the Secretary of the Commission. With the latest service list containing 12 pages of addresses of parties, mere postage for an individual party could be a significant expense. This ruling helps make the process more available to the public participants. Another helpful aspect is the availability of a mediation-trained Administrative Law Judge to assist parties in coordinating their efforts -- again, particularly important for the pro se litigants who likely don't have the time to duplicate something that another party may have a better handle on. [The contrast between the way career civil-servants and elected officials handle the public is interesting.]
A bit concerning is the determination to allow NYRI to reply to the responses by other parties to NYRI's request for waivers, which apparently is allowed only in "extraordinary" circumstances. This could lengthen the process. While the Ruling is certainly correct that NYRI must be permitted to reply to Utica/Sherburne's request for more information, it is not understood why the request for information could not have been handled separately. Also concerning is the Ruling's reference to the possibility of the federal government pre-empting state decisionmaking if the state does not act in a timely fashion. While this is a true statement, what the federal government does technically should have no role in the state's process. Hopefully the federal "threat" will not result in an incomplete hearing record or hurried decision-making.
Judges are MIA re the Utica v NYRI case in local Supreme Court. According to WKTV, "Three out of the four supreme court justices in Oneida County are rescuing themselves from hearing the case" (emphasis supplied). He he he -- That is one way of putting it! :-)
With too few puzzle pieces available to the public, the public is forced to speculate on what the final picture will be. One gets the impression that the important decisions have already been made, that the power line will go through, and the only thing left is to determine how the ultimate decision will be presented. Will it be the State saying the project is justified, or will it be the Federal Government, with NY State officials blaming the Public for delaying the process and causing a Federal preemption?
"how the proposed transmission line will address the State's current energy needs and is consistent with the state's energy policy; public participation opportunities in the Article VII application review process; the potential impact on electric consumer bills; effect on homeowners and business in the proposed area; and environmental and health concerns associated with the proposed transmission line, including the impact on areas of special environmental significance such as national park designation."
WHAT'S THE POINT? The Assembly Committee does not say in its announcement what it hopes to do with the information it will get at the hearing. Close the Barn Door after the horse escapes, perhaps?
The issues to be examined duplicate to a large extent what will be examined in the Department of Public Service certification process -- the very process our Assembly (and Senate) set up under the law .
Does the Assembly (which employs a lot of advisers) really need to hold a public hearing to find out whether or not the NYRI proposal is consistent with the state's energy policy -- the very policy the Assembly (and Senate) fashioned?
"It was almost predictable you would see these market forces dominating the scene, rather consumer interests," says Assemblyman Tonko. If it was predictable, Mr. Tonko, then why did you allow it?
To be fair to Mr. Tonko, he is only one Assemblyman and cannot stop anything by himself. The Assembly is a body dominated by Downstate Democrats -- like the Senate is dominated by Downstate Republicans. Upstate must expect that whatever legislated "solutions" to electric power or other problems will be based on the Downstate perspective, i.e., impacts on Upstate simply go unnoticed.
Don't expect anything productive to come out of this "public hearing" because the hearing has no clear objective. The "invitation only" requirement ensures that what is heard is carefully managed. Do expect plenty of photo-ops, sound-byte-ops and "BS" calculated to impress voters that their representatives are "fighting for them."
Remember, these are the "policy makers" -- the very same people (including the Senate) who have already set the stage for a NYRI to happen with their laws allowing deregulation of the electric industry, delegating decisionmaking to the DPS/PSC, and setting the standards (or allowing a lack thereof or vagueness therein) by which the administrative decisions must be rendered. They can't credibly point fingers at the other party because each party controls one legislative house in New York State. They can't change the rules in midstream. The meeting will be a convenient deflection from their own culpability.
Speaking of the Senate, speculation continues on who NYRI really is. It is not comforting to read of the connection between Mr. Joe Bruno's press secretary and the law firm representing NYRI. Utica area residents are well aquainted with Mr. "Marcy is not in the running for the Chip Fab" Bruno. We also know that the NYRI powerline would split the Marcy Chip Fab Site in two, rendering it useless for that purpose, even as a backup to Mr. Bruno's Luther Forest site. How convenient for Mr. Bruno. It also is not comforting to read of the connections with Mr. Giuliani and a former Pataki administration official.
We've previously asked "Who is NYRI?" and explained why the State should ask for and has a right to this information. The Public Service Commission has a right to ask for this information under its own regulations, but has yet to do so, at least not publicly. The State Attorney General could get this information, but we see the same lack of interest. How about the State Senators and Assemblymembers who now display such public concern over NYRI's proposal? What are they doing to get this information? Most of our area representatives are "Active Parties" in the PSC proceeding. As long as NYRI continues to hide behind its corporate veil (and veils within veils) and those with the power fail to get answers, the public's imagination will fill the voids.
Meanwhile, the Public Service Commission decision process is perking along with its latest Procedural Ruling. One aspect helpful to the pro se litigants is the determination that service by e-mail is acceptable as long as 5 hard copies of papers are served on the Secretary of the Commission. With the latest service list containing 12 pages of addresses of parties, mere postage for an individual party could be a significant expense. This ruling helps make the process more available to the public participants. Another helpful aspect is the availability of a mediation-trained Administrative Law Judge to assist parties in coordinating their efforts -- again, particularly important for the pro se litigants who likely don't have the time to duplicate something that another party may have a better handle on. [The contrast between the way career civil-servants and elected officials handle the public is interesting.]
A bit concerning is the determination to allow NYRI to reply to the responses by other parties to NYRI's request for waivers, which apparently is allowed only in "extraordinary" circumstances. This could lengthen the process. While the Ruling is certainly correct that NYRI must be permitted to reply to Utica/Sherburne's request for more information, it is not understood why the request for information could not have been handled separately. Also concerning is the Ruling's reference to the possibility of the federal government pre-empting state decisionmaking if the state does not act in a timely fashion. While this is a true statement, what the federal government does technically should have no role in the state's process. Hopefully the federal "threat" will not result in an incomplete hearing record or hurried decision-making.
Judges are MIA re the Utica v NYRI case in local Supreme Court. According to WKTV, "Three out of the four supreme court justices in Oneida County are rescuing themselves from hearing the case" (emphasis supplied). He he he -- That is one way of putting it! :-)
With too few puzzle pieces available to the public, the public is forced to speculate on what the final picture will be. One gets the impression that the important decisions have already been made, that the power line will go through, and the only thing left is to determine how the ultimate decision will be presented. Will it be the State saying the project is justified, or will it be the Federal Government, with NY State officials blaming the Public for delaying the process and causing a Federal preemption?
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Observations this past week . . .
Bomb Shelters are being auctioned off by NY, but China is building huge new ones. What do the Chinese know that we don't?
A "Light Calendar" is noted at the new security training center located in the former terminal building at the soon-to-be former Oneida County Airport. This kind of news is not unexpected. We hate to say we told you so.
Not-for Profits are now a $1 Billion "industry" in the MoVa? This shows just how downtrodden we've become. They're not "industry," they're LIFE SUPPORT -- good only until those of us remaining either leave or die off.
Weird Politics. Its funny how the Oneida Dems on their website only give a little window to Leon Koziol (scroll down most of the page to see it) their endorsed candidate for State Senate, while giving John Murad virtually an entire page to himself. Makes one wonder who is the real endorsed candidate?
A "Light Calendar" is noted at the new security training center located in the former terminal building at the soon-to-be former Oneida County Airport. This kind of news is not unexpected. We hate to say we told you so.
Not-for Profits are now a $1 Billion "industry" in the MoVa? This shows just how downtrodden we've become. They're not "industry," they're LIFE SUPPORT -- good only until those of us remaining either leave or die off.
Weird Politics. Its funny how the Oneida Dems on their website only give a little window to Leon Koziol (scroll down most of the page to see it) their endorsed candidate for State Senate, while giving John Murad virtually an entire page to himself. Makes one wonder who is the real endorsed candidate?
Don't Be FOILed . . .
What is it that government in the Utica - Oneida County area doesn't get? Government is there to serve (and is owned by) the public, so the public has a right to see its documents. But our local governments act like private clubs and apparently think otherwise. The latest example was this past week involving the Utica School Board's denial of records to the Observer-Dispatch on after-school programs.
The state's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) has been on the books for many years. It should not be too much to expect Superintendent Skermont, who is paid well to know these things, to understand what the school district's obligations are under FOIL. And there simply would be no excuse if the School Board attorney did not know how the process should work.
In a nutshell, THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO SEE ALL RECORDS HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT, unless it can point to a specific exemption in the FOIL (listed under §87 subdivision (2)) that allows a particular kind of record to be withheld. If a document is withheld, the person requesting the document is to be told (1) what the document is and (2) the provision of the law under which it is being withheld.
The response from the Utica School District is insufficient. The response also does something that is all too common in government responses to FOIL requests: it implies that one must pay $0.25 per page to access the documents. This is misleading. The charge is allowed for a COPY of the document. You pay nothing TO INSPECT the document (with, perhaps, the rare exception where a redacted copy must be prepared in order to make the disclosure). Government agencies are not permitted to charge for their time to gather and assemble the documents. (Remember, the Government, and its documents, belong to you).
Fault Lines' tip for FOIL inspections: bring a digital camera, and photograph the documents. Photography has already been determined to be "an inspection" under FOIL by the Committee on Open Government. Use the "macro" setting and practice at home with newspapers or magazines before making your inspection.
Don't be FOILed. Know your rights. The Committee on Open Government is responsible for overseeing and advising regarding FOIL and has a wealth of information on its website, including advisory opinions describing a variety of situations, its regulations, and a "FAQ" sheet.
Something for Government Officials to remember: The FOIL specifies those documents that may be withheld - - it does not require them to be withheld. In yesterday's O-D article, Mr. LaPolla got it right:
" "Just because information is not FOIL-able, it does not mean we should not provide information to taxpayers regarding the Laino case," LaPolla said. "When you're dealing with public money, whether it be tax dollars, federal grants or state grants, everyone who receives that money must be accountable." "
Isn't it interesting that a majority of school board members talk like they want full disclosure, yet the documents are still not disclosed? Ms. Ebbeling did a nice job of reporting!
The state's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) has been on the books for many years. It should not be too much to expect Superintendent Skermont, who is paid well to know these things, to understand what the school district's obligations are under FOIL. And there simply would be no excuse if the School Board attorney did not know how the process should work.
In a nutshell, THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO SEE ALL RECORDS HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT, unless it can point to a specific exemption in the FOIL (listed under §87 subdivision (2)) that allows a particular kind of record to be withheld. If a document is withheld, the person requesting the document is to be told (1) what the document is and (2) the provision of the law under which it is being withheld.
The response from the Utica School District is insufficient. The response also does something that is all too common in government responses to FOIL requests: it implies that one must pay $0.25 per page to access the documents. This is misleading. The charge is allowed for a COPY of the document. You pay nothing TO INSPECT the document (with, perhaps, the rare exception where a redacted copy must be prepared in order to make the disclosure). Government agencies are not permitted to charge for their time to gather and assemble the documents. (Remember, the Government, and its documents, belong to you).
Fault Lines' tip for FOIL inspections: bring a digital camera, and photograph the documents. Photography has already been determined to be "an inspection" under FOIL by the Committee on Open Government. Use the "macro" setting and practice at home with newspapers or magazines before making your inspection.
Don't be FOILed. Know your rights. The Committee on Open Government is responsible for overseeing and advising regarding FOIL and has a wealth of information on its website, including advisory opinions describing a variety of situations, its regulations, and a "FAQ" sheet.
Something for Government Officials to remember: The FOIL specifies those documents that may be withheld - - it does not require them to be withheld. In yesterday's O-D article, Mr. LaPolla got it right:
" "Just because information is not FOIL-able, it does not mean we should not provide information to taxpayers regarding the Laino case," LaPolla said. "When you're dealing with public money, whether it be tax dollars, federal grants or state grants, everyone who receives that money must be accountable." "
Isn't it interesting that a majority of school board members talk like they want full disclosure, yet the documents are still not disclosed? Ms. Ebbeling did a nice job of reporting!
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
A Cure for Congestion . . . Ditching the Grid
The dreaded (by Upstate NY) NATIONAL ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION CONGESTION STUDY was released today by the U.S. Dept of Energy. As expected, it shows southeastern New York (NY City, Long Island, lower Hudson Valley) and southward along the coast to the Washington, DC area as "one continuous congestion area" that will require billions of dollars in transmission, generation and demand-side resources to protect grid reliability and ensure the area's economic vitality. The study notes that NY State depends on oil and gas for 35% of its power production (while the US average is 21%), and that power moves across the state from the northwest to the southeast and that all such flows must pass through a central set of transmission facilities located between western and downstate NY. [Could they be talking about Marcy?].
Being a Federal Study, other pathways for power into the NY Metropolitan area are also examined, including from New Jersey and up the Delaware River. There is currently under construction the "Neptune" Line that will move electricity from New Jersey into Long Island, easing LI's needs but creating problems for New Jersey. The study recognizes that some "parties" are looking into routing through New Jersey as a way of accessing "low -cost" generators in the Midwest to support NYC, but that it could increase wholesale power prices in New Jersey and elsewhere. (This sounds like the effect that NYRI would have on Upstate, but this effect on Upstate does not appear to be recognized by the study, with Upstate somehow being invisible within New York State.) The study notes that improved transmission lines would allow access to cheap Canadian hydropower and windpower.
As Fault Lines previously noted, part of Long Island's problem is the fact that it was unwilling to allow, and had the political muscle to prevent, the Shoreham Nuclear plant from opening even though it was built at a cost of billions. Now, because of that region's economic importance to the Federal Government (i.e.,politics) the Mid-West and Upstate New York may have to tolerate higher electric prices to keep Long Island in power inspite of the fact that people living in these other regions do not have Long Island incomes. The study ignores the fact that we are not beneficiaries of the same economy.
A cure for congestion is more power generation closer to where it is needed. While Long Island and New York State politicians may have created part of the problem by shuttering Shoreham, there are some Long Islanders who may have come up with a solution using fuel cell technology.
Verizon (VZ, no fly-by-night outfit) has been using fuel cells to power one of its facilities in Garden City, generating electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen atoms, giving off water and heat (which could also be used) as byproducts. Seven fuel cells generate power for a 292,000-square-foot facility that provides telephone and data services to some 35,000 customers on Long Island. VZ wanted control over its own power supply. While expensive to deploy (which cost could be reduced if done in volume), VZ's cost savings of $680K from its new facility far exceeded its predicted savings of $250K. The facility is also good for the environment and decreases dependence on foreign sources of fuel.
Instead of more large scale transmission facilities and large scale generation facilities (with large scale impacts) as presumed by the Federal Study, a more decentralized system (like the internet) using fuel cell technology might make more sense and be more secure. Those old enough will remember that there were no major blackouts until large regions became interconnected into a grid. (The first time that it happened in the early 60s was quite shocking -and it was the first time most heard about the "grid.") Municipalities might now consider their own power systems using fuel cell technology, giving them greater control over their economic futures and security -- like VZ is striving for.
Of course, if a lot of people followed VZ's lead, the obvious losers would be the big power generators and transmission facility operators. These interests are already plugged into the state and federal policymakers' circuits and are being heard. They are the ones setting energy policy, and naturally they will favor themselves. But there are alternatives that are starting to prove themselves now, and the key is for people to demand them.
The high electric prices on LI gave VZ the incentive to develop the new technology that could be used elsewhere. The Federal Plan to take from one region to give to another through national interest electric transmission corridors only preserves the status quo among generators and operators, removing the financial incentive for change and wedding everyone to 20th century practices and 20th century companies.
Maybe that is the Federal Plan's real intent because the current players are the ones who will most benefit from it.
Controlling demand is another way of relieving congestion. This is where government (state and local) needs to take responsibility. "Growth" for one region isn't "good" when it burdens neighboring regions or limits their growth. "Growth" is of no benefit to the people of a region if its infrastructure is already operating at capacity -- but it will benefit certain business interests. Unfortunately, it is politically easier to take from those who are outnumbered than to provide for oneself.
Being a Federal Study, other pathways for power into the NY Metropolitan area are also examined, including from New Jersey and up the Delaware River. There is currently under construction the "Neptune" Line that will move electricity from New Jersey into Long Island, easing LI's needs but creating problems for New Jersey. The study recognizes that some "parties" are looking into routing through New Jersey as a way of accessing "low -cost" generators in the Midwest to support NYC, but that it could increase wholesale power prices in New Jersey and elsewhere. (This sounds like the effect that NYRI would have on Upstate, but this effect on Upstate does not appear to be recognized by the study, with Upstate somehow being invisible within New York State.) The study notes that improved transmission lines would allow access to cheap Canadian hydropower and windpower.
As Fault Lines previously noted, part of Long Island's problem is the fact that it was unwilling to allow, and had the political muscle to prevent, the Shoreham Nuclear plant from opening even though it was built at a cost of billions. Now, because of that region's economic importance to the Federal Government (i.e.,politics) the Mid-West and Upstate New York may have to tolerate higher electric prices to keep Long Island in power inspite of the fact that people living in these other regions do not have Long Island incomes. The study ignores the fact that we are not beneficiaries of the same economy.
A cure for congestion is more power generation closer to where it is needed. While Long Island and New York State politicians may have created part of the problem by shuttering Shoreham, there are some Long Islanders who may have come up with a solution using fuel cell technology.
Verizon (VZ, no fly-by-night outfit) has been using fuel cells to power one of its facilities in Garden City, generating electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen atoms, giving off water and heat (which could also be used) as byproducts. Seven fuel cells generate power for a 292,000-square-foot facility that provides telephone and data services to some 35,000 customers on Long Island. VZ wanted control over its own power supply. While expensive to deploy (which cost could be reduced if done in volume), VZ's cost savings of $680K from its new facility far exceeded its predicted savings of $250K. The facility is also good for the environment and decreases dependence on foreign sources of fuel.
Instead of more large scale transmission facilities and large scale generation facilities (with large scale impacts) as presumed by the Federal Study, a more decentralized system (like the internet) using fuel cell technology might make more sense and be more secure. Those old enough will remember that there were no major blackouts until large regions became interconnected into a grid. (The first time that it happened in the early 60s was quite shocking -and it was the first time most heard about the "grid.") Municipalities might now consider their own power systems using fuel cell technology, giving them greater control over their economic futures and security -- like VZ is striving for.
Of course, if a lot of people followed VZ's lead, the obvious losers would be the big power generators and transmission facility operators. These interests are already plugged into the state and federal policymakers' circuits and are being heard. They are the ones setting energy policy, and naturally they will favor themselves. But there are alternatives that are starting to prove themselves now, and the key is for people to demand them.
The high electric prices on LI gave VZ the incentive to develop the new technology that could be used elsewhere. The Federal Plan to take from one region to give to another through national interest electric transmission corridors only preserves the status quo among generators and operators, removing the financial incentive for change and wedding everyone to 20th century practices and 20th century companies.
Maybe that is the Federal Plan's real intent because the current players are the ones who will most benefit from it.
Controlling demand is another way of relieving congestion. This is where government (state and local) needs to take responsibility. "Growth" for one region isn't "good" when it burdens neighboring regions or limits their growth. "Growth" is of no benefit to the people of a region if its infrastructure is already operating at capacity -- but it will benefit certain business interests. Unfortunately, it is politically easier to take from those who are outnumbered than to provide for oneself.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Downstate plays while Upstate pays . . . and No Comment from Meier
The Rome Sentinel reveals that on this dog-day (when the car thermometer read 100 degrees), people in the New York City area were given free access to the State's Long Island Beaches to beat the heat - - - but NOT SO for us Central New Yorkers at the State's Beaches in Verona or at Lake Delta. We got to fork over another $7 per car to Albany. While Sen. Valesky was on the phone trying to get equal treatment for CNY, Sen. Meier's office (where Delta and Verona State Parks are located) had nothing to say about the issue.
Another case where Sen. Valesky seems to be looking out for the average Central New Yorker but Sen. Meier is missing in action is in regards to NYRI. Although Meier was given an OD headline where he criticized a Federal energy commissioner's remarks, and he solicited names of those opposed to NYRI in a recent mailing, the Senator's office is curiously absent from the Active Party List (scroll to pages 8-17) in the NYRI PSC proceeding. Were the senator's public statements against NYRI just window dressing? This proceeding is where "the rubber meets the road," where things really count. Sen. Valesky is there, Sen. Bonacic is there, Assemblymembers Destito and Townsend are there - - but Meier is not.
Interesting . . .
Another case where Sen. Valesky seems to be looking out for the average Central New Yorker but Sen. Meier is missing in action is in regards to NYRI. Although Meier was given an OD headline where he criticized a Federal energy commissioner's remarks, and he solicited names of those opposed to NYRI in a recent mailing, the Senator's office is curiously absent from the Active Party List (scroll to pages 8-17) in the NYRI PSC proceeding. Were the senator's public statements against NYRI just window dressing? This proceeding is where "the rubber meets the road," where things really count. Sen. Valesky is there, Sen. Bonacic is there, Assemblymembers Destito and Townsend are there - - but Meier is not.
Interesting . . .
Was Qana Staged?
Craig Howard at North Coast provides a collection of links and quotes on Hezbollah tactics which suggest the possibility that the Qana massacre may have been staged -- bodies from elsewhere moved to where they were "found." Interesting reading.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Who is NYRI?
The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has found NYRI's powerline application deficient. According to DEC, it inadequately addressed visual assessment, alternatives (more burial in more places, different routes), details, and endangered species. (For more info, read DEC's letter posted by Ralph at UAD)
Here is another deficiency: The NYRI application does not tell us WHO NYRI IS, a fact that was not missed by an astute observer (who makes some other good points). Who controls the NYRI corporation? Who are its major shareholders? What is their track record for other endeavors?
It is necessary for the Public Service Commission to obtain this information in order to ensure that persons who are unsuitable to carry out responsibilities under the State's permits, certificates or licenses are not authorized to do so. The courts have acknowledged that the environmental compliance history of a permit applicant is relevant to the granting of a permit. Matter of Bio-Tech Mills Inc. v. Williams, 105 A.D. 2d 301 (3d Dept., 1985), aff'd, 65 N.Y. 2d 855 (1985). Logically, compliance with any rule or regulation (not just environmental) would be relevant. Will the applicant be a good citizen or be a troublemaker that will cost tax dollars to monitor? DEC has a long standing policy of obtaining detailed information on applicants. It is not clear that the PSC has anything similar, but it should.
The public has a right to know who is NYRI.
Here is another deficiency: The NYRI application does not tell us WHO NYRI IS, a fact that was not missed by an astute observer (who makes some other good points). Who controls the NYRI corporation? Who are its major shareholders? What is their track record for other endeavors?
It is necessary for the Public Service Commission to obtain this information in order to ensure that persons who are unsuitable to carry out responsibilities under the State's permits, certificates or licenses are not authorized to do so. The courts have acknowledged that the environmental compliance history of a permit applicant is relevant to the granting of a permit. Matter of Bio-Tech Mills Inc. v. Williams, 105 A.D. 2d 301 (3d Dept., 1985), aff'd, 65 N.Y. 2d 855 (1985). Logically, compliance with any rule or regulation (not just environmental) would be relevant. Will the applicant be a good citizen or be a troublemaker that will cost tax dollars to monitor? DEC has a long standing policy of obtaining detailed information on applicants. It is not clear that the PSC has anything similar, but it should.
The public has a right to know who is NYRI.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Windmills, Powerlines and Government Policy ...
Windmills proposed for Jordanville are whipping up debate according to the OD. Farmers can't be blamed for wanting them. Growing crops is a risky business given the vagaries of the weather. Windmills will give them another way of making money from their land. Windmills are also a good way to wean us off foreign oil, and they are non-polluting. They would contribute to New York State achieving its goal of 20% of our energy from renewable sources.
Neighbors who won't benefit directly from the windmills, however, are concerned over what they would do to the landscape, and other effects. They can't be blamed either. It's one thing to want renewable energy, but quite another to have to look every day at how it is made. To them, windmills would be a nuisance -- and, like other nuisances, should be regulated by law. The law recognizes that what one does on one's property can adversely affect others, and, for that reason may be regulated. Much of modern environmental law evolved from the common law of nuisance.
What may be a nuisance to one person (a purple house for example) may be a thing of beauty to another. There is a certain amount of subjectiveness to the determination, and perceived benefits will play into this determination. If a windfarm generates cheap power for its community, that community will be less likely to consider the windfarm to be a nuisance. If a neighbor receives a direct benefit from a windmill, he or she will be less likely to complain about it.
Not mentioned in the OD article is how the proposed NYRI powerline will play into the windmill debate. Powerlines are the means by which windmill power will be brought to market. Since NYRI will enable area farmers to sell their power to the NYC area market, more than just the windmills' neighbors will be affected by wind power: namely, all those living along the powerline route. Compounding things, the powerline will likely spawn even more windfarms. If unchecked, one can imagine the entire upstate landscape covered with windmills, with every ampere of power sent over NYRI's line to downstate, while downstate abandons its old powerplants and fails to build new ones. The disparity between the upstate and downstate economies will ensure that if market forces are left to rule, Upstate will get all the negative impacts and Downstate will get all the benefits because the money and political power is Downstate.
If New York State is taken as a whole, it may make sense to let the market forces take over since, in theory, that would result in the greatest efficiency. However, New York State is not a "whole." Upstate and Downstate economies are different. The Upstate economy was literally built on cheap power -- hydropower -- which led to an economy based on manufacturing. Downstate, removed from the sources of hydropower, evolved in a manner less dependent on same.
State policies, controlled by politics and aided by new transmission technologies, have encouraged sharing power between Up and Downstate, lessening the impact of the high demand Downstate, and elevating prices Upstate. The result is that Upstate over the years lost its cheap hydropower advantage over other parts of the country with similar economies ... and its manufacturing base withered along with its economy.
If everything is left to a state-wide marketplace, Upstate will die -- not because Upstate is inherently different than, say, Virginia, but because Upstate's resources will be dedicated to Downstate use. The marketplace appears to be the trend in state policy. PSC law sweeps away local regulation of what occurs in (and what is considered a nuisance by) local jurisdictions and makes decisions from a statewide perspective. Essentially, state policy based strictly on the marketplace will pit one group of people against another. If you believe that government should be there as a referee, to keep one group from taking unfair advantage of another, then state policy is way off the mark.
Policies can be different from what they are. The State could, if it wanted, recognize that localities closer to resources should have the benefit of those resources. It has long been recognized that the State is obliged to ensure that water supplies which are more available for use by one community are not absorbed by another. Syracuse v Gibbs, 283 NY 275 (1940). Why shouldn't this concept apply to water power . . . or wind power . . . or locally generated power of any sort? Pairing resources with communities would lessen conflicts, lessen the liklihood of negative impacts unaccompanied by benefits, and lessen the perception of nuisance. It should be a matter of policy that those who suffer the consequences should be the ones who reap the benefits, and not otherwise.
If Upstate communities are protected from having their local resources absorbed by other communities, Downstate would be encouraged to generate more of its own power, there would be less need for NYRI, and, perhaps, Upstate's economy would be better. At least Upstate would have greater means to control its own destiny.
Our legislators may make NYRI out as the villain, but they are the ones who have made the State policy that encouraged NYRI to happen.
. . . Ask them what will they be doing about changing state policy.
Neighbors who won't benefit directly from the windmills, however, are concerned over what they would do to the landscape, and other effects. They can't be blamed either. It's one thing to want renewable energy, but quite another to have to look every day at how it is made. To them, windmills would be a nuisance -- and, like other nuisances, should be regulated by law. The law recognizes that what one does on one's property can adversely affect others, and, for that reason may be regulated. Much of modern environmental law evolved from the common law of nuisance.
What may be a nuisance to one person (a purple house for example) may be a thing of beauty to another. There is a certain amount of subjectiveness to the determination, and perceived benefits will play into this determination. If a windfarm generates cheap power for its community, that community will be less likely to consider the windfarm to be a nuisance. If a neighbor receives a direct benefit from a windmill, he or she will be less likely to complain about it.
Not mentioned in the OD article is how the proposed NYRI powerline will play into the windmill debate. Powerlines are the means by which windmill power will be brought to market. Since NYRI will enable area farmers to sell their power to the NYC area market, more than just the windmills' neighbors will be affected by wind power: namely, all those living along the powerline route. Compounding things, the powerline will likely spawn even more windfarms. If unchecked, one can imagine the entire upstate landscape covered with windmills, with every ampere of power sent over NYRI's line to downstate, while downstate abandons its old powerplants and fails to build new ones. The disparity between the upstate and downstate economies will ensure that if market forces are left to rule, Upstate will get all the negative impacts and Downstate will get all the benefits because the money and political power is Downstate.
If New York State is taken as a whole, it may make sense to let the market forces take over since, in theory, that would result in the greatest efficiency. However, New York State is not a "whole." Upstate and Downstate economies are different. The Upstate economy was literally built on cheap power -- hydropower -- which led to an economy based on manufacturing. Downstate, removed from the sources of hydropower, evolved in a manner less dependent on same.
State policies, controlled by politics and aided by new transmission technologies, have encouraged sharing power between Up and Downstate, lessening the impact of the high demand Downstate, and elevating prices Upstate. The result is that Upstate over the years lost its cheap hydropower advantage over other parts of the country with similar economies ... and its manufacturing base withered along with its economy.
If everything is left to a state-wide marketplace, Upstate will die -- not because Upstate is inherently different than, say, Virginia, but because Upstate's resources will be dedicated to Downstate use. The marketplace appears to be the trend in state policy. PSC law sweeps away local regulation of what occurs in (and what is considered a nuisance by) local jurisdictions and makes decisions from a statewide perspective. Essentially, state policy based strictly on the marketplace will pit one group of people against another. If you believe that government should be there as a referee, to keep one group from taking unfair advantage of another, then state policy is way off the mark.
Policies can be different from what they are. The State could, if it wanted, recognize that localities closer to resources should have the benefit of those resources. It has long been recognized that the State is obliged to ensure that water supplies which are more available for use by one community are not absorbed by another. Syracuse v Gibbs, 283 NY 275 (1940). Why shouldn't this concept apply to water power . . . or wind power . . . or locally generated power of any sort? Pairing resources with communities would lessen conflicts, lessen the liklihood of negative impacts unaccompanied by benefits, and lessen the perception of nuisance. It should be a matter of policy that those who suffer the consequences should be the ones who reap the benefits, and not otherwise.
If Upstate communities are protected from having their local resources absorbed by other communities, Downstate would be encouraged to generate more of its own power, there would be less need for NYRI, and, perhaps, Upstate's economy would be better. At least Upstate would have greater means to control its own destiny.
Our legislators may make NYRI out as the villain, but they are the ones who have made the State policy that encouraged NYRI to happen.
. . . Ask them what will they be doing about changing state policy.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Mohawk River Flooding
Fault Lines, friends and neighbors are airing out their basements after things got a bit wet from yesterday's deluge. But Dan from Upstream reminds us of just how lucky we are with some impressive aerial photos from last month's floods in Montgomery County.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Illegal Gifts of Taxpayers' Money
How many times does Mr. Carucci get to "rework" his deal with the Taxpayers of the City of Utica?
Article VIII of the State Constitution §1 provides:
"No county, city, town, village or school district shall give or loan any money or property to or in aid of any individual, or private corporation or association, or private undertaking, or become directly or indirectly the owner of stock in, or bonds of, any private corporation or association . . . "
Arguably there was a public benefit to the original deal struck between the City and Carucci et al to keep the deal from being an unconstitutional gift of taxpayer money. The Hotel Utica was symbolically too valuable a property to the citizens of Utica to remain shuttered as it had been . . . and to their credit, Carucci and crew really have done a marvelous job in returning this jewel to Utica's crown.
But when is a Deal "a Deal?"
How is the drop in interest from 3.4% to 2.4% justified, particularly at a time when the cost of borrowing is rising?
If the deal is going to be "reworked," it has to be at the prevailing interest rate, or the City should get some new "consideration" from Carucci to support changing the contract. Neither is the case. The City will collect a smaller finance charge and have to wait 15 years longer to get its money back. In the long run, the Taxpayers will wind up with less . . . and THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS "REWORKING" WRONG.
So, what's the deal? The "same old same old" in New York: Nothing more than a public official using taxpayers' money to confer an illegal gift on someone who is "well connected." Haven't we had enough?
CNY Underground also has some comments on this.
Article VIII of the State Constitution §1 provides:
"No county, city, town, village or school district shall give or loan any money or property to or in aid of any individual, or private corporation or association, or private undertaking, or become directly or indirectly the owner of stock in, or bonds of, any private corporation or association . . . "
Arguably there was a public benefit to the original deal struck between the City and Carucci et al to keep the deal from being an unconstitutional gift of taxpayer money. The Hotel Utica was symbolically too valuable a property to the citizens of Utica to remain shuttered as it had been . . . and to their credit, Carucci and crew really have done a marvelous job in returning this jewel to Utica's crown.
But when is a Deal "a Deal?"
How is the drop in interest from 3.4% to 2.4% justified, particularly at a time when the cost of borrowing is rising?
If the deal is going to be "reworked," it has to be at the prevailing interest rate, or the City should get some new "consideration" from Carucci to support changing the contract. Neither is the case. The City will collect a smaller finance charge and have to wait 15 years longer to get its money back. In the long run, the Taxpayers will wind up with less . . . and THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS "REWORKING" WRONG.
So, what's the deal? The "same old same old" in New York: Nothing more than a public official using taxpayers' money to confer an illegal gift on someone who is "well connected." Haven't we had enough?
CNY Underground also has some comments on this.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Potpourri: NYRI, School Taxes, Independence Day
Via NYCO we found an editorial IN FAVOR OF the NYRI powerline (scroll down to "Power Play"). Too bad the folks at the Daily News didn't mention the decommissioned Shoreham LI nuke plant, the anticipated closure of two downstate conventional generating plants mentioned in the NYRI application as part justification for their line, or the proposal to shut down the Indian Point nuke plant. We guess in NYC its OK to beg off of the mess/risks of power generation when there is allegedly a surplus of clean upstate power one only needs a line to plug into.
Meanwhile Mayor Julian thinks he has found a way to beat NYRI: by claiming the railroad's contract with NYRI for use of their right of way is illegal. Some cursory research tells us that this plan will get nowhere. Case notes under §17 of the Railroad Law (which gives RRs the right to condemn property) indicate a situation where it was OK for a Railroad to condemn land, build a tunnel under it, and then lease the overlying land for apartment house purposes. Kip v New York C. R. Co. (1931) 140 Misc 62 affd 236 AD 654, affd 260 NY 692. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the RR leasing over head land for an apartment house and the RR leasing the over head air and part of its right of way for powerlines. Hopefully Fault Lines is wrong on this one.
Boilermaker weekend is fast approaching and one of our star runners will be none other than governor-apparent Eliot Sptizer. Hey, let's give him a warm Utica welcome with some "What's your stand on NYRI?" signs.
In the Annoyance Department this week we have an editorial about easing our school taxes with alternative ways of raising money. Here's another suggestion: SPEND LESS.
Also annoying was this cheerful piece on how our country abused the Cherokee. There is always someone who will rain on our parade.
Hope you all had a great 4th!
Meanwhile Mayor Julian thinks he has found a way to beat NYRI: by claiming the railroad's contract with NYRI for use of their right of way is illegal. Some cursory research tells us that this plan will get nowhere. Case notes under §17 of the Railroad Law (which gives RRs the right to condemn property) indicate a situation where it was OK for a Railroad to condemn land, build a tunnel under it, and then lease the overlying land for apartment house purposes. Kip v New York C. R. Co. (1931) 140 Misc 62 affd 236 AD 654, affd 260 NY 692. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the RR leasing over head land for an apartment house and the RR leasing the over head air and part of its right of way for powerlines. Hopefully Fault Lines is wrong on this one.
Boilermaker weekend is fast approaching and one of our star runners will be none other than governor-apparent Eliot Sptizer. Hey, let's give him a warm Utica welcome with some "What's your stand on NYRI?" signs.
In the Annoyance Department this week we have an editorial about easing our school taxes with alternative ways of raising money. Here's another suggestion: SPEND LESS.
Also annoying was this cheerful piece on how our country abused the Cherokee. There is always someone who will rain on our parade.
Hope you all had a great 4th!
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Stopping NYRI
Anyone who is a resident of a municipality that will be touched by the proposed NYRI Power Line has a RIGHT to Party Status in proceedings before the Public Service Commission, provided that they request same within 30 days of the filing of the application. (see DPS Regulations 85-2.11 (a)(10)). THE DUE DATE IS JUNE 30TH! Party Status allows you not only to file a statement, but also to directly participate in the proceedings, including presentation of evidence and cross examination of witnesses.
STOPNYRI.COM has a lot of information on the topic, including a nifty form that will generate a letter for requesting party status that you can print out and send in.
More information on NYRI is available from the Dept. of Public Service.
Capraro Technologies and Google have provided an Interactive Map where you can zoom in and see exactly where the line will be going.
This proposal is stoppable.
STOPNYRI.COM has a lot of information on the topic, including a nifty form that will generate a letter for requesting party status that you can print out and send in.
More information on NYRI is available from the Dept. of Public Service.
Capraro Technologies and Google have provided an Interactive Map where you can zoom in and see exactly where the line will be going.
This proposal is stoppable.
More Global Warming Hot Air . . .
You probably read this past week this or a similar article about Global Warming, proclaiming that the Earth is the Hottest It's Been in 2,000 Years.
This is nothing more than an attempt to repackage/rehab the "hockey stick" graph that has been discredited. The article reports nothing new. They say that if you repeat a lie often enough people begin to believe it . . . which is what seems to be going on here.
We've hardly had "stable temperatures for 2000 years" as claimed by the article. Fault Lines doesn't think they have resumed growing wine grapes in England as in Roman time, but if they have, clearly for a long time they were unable to. Fault Lines is also pretty sure farming has yet to be resumed on Greenland, as was the case around 1000, but then again, the human colony there was driven out by cold after a warm period. The hockey stick graph did not show these warm periods followed by cold ones.
Check out http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm for some commentary. Also go to the Junk Science main page and scroll down to the commentary about the recent news release.
Fault Lines still has its doubts.
This is nothing more than an attempt to repackage/rehab the "hockey stick" graph that has been discredited. The article reports nothing new. They say that if you repeat a lie often enough people begin to believe it . . . which is what seems to be going on here.
We've hardly had "stable temperatures for 2000 years" as claimed by the article. Fault Lines doesn't think they have resumed growing wine grapes in England as in Roman time, but if they have, clearly for a long time they were unable to. Fault Lines is also pretty sure farming has yet to be resumed on Greenland, as was the case around 1000, but then again, the human colony there was driven out by cold after a warm period. The hockey stick graph did not show these warm periods followed by cold ones.
Check out http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm for some commentary. Also go to the Junk Science main page and scroll down to the commentary about the recent news release.
Fault Lines still has its doubts.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
In the Chips . . .
At least the Rome Sentinel is giving decent coverage to the emerging Chip Fab incentives story. An update is available on this from the Times-Union.
Compare this with the stories in the Utica Observer-Dispatch on June 9 and June 10 which mentioned nothing about (1) the potential number of jobs (about 1000) or (2) the potential $1 Billion in state incentives for a Saratoga County site or (3) the fact that the Saratoga County site is no where near being ready for a plant.
Marcy is ready NOW.
It should seems obvious from the Rome story that if NY wants to maximize its chances to land the AMD chip fab (over a spot in Dresden Germany) the incentives should be offered for the Marcy site, too.
Why does the O-D leave out the "meat" of this story????
Update 7AM: O-D finally has a story here. Better late than never, though all the pieces were there over a week ago. Interestingly, Sen. Meier is already coming up with excuses for a Saratoga County choice, but Fault Lines heard this one years ago when we questioned why no one seemed to be looking here. Apparently he has his marching orders. This seems to be the (Republican) "party" line that the O-D is only too ready shill for -- to purposely discourage people of the region from speaking up and demanding what we have actually earned: Our site is ready NOW. It's a guess when Saratoga County will be ready, if ever, because its proposed new water facilities will not be economical without participation of a reluctant Clifton Park Water Authority.
While Fault Lines disagrees with spending a million dollars a job (essentially turning these jobs into government jobs without the government service), if the state is going to lavish this money somewhere, it might as well do it where it will go the farthest: HERE IN MARCY.
Update 5PM: Now we learn (from the T-U) (from the O-D) (from the Ro-Sen) that AMD will be choosing Luther Forest, that Marcy would be a "back up," and that either site would work for AMD. Frankly, Fault Lines is disgusted with our local Republican leadership simply rolling over and playing dead on this because it is clearly the $billion in incentives that have made the difference -- incentives that WE are paying for on top of almost a Billion more that has been lavished on the Albany area for nanotech.
This area is always the bridesmaid, never the bride, because there is always some other region with more "clout." Our local Republican officials have shown themselves to be impotent in bringing home the bacon from Republican administrations . . . Something we will remind voters of when election day rolls around!
Compare this with the stories in the Utica Observer-Dispatch on June 9 and June 10 which mentioned nothing about (1) the potential number of jobs (about 1000) or (2) the potential $1 Billion in state incentives for a Saratoga County site or (3) the fact that the Saratoga County site is no where near being ready for a plant.
Marcy is ready NOW.
It should seems obvious from the Rome story that if NY wants to maximize its chances to land the AMD chip fab (over a spot in Dresden Germany) the incentives should be offered for the Marcy site, too.
Why does the O-D leave out the "meat" of this story????
Update 7AM: O-D finally has a story here. Better late than never, though all the pieces were there over a week ago. Interestingly, Sen. Meier is already coming up with excuses for a Saratoga County choice, but Fault Lines heard this one years ago when we questioned why no one seemed to be looking here. Apparently he has his marching orders. This seems to be the (Republican) "party" line that the O-D is only too ready shill for -- to purposely discourage people of the region from speaking up and demanding what we have actually earned: Our site is ready NOW. It's a guess when Saratoga County will be ready, if ever, because its proposed new water facilities will not be economical without participation of a reluctant Clifton Park Water Authority.
While Fault Lines disagrees with spending a million dollars a job (essentially turning these jobs into government jobs without the government service), if the state is going to lavish this money somewhere, it might as well do it where it will go the farthest: HERE IN MARCY.
Update 5PM: Now we learn (from the T-U) (from the O-D) (from the Ro-Sen) that AMD will be choosing Luther Forest, that Marcy would be a "back up," and that either site would work for AMD. Frankly, Fault Lines is disgusted with our local Republican leadership simply rolling over and playing dead on this because it is clearly the $billion in incentives that have made the difference -- incentives that WE are paying for on top of almost a Billion more that has been lavished on the Albany area for nanotech.
This area is always the bridesmaid, never the bride, because there is always some other region with more "clout." Our local Republican officials have shown themselves to be impotent in bringing home the bacon from Republican administrations . . . Something we will remind voters of when election day rolls around!
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
More Distractions . . . and Control . . .
Fault Lines previously commented about yoga, a special career/community service conference, a "grim reaper," and science research as examples of distractions from core education pursuits at local schools.
The latest "distraction" will be two new health clinics that will be run by the St. Elizabeth Medical Center at Kernan and Donovan schools. Where was the public debate before the School Board about this? How many more so-called services will schools be expected to perform?
"Kids won't have to leave school to see a doctor or get a prescription."
Nice . . . Will the kids' parents be part of the picture when "health care" is administered?
Add this to the "Safe Schools Healthy Students Partnership" and we've taken another step toward what commentator Lynn Stuter would call an "emerging socialist police state." Too strong a view? Perhaps -- But consider that with health clinics in schools, the schools and their "partner" social service organizations would have unprecedented access to and be able to exchange highly personal information about students and their families ... ostensibly to offer "services," but also presenting opportunities for control.
Schools have been less than successfull educating our children, so we should expect even less success trusting them with our health. Fault Lines wishes that the schools would confine themselves to education, and leave healthcare to individual choice.
The latest "distraction" will be two new health clinics that will be run by the St. Elizabeth Medical Center at Kernan and Donovan schools. Where was the public debate before the School Board about this? How many more so-called services will schools be expected to perform?
"Kids won't have to leave school to see a doctor or get a prescription."
Nice . . . Will the kids' parents be part of the picture when "health care" is administered?
Add this to the "Safe Schools Healthy Students Partnership" and we've taken another step toward what commentator Lynn Stuter would call an "emerging socialist police state." Too strong a view? Perhaps -- But consider that with health clinics in schools, the schools and their "partner" social service organizations would have unprecedented access to and be able to exchange highly personal information about students and their families ... ostensibly to offer "services," but also presenting opportunities for control.
Schools have been less than successfull educating our children, so we should expect even less success trusting them with our health. Fault Lines wishes that the schools would confine themselves to education, and leave healthcare to individual choice.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Chips Ahoy! ... But will our Republican leaders lay down at Albany's direction?
It was nice to receive a bit of good news this week, that Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) is showing interest in the Marcy Chip Fab site. It's about time!
Four years ago we pointed out in frustration that a site in Saratoga County, Luther Forest, which hadn't even received local approvals and had a limited water supply, was receiving attention from several chip manufacturers, while our ready-to-go Marcy site was being ignored. We noted 2 years ago that people in Saratoga were opposed to their site. In spite of Marcy's shovel-readiness, and the lack of opposition here, EDGE seemed to be asleep at the switch, being less than aggressive in pursuing these potential customers. Personal communication with a county official about that time suggested that Albany wanted it that way.
Now, years later, we are competing with this same Saratoga County site. According to the Times-Union, State officials are putting together a $1 billion package of incentives
to lure AMD to the Saratoga County site -- which still is not ready (water and road improvements are still in the planning stages). As we previously pointed out, Luther Forest is dependent on groundwater sources and would have to complete an extensive project to get water from the Hudson before it would be ready (which may never happen). Marcy, however, is ready NOW!
Again, politics rears its ugly head. Roe-Ann Destito, fortunately, is on top of this one, asking that any incentive package offered for Saratoga County also be offered here, BUT WHERE ARE RAY MEIER AND JOE GRIFFO ON THIS??? They should be asking for the same consideration. Are they "playing nice" with the Albany Republican leadership to further their own careers? It would only be fair for Marcy to receive the same incentive package, especially since the Albany area has already received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to develop nanotech.
The choice between Luther Forest or Marcy should be a no-brainer: Marcy -- because it's ready to go -- Luther Forest might never be ready.
Lets see if our Republican "leaders" speak up for their area and aggressively push Marcy .... or will they place their personal political ambitions first and remain mum?
Four years ago we pointed out in frustration that a site in Saratoga County, Luther Forest, which hadn't even received local approvals and had a limited water supply, was receiving attention from several chip manufacturers, while our ready-to-go Marcy site was being ignored. We noted 2 years ago that people in Saratoga were opposed to their site. In spite of Marcy's shovel-readiness, and the lack of opposition here, EDGE seemed to be asleep at the switch, being less than aggressive in pursuing these potential customers. Personal communication with a county official about that time suggested that Albany wanted it that way.
Now, years later, we are competing with this same Saratoga County site. According to the Times-Union, State officials are putting together a $1 billion package of incentives
to lure AMD to the Saratoga County site -- which still is not ready (water and road improvements are still in the planning stages). As we previously pointed out, Luther Forest is dependent on groundwater sources and would have to complete an extensive project to get water from the Hudson before it would be ready (which may never happen). Marcy, however, is ready NOW!
Again, politics rears its ugly head. Roe-Ann Destito, fortunately, is on top of this one, asking that any incentive package offered for Saratoga County also be offered here, BUT WHERE ARE RAY MEIER AND JOE GRIFFO ON THIS??? They should be asking for the same consideration. Are they "playing nice" with the Albany Republican leadership to further their own careers? It would only be fair for Marcy to receive the same incentive package, especially since the Albany area has already received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to develop nanotech.
The choice between Luther Forest or Marcy should be a no-brainer: Marcy -- because it's ready to go -- Luther Forest might never be ready.
Lets see if our Republican "leaders" speak up for their area and aggressively push Marcy .... or will they place their personal political ambitions first and remain mum?
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Grants, grants, grants: Sucking on the public tit . . .
Per today's O-D, Oneida County will get $50K of help for brownfields from the federal government "to assess areas" local officials "believe to be contaminated."
Hello? The federal Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has already done this locally with its National Priorities List. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is already doing this for more sites with its Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Program, including Preliminary Site Assessments, and classification of various inactive hazardous waste disposal sites. Why should the county (or this consultant to the county) get money to do something the state and federal governments are already doing with fully trained experts in the field?
This "Let's reinvent the wheel" project sounds similar to what we heard back in 2002 when Niagara Mohawk said it was submitting a grant proposal to the USEPA to inventory and prioritize brownfield sites as part of the so-called "Center for Brownfield Studies" project. We all know now that the Center for Brownfield Studies never lived up to its promise. Like today's plan, it was nothing more than an excuse to spend taxpayer money, with the people implementing the program being its primary beneficiaries. Today's plan will accomplish no different.
There's more . . .
Oneida County's program was described by EPA last year as raising "agricultural issues," and that it would "identify and rank local environmental health issues," and "educate the public on environmental health issues by involving community members in decision-making and priority setting processes" -- which is somewhat different from the focus on brownfields in today's article. Why the original proposal to have this group involve people in "decision-making" when we already have duly elected officials to deal with these issues who should be seeking public imput? Don't we have more than enough "educational" programs? And now, why the change in focus to brownfields, especially when the ground has already been covered ? It's just an excuse to spend money.
What is interesting is who are among the program's prospective partners as listed by USEPA : Planned Parenthood Mohawk Hudson, Inc., Learning Disability Association of the Mohawk Valley, Catholic Charities of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse, Oneida County Historical Society, and Utica Safe Schools Healthy Students Partnership, Inc. (the latter of which rings a bell). What do these groups have to do with brownfields? What do they have to do with environmental health?
Why announce the program and solicit applications from municipalities today, 5/30, when the deadline for applications is 6/6, only a week away? Is this group serious, or does it already know who will be getting the money?
We already know what sites need to be cleaned up, and the road blocks involved. We don't need some new entity doing another study. To Fault Lines, this looks like just another example of the "clique" of "do gooders" (well-connected non-governmental organizations) creating/perpetuating their own jobs and promoting their private agendas by helping themselves to OUR MONEY. What's worse, as the Utica Safe Schools Partnership illustrates, it becomes an opportunity for government to circumvent "open-government" laws by acting through private organizations, and for private organizations to have access to confidential governmental information on businesses and individuals they otherwise would be unable to obtain. We pay for this. Nice deal, eh?
Hello? The federal Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has already done this locally with its National Priorities List. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is already doing this for more sites with its Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Program, including Preliminary Site Assessments, and classification of various inactive hazardous waste disposal sites. Why should the county (or this consultant to the county) get money to do something the state and federal governments are already doing with fully trained experts in the field?
This "Let's reinvent the wheel" project sounds similar to what we heard back in 2002 when Niagara Mohawk said it was submitting a grant proposal to the USEPA to inventory and prioritize brownfield sites as part of the so-called "Center for Brownfield Studies" project. We all know now that the Center for Brownfield Studies never lived up to its promise. Like today's plan, it was nothing more than an excuse to spend taxpayer money, with the people implementing the program being its primary beneficiaries. Today's plan will accomplish no different.
There's more . . .
Oneida County's program was described by EPA last year as raising "agricultural issues," and that it would "identify and rank local environmental health issues," and "educate the public on environmental health issues by involving community members in decision-making and priority setting processes" -- which is somewhat different from the focus on brownfields in today's article. Why the original proposal to have this group involve people in "decision-making" when we already have duly elected officials to deal with these issues who should be seeking public imput? Don't we have more than enough "educational" programs? And now, why the change in focus to brownfields, especially when the ground has already been covered ? It's just an excuse to spend money.
What is interesting is who are among the program's prospective partners as listed by USEPA : Planned Parenthood Mohawk Hudson, Inc., Learning Disability Association of the Mohawk Valley, Catholic Charities of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse, Oneida County Historical Society, and Utica Safe Schools Healthy Students Partnership, Inc. (the latter of which rings a bell). What do these groups have to do with brownfields? What do they have to do with environmental health?
Why announce the program and solicit applications from municipalities today, 5/30, when the deadline for applications is 6/6, only a week away? Is this group serious, or does it already know who will be getting the money?
We already know what sites need to be cleaned up, and the road blocks involved. We don't need some new entity doing another study. To Fault Lines, this looks like just another example of the "clique" of "do gooders" (well-connected non-governmental organizations) creating/perpetuating their own jobs and promoting their private agendas by helping themselves to OUR MONEY. What's worse, as the Utica Safe Schools Partnership illustrates, it becomes an opportunity for government to circumvent "open-government" laws by acting through private organizations, and for private organizations to have access to confidential governmental information on businesses and individuals they otherwise would be unable to obtain. We pay for this. Nice deal, eh?
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Utica's Hidden Treasures
Root Glen, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY
. . . and the Utica Marsh
© All rights reserved.
. . . and the Utica Marsh
© All rights reserved.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Oneida County Justice?
CNY Underground points out that things don't look too good with Judge Romano having been the foreperson on the Grand Jury which indicted John Healy. Healy's lawyers are moving to dismiss the murder indictment, arguing that other jurors may have been intimidated by a Supreme Court Justice. The WKTV story on this also notes that Judge Romano was formerly a prosecutor in the District Attorney's office now prosecuting the charge.
At one time Judiciary Law §511 disqualified judges from the State's Unified Court System from serving on juries. (It also disqualified a host of other officials). Judiciary Law §511, however, no longer exists. Thus, judges are no longer exempt from this civic duty.
A defendant's ability to challenge a juror assists in ensuring that he/she will be judged by an unbiased jury. However, individuals serving on a Grand Jury are not subject to such challenge (CPL 190.20) as are jurors on a petit jury (CPL 270.15).
Unless there is reason to believe that the judge was not placed on the jury at random as required by Judiciary Law §507 (and no evidence of this has been presented), having this judge on the Grand Jury passes muster.
The court's appointment of the judge as jury foreperson (CPL 190.20(3)) would have elevated the judge's stature above her peer jurors, and could be criticized.
Everything may be according to the letter of the law . . . but what about appearances? Having a former prosecutor on a Grand Jury certainly gives an appearance of bias. Where is common sense? Is this what we citizens want Oneida County Justice to look like?
When the legislature did away with §511, they expanded the potential jury pool. Could they also have forgotten a reason why they put §511 on the books to begin with?
Technorati Tags: Mohawk+Valley Government Law
At one time Judiciary Law §511 disqualified judges from the State's Unified Court System from serving on juries. (It also disqualified a host of other officials). Judiciary Law §511, however, no longer exists. Thus, judges are no longer exempt from this civic duty.
A defendant's ability to challenge a juror assists in ensuring that he/she will be judged by an unbiased jury. However, individuals serving on a Grand Jury are not subject to such challenge (CPL 190.20) as are jurors on a petit jury (CPL 270.15).
Unless there is reason to believe that the judge was not placed on the jury at random as required by Judiciary Law §507 (and no evidence of this has been presented), having this judge on the Grand Jury passes muster.
The court's appointment of the judge as jury foreperson (CPL 190.20(3)) would have elevated the judge's stature above her peer jurors, and could be criticized.
Everything may be according to the letter of the law . . . but what about appearances? Having a former prosecutor on a Grand Jury certainly gives an appearance of bias. Where is common sense? Is this what we citizens want Oneida County Justice to look like?
When the legislature did away with §511, they expanded the potential jury pool. Could they also have forgotten a reason why they put §511 on the books to begin with?
Technorati Tags: Mohawk+Valley Government Law
Monday, May 15, 2006
Miscellaneous Musings ... Schools, Powerlines, & Blogging
School Board elections are tomorrow. The Utica OD gave pretty cursory coverage to the candidates in Utica. What happened to the third candidate who was supposedly eliminated on a residency issue? Was the person really a resident, and, if not, why would a non-resident want to run? What were her qualifications? The situation was only mentioned a couple weeks ago with little follow up. The current election looks like a coronation of system insider, Margaret Buckley, by the system. No debates, no detailed coverage of the people running for the biggest system in the county. The System insiders will turn out to vote. All the Seniors have been bought off by STAR and won't bother voting. No one knows the challenger and the local media happily cooperate to keep things that way. No wonder why people don't vote. . . Regardless, don't expect change with the same people in charge.
The proposed power line from Marcy thru/around Utica to downstate has justifiably raised a lot of concern. Is our beautiful landscape (about all we have left to prize around here) about to be sacrificed to satisfy the downstate metropolis' thirst for power? . . . And visit on us higher electrical rates on top of our already 2nd highest rates in the nation? Fortunately our local politicians seem united on this one, with Dave Valesky presenting a thoughtful editorial on the subject in the OD. If Downstate needs power, they should live with the environmental consequences of producing/transporting it. How about windfarms off the Long Island Coast? Or, better yet, why not take the Shoreham, Long Island Nuke plant out of mothballs and get it going? As I remember, it was almost completed when New York State and Suffolk County decided it did not want the risk of a Nuke plant on its shores (. . . a little late for a lot of investors). Talk about a typical New York waste!
Finally, blogger Dan Weaver down Amsterdam way has an excellent post on why he blogs. What he says rings true at this end of the Valley, too. Well worth a read.
Technorati Tags: Mohawk+Valley Economic+Development Education Environment Government Utica
The proposed power line from Marcy thru/around Utica to downstate has justifiably raised a lot of concern. Is our beautiful landscape (about all we have left to prize around here) about to be sacrificed to satisfy the downstate metropolis' thirst for power? . . . And visit on us higher electrical rates on top of our already 2nd highest rates in the nation? Fortunately our local politicians seem united on this one, with Dave Valesky presenting a thoughtful editorial on the subject in the OD. If Downstate needs power, they should live with the environmental consequences of producing/transporting it. How about windfarms off the Long Island Coast? Or, better yet, why not take the Shoreham, Long Island Nuke plant out of mothballs and get it going? As I remember, it was almost completed when New York State and Suffolk County decided it did not want the risk of a Nuke plant on its shores (. . . a little late for a lot of investors). Talk about a typical New York waste!
Finally, blogger Dan Weaver down Amsterdam way has an excellent post on why he blogs. What he says rings true at this end of the Valley, too. Well worth a read.
Technorati Tags: Mohawk+Valley Economic+Development Education Environment Government Utica
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Drinking Too Much Albany Water
Assemblymen Townsend and Butler have offered a water "compromise" between the Mohawk Valley Water Authority and the State Canal Corp.: Place all the payments sought by Canal Corp. in escrow, with the money ultimately to be paid out to the winner of the pending lawsuit. This would allow expansion of the water system into outlying areas.
Uh .. Guys ... Hey! Did you forget about US? (Who?) US .. THE RATE PAYERS. .. The ones who will be expected to come up with the $600,000 + to pay for this "deal" ... The ones who will receive NO benefit from this deal. No matter who "wins" the lawsuit, the ratepayers lose because they will have already paid the money. (And no, in the unlikely event MVWA wins, we don't expect it to give the money back to the ratepayers -- it will probably just expand its staff).
If people need water to grow homes and businesses, let them come to Utica and environs where water service is already in place. Don't expect US to pay to expand the system into outlying areas just so the politically well connected can go forward with their developments.
Interesting how these guys solve a problem with NARY A THOUGHT about the people paying the bills ... All too typical thinking from our State Capital. Perhaps Messrs. Townsend and Butler have been drinking the Albany water too long ...
Technorati Tags: Mohawk+Valley Economic+Development Environment Government Regionalization Utica Water+Supply
Uh .. Guys ... Hey! Did you forget about US? (Who?) US .. THE RATE PAYERS. .. The ones who will be expected to come up with the $600,000 + to pay for this "deal" ... The ones who will receive NO benefit from this deal. No matter who "wins" the lawsuit, the ratepayers lose because they will have already paid the money. (And no, in the unlikely event MVWA wins, we don't expect it to give the money back to the ratepayers -- it will probably just expand its staff).
If people need water to grow homes and businesses, let them come to Utica and environs where water service is already in place. Don't expect US to pay to expand the system into outlying areas just so the politically well connected can go forward with their developments.
Interesting how these guys solve a problem with NARY A THOUGHT about the people paying the bills ... All too typical thinking from our State Capital. Perhaps Messrs. Townsend and Butler have been drinking the Albany water too long ...
Technorati Tags: Mohawk+Valley Economic+Development Environment Government Regionalization Utica Water+Supply
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Monday, May 01, 2006
Utica helping Rome . . . sort of . . .
Per Today's OD, Utica Safe Schools Partnership is helping Rome City Schools on a grant in a so-called "model of regional cooperation." To be sure, it may make sense for Rome to hire some of the people from the Utica group because the latter has had 4 years experience with its own program. But Romans need to understand what they are getting.
The circumstances surrounding the creation of the program in Utica were a bit suspicious when a 501(c)(3) corporation was founded by SOME school officials and board members, the corporation was set up to do business with the school district and hold grant funds to be used in the district, but the corporation kept their meetings closed to the public - - - inspite of the fact that federal funds (ie public tax dollars) were being spent. See a prior post in 2002 "The Safe Schools Project -- What's the real intent?" for the "low down."
Now here we are four years later . . . The Utica federal grant has been exhausted, but, somehow, the program's existence continues. Rather than a "model of regional cooperation," this sounds more like an example of people (the Utica Safe Schools people) perpetuating their jobs (by latching onto Rome's grant).
Technorati Tags: Mohawk+Valley Education Rome Utica
The circumstances surrounding the creation of the program in Utica were a bit suspicious when a 501(c)(3) corporation was founded by SOME school officials and board members, the corporation was set up to do business with the school district and hold grant funds to be used in the district, but the corporation kept their meetings closed to the public - - - inspite of the fact that federal funds (ie public tax dollars) were being spent. See a prior post in 2002 "The Safe Schools Project -- What's the real intent?" for the "low down."
Now here we are four years later . . . The Utica federal grant has been exhausted, but, somehow, the program's existence continues. Rather than a "model of regional cooperation," this sounds more like an example of people (the Utica Safe Schools people) perpetuating their jobs (by latching onto Rome's grant).
Technorati Tags: Mohawk+Valley Education Rome Utica
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Immigration in the 24th . . .
CNY Underground has a thought provoking piece on immigration that literally brings it home to our region . . . and in a way that will make you feel the issue. No sides are taken . . . but he makes it clear that silence is unacceptable. Take a look at it.
Technorati Tags: Mohawk+Valley Government
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Global Warming, Ignorance, Economic Destruction and the New Dark Age
According to yesterday’s Utica OD our area is seeing signs of global warming. Yet the fact that only 3 months ago people in Russia were dying from record breaking cold that spread into Europe and caused the Prague Zoo to move its penguins indoors might suggest otherwise.
Per the OD: “Global warming is largely caused by the emission of so-called greenhouse gasses from cars and factories, said U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New Hartford, who chairs the House Science Committee. Those gases eat away at the atmosphere's protection against the sun”.
“Greenhouse gasses… eat away at the atmosphere’s protection …” Huh? Did we hear that right? Or was the reporter just paraphrasing? Hopefully the Chair of the House Science Committee did not really say that. Greenhouse gasses don’t “eat away” at anything; much less eat away at “protection.” This statement evidences ignorance of how the greenhouse effect works, explained here in an animation (ignore the last two frames, which are propaganda).
While the greenhouse theory may be sound, the conclusion that gasses from cars and factories are the major cause of warming (called manmade or “anthropogenic” warming) is far from proven, although a consensus is claimed. CO2, the product of burning fossil fuels, is the culprit most cited along with the fact that a sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been documented since the mid-1800s, along with a rise in average world temperature since that time. See Summary for Policymakers, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Although melting glaciers and rising sea levels are cited with alarm by the media as evidence of Global Warming, they are nothing new and, therefore, are not evidence that mankind has anything to do with Global Warming. Any geologist will tell you that Upstate New York was once under a mile-thick ice sheet as recently as 18000 years ago, the ice sheet came and melted four times, sea level was once 300 feet lower than now, and there was once a land-bridge connecting Siberia with Alaska. Obviously something caused the ice sheet to melt 4 times and the seas to rise -- but it could not have been man. These geologic facts seem to be ignored in most discussions of global warming. Against this paleo-climactic background, the current warming of about 0.6 degrees C over the last century and predicted consequences of more seem … ordinary!
Curiously ignored by IPCC seems to be the role of the most prevalent greenhouse gas, H2O in the form of Water Vapor, the effect of which probably overwhelms any effect of CO2.
Mr. St. John from Rome in a letter to the Editor of the Sentinel raises the sun’s role in warming, pointing to evidence of a warmer-than-now climate in ages past, specifically the Middle Ages Viking colony in Greenland that was wiped out by the “Little Ice Age” which followed. To this Fault Lines would add that Ancient Romans were able to grow wine grapes in present day England. These ancient warm periods, long documented in history, seem to have been conveniently ignored. Shouldn’t the sun’s role and the Medieval and Roman era warm periods and the retreats of the great ice-sheets be accounted for before mankind gets blamed? Indeed, the whole idea of overwhelming climate change appears to have been oversold.
Of course, Mr. St. John’s and Fault Lines’ opinions can be dismissed as being non-expert. But we apparently have learned enough along the way to know that we have questions that have yet to receive adequate, understandable answers. Given that Governor Pataki has signed New York on to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative based on a dubious theory, we along with all New Yorkers, face the potential of double-digit increases in our already too high utility rates. Are we not entitled to have our concerns accounted for before the last vestige of the Upstate economy is destroyed?
Unfortunately, people like Mr. St. John are too few in numbers to attract any serious attention. In a “dumb-downed” age where education leaders push students’ doing things rather than knowing things and grade on subjective “performance” standards, We the People have been increasingly conditioned to simply accept without question, and to do, whatever we are told by so-called “experts” based on “black box” modeling that we do not understand.
The whole Global Warming debacle seems emblematic of a much larger, world-wide, societal problem. Indeed, we seem to be entering a new Dark Age where knowledge is reserved for an elite and anyone who knows enough to question is marginalized.
Technorati Tags: Mohawk+Valley Education Environment Government
Per the OD: “Global warming is largely caused by the emission of so-called greenhouse gasses from cars and factories, said U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New Hartford, who chairs the House Science Committee. Those gases eat away at the atmosphere's protection against the sun”.
“Greenhouse gasses… eat away at the atmosphere’s protection …” Huh? Did we hear that right? Or was the reporter just paraphrasing? Hopefully the Chair of the House Science Committee did not really say that. Greenhouse gasses don’t “eat away” at anything; much less eat away at “protection.” This statement evidences ignorance of how the greenhouse effect works, explained here in an animation (ignore the last two frames, which are propaganda).
While the greenhouse theory may be sound, the conclusion that gasses from cars and factories are the major cause of warming (called manmade or “anthropogenic” warming) is far from proven, although a consensus is claimed. CO2, the product of burning fossil fuels, is the culprit most cited along with the fact that a sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been documented since the mid-1800s, along with a rise in average world temperature since that time. See Summary for Policymakers, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Although melting glaciers and rising sea levels are cited with alarm by the media as evidence of Global Warming, they are nothing new and, therefore, are not evidence that mankind has anything to do with Global Warming. Any geologist will tell you that Upstate New York was once under a mile-thick ice sheet as recently as 18000 years ago, the ice sheet came and melted four times, sea level was once 300 feet lower than now, and there was once a land-bridge connecting Siberia with Alaska. Obviously something caused the ice sheet to melt 4 times and the seas to rise -- but it could not have been man. These geologic facts seem to be ignored in most discussions of global warming. Against this paleo-climactic background, the current warming of about 0.6 degrees C over the last century and predicted consequences of more seem … ordinary!
Curiously ignored by IPCC seems to be the role of the most prevalent greenhouse gas, H2O in the form of Water Vapor, the effect of which probably overwhelms any effect of CO2.
Mr. St. John from Rome in a letter to the Editor of the Sentinel raises the sun’s role in warming, pointing to evidence of a warmer-than-now climate in ages past, specifically the Middle Ages Viking colony in Greenland that was wiped out by the “Little Ice Age” which followed. To this Fault Lines would add that Ancient Romans were able to grow wine grapes in present day England. These ancient warm periods, long documented in history, seem to have been conveniently ignored. Shouldn’t the sun’s role and the Medieval and Roman era warm periods and the retreats of the great ice-sheets be accounted for before mankind gets blamed? Indeed, the whole idea of overwhelming climate change appears to have been oversold.
Of course, Mr. St. John’s and Fault Lines’ opinions can be dismissed as being non-expert. But we apparently have learned enough along the way to know that we have questions that have yet to receive adequate, understandable answers. Given that Governor Pataki has signed New York on to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative based on a dubious theory, we along with all New Yorkers, face the potential of double-digit increases in our already too high utility rates. Are we not entitled to have our concerns accounted for before the last vestige of the Upstate economy is destroyed?
Unfortunately, people like Mr. St. John are too few in numbers to attract any serious attention. In a “dumb-downed” age where education leaders push students’ doing things rather than knowing things and grade on subjective “performance” standards, We the People have been increasingly conditioned to simply accept without question, and to do, whatever we are told by so-called “experts” based on “black box” modeling that we do not understand.
The whole Global Warming debacle seems emblematic of a much larger, world-wide, societal problem. Indeed, we seem to be entering a new Dark Age where knowledge is reserved for an elite and anyone who knows enough to question is marginalized.
Technorati Tags: Mohawk+Valley Education Environment Government
Friday, April 21, 2006
H2O: Deal . . . or No Deal?
On Tuesday the OD reported that the State Canal Corp. offered a "temporary resolution" of its dispute with the Mohawk Valley Water Authority, stemming from a violation of a 1917 Agreement. In return for certain payments, Canals would withdraw its objection to a permit that would allow the MVWA to expand its water system in Frankfort, Schuyler, Kirkland, and Westmoreland. "[I]t's a win-win situation" gushed Westmoreland Supervisor Sydoriw, and State Sen. Meier opined that the proposal was reasonable.
According to the OD, the deal was cooked up the previous Friday in a meeting between Canals, supervisors of the four towns, and state legislators. Apparently not invited were the MVWA; the Towns of New Hartford, Whitestown, Marcy, and Deerfield; the villages included in those towns; and the City of Utica.
Again, we witness another backroom deal that will benefit those who are politically connected (in this case, those who were invited to the conference) at the Expense of those excluded.
For every 1,000 gallons of water drawn, MVWA would pay 3 cents to Canals and 5.5 cents to Erie Boulevard Hydropower. Additionally, MVWA would have to pay Canals and the power company $1,000/day if it draws more than 20 million gallons a day (20MGD). Not mentioned is the fact that the MVWA already draws about 20 MGD, meaning the $1,000/day (which sounds like a penalty) will be charged almost every day.
Because of MVWA's "regional" structure, EVERY CUSTOMER OF THE MVWA no matter where they live will wind up paying for these charges. Most definitely a "win-win" situation if you are the Westmoreland Supervisor, or are a Senator trying to score points in bringing city water to those who don't have it. THIS IS TYPICAL ALBANY THINKING: SPEND SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY. What about ALL the current MVWA customers in Utica, New Hartford, Whitestown, etc etc. - the people who will pay virtually the entire cost? They have no obligations to those who chose to live in the fringe areas. They get the shaft.
We found out on Wednesday that this "deal," after accounting for expected new revenue from the expansion areas, could cost the Water Authority up to $500,000.00 per year. According to Canals in a Sentinel article, this would cost the typical residential user 75 cents a month (or another $2.25 on your quarterly bill). Sorry, we pay enough already!
If the 4-town expansion is a Net-Loser, MVWA would be crazy to go through with it.
NO DEAL!
Now Ms. Mantello of Canals wants to "explain" the deal to MVWA at its meeting. Why the theatrics? Why not put the explanation in writing, including the justification for the charges, and make it public in advance of the meeting, so people can come prepared with questions?
MVWA goofed when it destroyed Gray Dam and got itself into this mess with Canals. MVWA has also been a tad arrogant with Canals and unwilling to negotiate. Regardless, MVWA's insolence is no excuse for the politicians and Canals to collude to pick the pockets MVWA's customers to benefit others.
MVWA can't expect to get away without paying something, and, unfortunately that is a price that we as customers will have to pay for its incompetence. It has seriously infringed on the rights of not only Canals, and the power companies, but all others who use Hinckley Lake because, as a third party beneficiary contract (ie for the People of NYS), all people should have a reasonable expectation that the 1917 Agreement would be complied with in perpetuity, as was its framers' intent. MVWA has increased Canals' exposure to lawsuits and Canals should somehow be compensated for this exposure.
Canals, however, needs to get real. What they demand needs to bear some relationship to the degree of harm they have suffered or will suffer by MVWA's non-compliance with the old agreement -- which seems to be minimal as MVWA's obligation to release water to Hinckley only involves at best a few days per year. Any harm caused or that will be caused in the future through increased withdrawals can probably be estimated mathematically. If Canals is serious about settling rather than playing politics, it needs to do the math to show how it is harmed.
Both sides should stop posturing and just settle the issue, once and for all. And, Please, do this in public and let us participate -- after all, WE are paying the bill.
Technorati Tags: Mohawk+Valley Economic+Development Environment Government Regionalization Utica Water+Supply
According to the OD, the deal was cooked up the previous Friday in a meeting between Canals, supervisors of the four towns, and state legislators. Apparently not invited were the MVWA; the Towns of New Hartford, Whitestown, Marcy, and Deerfield; the villages included in those towns; and the City of Utica.
Again, we witness another backroom deal that will benefit those who are politically connected (in this case, those who were invited to the conference) at the Expense of those excluded.
For every 1,000 gallons of water drawn, MVWA would pay 3 cents to Canals and 5.5 cents to Erie Boulevard Hydropower. Additionally, MVWA would have to pay Canals and the power company $1,000/day if it draws more than 20 million gallons a day (20MGD). Not mentioned is the fact that the MVWA already draws about 20 MGD, meaning the $1,000/day (which sounds like a penalty) will be charged almost every day.
Because of MVWA's "regional" structure, EVERY CUSTOMER OF THE MVWA no matter where they live will wind up paying for these charges. Most definitely a "win-win" situation if you are the Westmoreland Supervisor, or are a Senator trying to score points in bringing city water to those who don't have it. THIS IS TYPICAL ALBANY THINKING: SPEND SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY. What about ALL the current MVWA customers in Utica, New Hartford, Whitestown, etc etc. - the people who will pay virtually the entire cost? They have no obligations to those who chose to live in the fringe areas. They get the shaft.
We found out on Wednesday that this "deal," after accounting for expected new revenue from the expansion areas, could cost the Water Authority up to $500,000.00 per year. According to Canals in a Sentinel article, this would cost the typical residential user 75 cents a month (or another $2.25 on your quarterly bill). Sorry, we pay enough already!
If the 4-town expansion is a Net-Loser, MVWA would be crazy to go through with it.
NO DEAL!
Now Ms. Mantello of Canals wants to "explain" the deal to MVWA at its meeting. Why the theatrics? Why not put the explanation in writing, including the justification for the charges, and make it public in advance of the meeting, so people can come prepared with questions?
MVWA goofed when it destroyed Gray Dam and got itself into this mess with Canals. MVWA has also been a tad arrogant with Canals and unwilling to negotiate. Regardless, MVWA's insolence is no excuse for the politicians and Canals to collude to pick the pockets MVWA's customers to benefit others.
MVWA can't expect to get away without paying something, and, unfortunately that is a price that we as customers will have to pay for its incompetence. It has seriously infringed on the rights of not only Canals, and the power companies, but all others who use Hinckley Lake because, as a third party beneficiary contract (ie for the People of NYS), all people should have a reasonable expectation that the 1917 Agreement would be complied with in perpetuity, as was its framers' intent. MVWA has increased Canals' exposure to lawsuits and Canals should somehow be compensated for this exposure.
Canals, however, needs to get real. What they demand needs to bear some relationship to the degree of harm they have suffered or will suffer by MVWA's non-compliance with the old agreement -- which seems to be minimal as MVWA's obligation to release water to Hinckley only involves at best a few days per year. Any harm caused or that will be caused in the future through increased withdrawals can probably be estimated mathematically. If Canals is serious about settling rather than playing politics, it needs to do the math to show how it is harmed.
Both sides should stop posturing and just settle the issue, once and for all. And, Please, do this in public and let us participate -- after all, WE are paying the bill.
Technorati Tags: Mohawk+Valley Economic+Development Environment Government Regionalization Utica Water+Supply
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)