OK, I read the Strib story; it was there on their front page:
Parks think green, as in cash
Minneapolis' Park Board is looking at business partnerships and other ventures to bring in needed bucks.
By ALEX EBERT, Star Tribune
Last update: July 25, 2010 - 9:19 PM
Faced with a shrunken budget, Minneapolis park leaders hope a combination of bikes, burgers and an Italian sculptor named Brioschi will stave off further cuts to the popular and nationally known park system.
Two weeks ago I wrote a post entitled "Protecting A Parking Lot" where Park Watch's June 17th testimony to the Park Board was duly noted and dismissed as the junk it was. I was going to fisk that junk; but other things got in the way. So, I thought I'd attend last night's Minneapolis Park Board meeting, and do some fisking there. Here's what I wanted to say; I gave an abridged version as I thought I'd have three minutes but was only given two:
Mr. President, Ms. Vice President, Commissioners: My name is Tommy Johnson. Most of you know me as TwoPutt Tommy. I am a blogger at MNProgressiveProject. I am here to speak about blogging, ParkWatch, and a little bit about Crown Hydro.
MNProgressiveProject is a group of bloggers that speak for no one but ourselves. We cover issues all over the state of Minnesota. Like all reputable blogs, we try to follow something loosely called the Blogger's Code of Ethics. There are two basic elements we go by.
First, be honest in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. This means checking facts. One of the tenets of this guideline is to distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
Second, be accountable. We admit our mistakes, and correct our posts.
In the course of my blogging, I covered the issue of Crown Hydro, and became aware of ParkWatch. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is covered extensively by the blog ParkWatch, and they are also activists against certain projects, such as Crown Hydro. On June 17th a blogger from ParkWatch addressed the Park Board and posted said comments on their blog.
I made a brief blog post about this on Friday, June 19th - I brefly touched on Park Watch's comments, but didn't get into specifics. Tonight, I'd like to.
On June 17th, a Park Watch member, Arlene Fried, made the following comments:
She said, and I quote: "We know that the public will lose control over St. Anthony Falls to a private developer and the FERC. No one can predict water flows over the next 50 to 100 years, and an EAW will not enlighten you on this topic. The FERC will have the authority to let the Falls run dry in order to produce energy."
This is completely at odds with what the FERC License says. The FERC license Article 309 requires Crown Hydro to work with the other water users on a flow plan. (1) They did this. (2) There are 4 water users at this elevation, the City, the Army Corps and Xcel Energy. Crown Hydro has last use. First to turn off, last to turn on, and will never run at times of low flow. Article 404 (3) requires them to have a plan to implement this. And finally, the lease terms negotiated by the Park Board indicate the Park Board has control of water diversion when flows are at 1000 cfs or below. (4) This lease term becomes part of the FERC license, in essence, fully enforceable federal law. Some people might call what Ms. Fried said untrue; I'll simply say the license contradicts what she said.
The second statement she made, and I quote: "We know that a FERC hydropower license will preempt local control of historic preservation issues."
Again, completely at odds with everything I've read. This is local park land, on a federal waterway, in part of a national park. The Minneapolis Heritage Preservation office will work with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to create a Programmatic Agreement that addresses historic preservation issues. Some people might call what Ms. Fried said untrue; I'll simply say the record contradicts what she said.
I hope the ParkWatch blog accepts these fact corrections and edits their blog accordingly.
Quite frankly, the Park Watch people don't source their work and for the most part their work is junk. When people have to make stuff up to make a point, their point isn't worth making.
FOR THE RECORD: I was not involved in forming the Minneapolis Park Watch Watch blog, I have not been invoved, nor am I now involved. But, I'd like to think that my mocking, ridiculing, and scorning of the Park Watch folk was part of the inspiration to the people that did. And who knows? Down the road, I might just make a post or three or more over there...
"Information? We don't need no stinkin' information."
It's important to note that after all their "due diligence" - according to them - the Sierra Club decided to oppose the Crown Hydro project on the basis that "a fifty year lease (of a parking lot) isn't really a 'lease' - it's a 'sale'."
Here's the money quote from the Chapter's State Director, Maragret Levin:
"After careful consideration, the Sierra Club is opposing the Crown Hydro project due to what amounts to, legally, as a "sale" of public parkland (the proposed 50-year lease, with a right to renew for an additional 50 years). The Sierra Club North Star Chapter has long expressed concern about the sale of public park land to a private enterprise."
Now, one way to look at that opposition is this: since after all that "careful consideration" the only - ONLY - reason the Sierra Club opposes the project is the length of the lease, it must be a pretty dam(n) good project.
But, what did ParkWatch testify to the Minneapolis Park Board, just the other night? Let's look!
Sundays, I have dinner with my mother - it's tradition. Last night, I asked: "Say, Mom - if an organization with the reputation of the Sierra Club came out against a proposed project, would you assume that the Sierra Club had offered the project the opportunity to present their case, and then proceeded with a fair, full, and open due diligence?" "Why, of course." was her answer. And she was shocked to learn that in the case of the Crown Hydro Project, that had not happened; that there was a failure in process by the North Star Chapter of The Sierra Club.
That the North Star Chapter of The Sierra Club did not do fair, full, and open due diligence prior to publicly opposing Crown Hydro really isn't in dispute; State Director Margaret Levin admitted last Friday that although they now are officially opposing Crown Hydro, there was only one meeting with Crown Hydro and only one Club member attended - in November of 2007; 17 months ago (give or take a few days).
Now, a lot of people know that the Sierra Club North Star Chapter endorses candidates. I e-mailed Jill Boogren, Chair, Minneapolis Political Committee, Sierra Club North Star Chapter, the following questions:
"After careful consideration, the Sierra Club is opposing the Crown Hydro project due to what amounts to, legally, as a "sale" of public parkland (the proposed 50-year lease, with a right to renew for an additional 50 years). The Sierra Club North Star Chapter has long expressed concern about the sale of public park land to a private enterprise.
We recognize that the proposed use is in accordance with Minnesota Statute 103G.535, and we are not lobbying to change State Statute 103G.535.
The Sierra Club is cognizant of the delicate balance between promoting a clean energy future and the impact of projects on the local parkland and natural resources."
(Note - this post was submitted by Charise Canales, a senior at Minneapolis' Southwest High School. To add your name to her website, link here).
Last summer, I heard about the Crown Hydro project from a school friend. I set up a meeting with their lobbyist, Nikki Carlson, in order to learn more about the project and to get involved. I immediately became a supporter, wondering why it had not yet been completed. I decided that I would do whatever possible in order to gain support from the community and get it built. My hope was that the project would be finished before I graduated from high school in June of this year.
I helped create a web site, PowerOfOneHundred, with the goal of finding 100 supporters. I thought that if I could get 100 people to show their support, the park board would listen and approve the project. If people want to join, they send me their picture and a statement of their support, and I put them up on the web site. Besides gaining supporters and maintaining the PowerOfOneHundred site, I have given presentations to environmental groups. Also, I have been interviewed by online bloggers, the Southwest journal, and I wrote an OpEd piece for the Star Tribune. I have made it my responsibility to promote small hydro projects, and demonstrate how much I believe in the Crown Hydro project. I believe it is the first step towards building a cleaner, greener world for the next few generations.
-- by Charise Canales, Minneapolis
(again, to add your name to Charise's website, link here).
The Crown Hydro Project proposes using the power of the St. Anthony Falls to generate clean and renewable electricity - link to Liberal in the Land of Conservative to see exactly what the "before" and "after" images of what the construction site does and will look like.
Throughout the Crown Hydro Project's long history, the major obstacle to construction has been the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. There are very loud and very local activists adamantly opposed to this project - and very clear that they feel only they should have any say in the matter. Here's what one Minneapolis resident had to say on the matter, on the Minneapolis Issues List:
Like it or not, the Crown Hydro project wants to use land that is owned by the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board and, that board is elected by residents of Minneapolis. They ought to concern themselves very much with what Minneapolis taxpayers say; they can pretty much ignore what taxpayers in Eden Prairie say.
This comment is typical of those opposed to Crown Hydro, even though the Park Board relies heavily on outside funding for it's operations and even though Crown Hydro would provide approximately $300,000 - annually - in additional Park Board funding.
How heavily does the Minneapolis Park Board rely on revenue other than property taxes for it's operations? In 2007, according to the Park Board, of the total 2007 Park Board revenues, 14.1% were Unrestricted Grants &
Contributions; 3.8% were Operating Grants & Contributions; and 13% were Capital Grants & Contributions - for a total of 30.9% of total revenue. Only 62.3% of 2007 Park Board revenues, according to the Park Board, were
generated by locally-paid property taxes.
The St. Cloud Times Editorial Board weighed in on the subject of regional parks funding at the state level, today. Let's look at part of what they said:
(Editor's note: more, and a YouTube too, beyond the fold)
I first started writing about the proposed Crown Hydro Project back on February 10th, and have been looking for a legitimate reason to oppose the project since. One meme the objectionists continually pounded is "danger to the cap rock" near the St. Anthony Falls - which was essentially debunked by the Minneapolis Park Board's "Mill Ruins Park, Tunnel Stabilization Project." This project involved building a new water takeout from the Mississippi River, at essentially the same spot Crown Hydro would be sited, running a pipe down and through a tunnel and discharging the water in the tailrace so tourists can see what water in the tailrace looks like. For those that would like to see what this project looks like, link to Liberal in the Land of Conservative (LitLoC), here. It's the top picture. And for comparison, take a look at the bottom image too.
And it needs to be noted that this project, the Tunnel Stabilization Project, was built by the Park Board without an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Which begs the question: where were the objectionists, then? If they were so concerned about the cap rock, why did they meekly stand by, during the Tunnel Stabilization project?
As an aside, another objection to Crown was that it would divert water from over the falls; the Tunnel Stabilization already does that, at the same site Crown would use. Crown Hydro can generate clean and green electricity utilizing water the Park Board already takes out, and release the water to the same spot the Park Board now does, with no net loss of water over the falls. That's a fact the objectionists seem to ignore.
So, with so many of their objections debunked, what's a meme to morph to?
Earthquakes. Yes, "earthquakes." Apparently, the new objection to the Crown Hydro Project is fear of earthquakes. I'll let noted objectionist Wizard Marks explain, in her own words:
I've been looking at engineering drawings, received from the Park Board via a Request for Public Data, for the Mill Ruins Park Tunnel Stabilization Project that was completed 3 years ago. In a nutshell, the Park Board draws water out of the Mississippii River, at essentially the same spot the Crown Hydro Project would, and runs water under the boardwalk through a 3 foot diameter pipe so tourists can see what water coming out at the tailrace looks like.
I had asked the Park Board about water taken from the Mississippi River and channeled through the tailrace near the proposed Crown Hydro project by the MPRB for the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. The response I got from the Park Board is, and I quote:
Joint Meeting: Committee on Energy, Utilities, Technology andCommunications and Legislative Energy Commission and House EnergyFinance and Policy Division
Chairs: Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon and Rep. Bill Hilty
6:30 p.m. Room 200 State Office Bldg.
Agenda:
Discussion of nuclear power
Hmmm..... imagine that.... and just after I posted this, here:
But, the bottom line is:
If we don't get projects like Crown Hydro - a whole bunch of projects like Crown Hydro - built, up, and running, building new nukes might be the only option to meet Minnesota's energy needs.
The bottom line is: you can give subsidies to green projects now, or - as demonstrated in this post - you can give subsidies to nuke plants later.
When Jimmy Carter entered the Oval Office, there were many crisis to deal with; one of which was dependence on foreign energy. Jimmy Carter turned down the thermostat, put on a cardigan, and installed a solar panel on the roof.
Compare that with Ronald Reagan, who upon taking office walked into The White House, took off his jacket, turned up the thermostat, and eventually tore that solar panel off the roof.
That's why we're in the mess we're in, today. Thom Hartman discusses this at length in an essay just a few years ago, over at CommonDreams.org.
Back to Jimmy Carter. Shortly after taking office, Carter gave a speech regarding the energy crisis; Jimmy Carter laid out 10 Principles - "The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group." We'll get back to that principle, below the fold.
Mondale was in the inside, helping Carter get the nation's energy affairs in order; then Mondale was on the outside, watching as Uncle Ronnie led the slide backwards. While I have a ton of respect for Vice-President Mondale - he (like the rest of us tundra trudgers) only walks on (frozen) water in January; in July? Not so much. IOW - he ain't perfect. Let's take a look at the letter Vice-President Mondale wrote on December 19th, 2007:
..."That was then; this is NOW!!!" The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board ("MPRB") is again in the news; the Avista Strib has a story about the Park Board and the Minneapolis Charter Commission (the "Charter" is the city government's "constitution"). Last night, the Charter Commission voted 9 - 1 to (among other things) hold hearings on abolishing the MPRB, and bring it's functions into and under the City's jurisdiction. The Southwest Journal also has a story on last night's events. But, I'm not going to talk about the City versus Park Board - today. Later, maybe; today, no. Today, I'm going to talk about "That was then; this is NOW!!!'
Yesterday marked the 160th Anniversary of the US Department of the Interior. According to a Press Release, over 600 people were in attendance for the speech and Department employees around the nation watched via satellite broadcast or listened via teleconference bridge. Plus, an unknown number watched live on TV - as I did. Here's an excerpt, from President Obama's remarks:
The Interior Department manages the land on which 30 percent of the nation's energy is produced. So you have a major role to play, all of you, in our clean energy future. The nation is depending on you to help us end the tyranny of foreign oil and become energy independent -- by harnessing the wind and the sun, our water, our soil, and American innovation.
That's why I'm proud to join you this afternoon. That's why I am pleased that this department is in the capable hands of my great friend Ken Salazar. And that is why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act creates jobs by making historic investments in the Department of the Interior.
This plan will provide more than $3 billion to the department to create jobs doing the work that America needs you to do. It will create jobs increasing our capacity to generate renewable energy on public lands -- and retrofitting facilities to be far more energy efficient. (Interior Department)
Did everybody catch that? Let's add some emphasis:
The nation is depending on you to help us end the tyranny of foreign oil and become energy independent -- by harnessing the wind and the sun, our water, our soil, and American innovation.
And:
It will create jobs increasing our capacity to generate renewable energy on public lands
That's "our water" - as in the Mississippi River. OUR water - it's not just the water of those that live on Nicolet Island; not just the water of those that live in condos overlooking the Mississippi River; they don't have exclusive rights to it - we ALL own it.
Seems The StarTribune feels it's time to take a new look at building nuclear powered electric generating plants. I'm not surprised; it's corporate owners, Avista Capital Partners, is heavily invested in energy - although natural gas and oil appear to be the focus. I've never been a fan of nuclear power, for two major reasons: a) where to put the spent fuel (a class in college determined New Jersey was the best place, as God only knows what else is buried there); and b) Nuclear power plants are not remotely cost competitive without the massive public subsidy provided by The Price-Anderson Act.
In a nutshell, no self-respecting insurance company, let alone companies that are complete crooks like AIG, would ever think of providing liability insurance for a nuclear plant - the potential payout for a disaster is more than any insurer, or consortium, could cover at a price any nuclear plant owner could afford. Enter big business' pal, Uncle Sugar.
Passed in 1957, The Price-Anderson Act requires a nuclear plant to provide a pittance of liability insurance in case of accident; currently The Act requires a nuclear plant to obtain only $300,000,000 in primary coverage. Does that sound like a lot? It isn't, when you look at the Evacuation Map for the Monticello plant (it's on page 3). The rest of the nuclear industry picks up the tab for the next $10 Billion in damages; above that, Uncle Sugar writes the check - which means, we ALL pick up the tab. The General Accounting Office took another look at this issue in 2004 - but that was more of a study if the "LLC" ownership form of nuclear plants was really just a way to dodge even more liability. At any rate, the bottom line still remains: if the taxpayers weren't on the hook for any and all meltdowns, no insurers would underwrite a nuclear plant - not even AIG.
I sure wish I had that kind of sweetheart insurance deal for my business; say I did a couple of thousand in damages, my insurance company pays the tab; into the 5-figure range, the industry picks it up; anything over $100,000 and taxpayers bite the bullet - hey, I could be real profitable with an insurance plan like that!
A lot of businesses could be real profitable with an insurance plan like that. But, like me, most businesses aren't nuclear plants producing electricity, and it's only the nuclear plants that Uncle Sugar takes care of, via The Price-Anderson Act, for insurance purposes.
And pay attention to the Crown Hydro Project as SF 840 winds through the Capitol. I'm hearing rumors things are starting to shake. In the meantime, Political Muse over at Liberal in the Land of Conservative has some thoughts on Crown Hydro, and a call to action, too.
Thinking about the comments of Regular Reader and (not frequently enough) imPoster "Dan" on this thread and again on this thread , got me thinking that my writing sytle ("Jack-Pine Savageese") and previous posts probably didn't clearly differentiate between "objections" and "concerns." And I'd like to think that's what makes MnProgressive Project great; Contributors and Regular Readers and (im)Posters like Dan, making folk think and rethink what they've written - like me.
Clearly, a whole bunch of reasonable and learned people had, and in many cases, continue to have, valid "concerns" concerning the Crown Hydro Project. In the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") licensing process, FERC invites every unit of government, and I mean every, from federal level on down, to submit comments and weigh in. FERC then weighs these concerns (and the supporting documentations), in their decision on whether or not to grant the license.
Now, those that are familiar with my writing, hopefully remember I do my best to do my homework. For instance, in the posts I did concerning republiCon Ron and the Minnesota GOP's FEC problem, I did a whole lot of digging; and it took a lot of digging to find out that Jeff "Landlord" Larson was claiming a homestead exemption for ol' Smokescreen's DC digs and that there were two utility meters for said digs - which raised the question: Who Is Paying Norm's Electric Bill?.
First, I'd like to point out that the FEC website is none-too-easy to pull info out of, even for a college grad with a poli-sci degree like me (yes, I'm a college graduate, even if I talk (and write!) like a jack-pine savage). And once data is pulled, ya still gotta do something with it.
Well, lemme tell ya: pullin' data outa (dam, there I go again, writing like I talk, in "Jack-Pine Savageese"!) the FEC website is a piece of cake, compared to the FERC website.
