Showing posts with label pollution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pollution. Show all posts
Sunday, April 5, 2009
commentary
"You are really dumb.. How old are you? You must be Zaviers little boy." Mikey, do yourself and everybody else a favor and leave this forum to the adults, okay? It IS true- I do NOT want a gym that we cant afford AND I dont want annexation that has pollution potentials, mitigation fees based on bogus numbers, tax revenues based on inflated 2008 numbers, or a lack of zoning controls in the areas proposed for annexation. Once those issues have been addressed and resolved to our benefit, then I would vote for annexation. Until those items are explored and favorably resolved we havent done the DUE DILIGENCE a move of this magnitude, and the residents of this city, deserve. Dr. Mel P. Johnson
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
a response
It is my belief that the potential for pollution, paying high mitigation fees, zoning and generally doing DUE DILIGENCE before making a major move such as annexation SHOULD be of interest to ALL people who are concerned about the welfare of MS. All of those issues are relevent to the annexation issue and should be explored in detail before making ANY decision. I have met at least one real estate person in town who do NOT care if we annex polluted property, pay mitigation fees that are sky-high and unreasonable, or have ANY control over the zoning- they believe that annexation will put a LOT of money in their pockets and THATS all those individuals care about. They told me so, in those words. That is a narrow, self-centered approach to annexation that disregards the best interests of the rest of the residents that live here. I am concerned that perhaps the police have not thought this process thru completely and looked at ALL sides of all the issues before they have taken this stand. Dr. Mel P. Johnson
Monday, March 9, 2009
rolling the dice
Sigh. What did junior high kids do in the past, BEFORE the Internet, to amuse themselves? While I believe that criticism of a public figures performance, or lack of same, is fair game for this forum, I cant see any benefit in attacks of a personal nature in resolving the issues. It is interesting how those who call others names, etc. usually FORGET to sign their names tho. They use the anonymous nature of this platform in the EXACT SAME MANNER of those they accuse. Go figure. One of the most important issues at tonights council meeting was the annexation pamphlet, which extolls ALL the benefits that we will get and NONE of the drawbacks! Apparently the Council believes that issues like pollution cleanups, mitigation fees, questionable numbers, costs of policing and a new substation, and zoning are IRRELEVENT and IMMATERIAL. As they failed to do in the new gym issue, nothing CLOSE to DUE DILIGENCE has been done! Dotson asked for DERM to show up and explain the possible pollution issues but the City manager has faikled to produce anyone from DERM, TWICE. Why would we annex polluted property? First, we cant build on it, so we wont be collecting taxes. Second, we may very well be charged with the cleanup of those polluted areas if the previous owners are out of business. They have acknowledged that 27 sites are currently being cleaned up but we have NO assurances that there are no more polluted sites, or who will clean them up if they are found. We are just rolling the dice and HOPING there will be NO more pollution found. Thats BAD business, and poor management priciples. Dr. Mel P. Johnson
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
annexation meeting
Annexation meeting tonight was just about what was expected- a whitewash, an overemphasis on the benefits of annexation and short shrift of the potential problems. They continue with the ridiculous statements about going after the owners of polluted properties and making THEM pay for the cleanups. Of course if those companies have been defunct, and out of business fro the past 20 years it will be IMPOSSIBLE to squeeze blood out of that turnip. Superfund has been broke for years. The state and county are broke and facing billion-dollar deficits. WHERE is the money for any needed cleanups going to come from? Corradino admitted tonight that the FEC properties are pretty polluted, and the proposed annexation properties are right next door. He said he didnt THINK it would be a problem but, is that enough? If the County is PRETTY SURE most of the contaminants have been cleaned up and pose no future problems, they wont have ANY problem signing an agreement that states THEY will be responsible for any further cleanups, right? WISHING and HOPING we wont get whacked with a multimillion dollar cleanup is gambling, and BAD business. We need considerably more assurances than that before we decide on annexation! Dr. Mel Johnson
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Big IFs
Dotson ALSO went on the record last night as being in favor of annexation IF IF IF, and ONLY IF, the issues of mitigation fees, possible pollution, zoning, the annexed owners, and the FEC properties can be resolved in a way that is favorable to the City of Miami Springs. There was supposed to be a pollution report from a guy at DERM- that hasnt happened. Unless the County signs a contract which agrees to clean up any possible polluted areas at THEIR expense, annexation wont work, as some cleanups can cost a million and more. Why would we want to annex polluted properties and expose ourselves to that liability? Mitigation fees of $336,000 a year forever is just unacceptable. Lawsuits are entirely possible when the owners of those commercial properties become aware that their tax rates are going up two points overnight. It would be sheer senseless stupidity to annex properties where we do NOT have control over the zoning, as we would NOT be able to control the quantity or quality of the businesses there. Dotson made that point a long time ago. So there are a LOT of issues to be resolved BEFORE annexation can be considered a viable prospect for Miami Springs! IF, after those issues have been discussed and debated thoroughly, and it is determined that annexation is a good thing for us, then we should vote.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Coal plants not the solution
Fiddling While the Coal Burns
Bill McKibbon
Updated: 1/20/2009 1:01:39 PM
Given the sheer number of candidates for "worst legacy of the Bush years," it may seem perverse to pick the hundreds of coal-fired power plants that have opened across China during his administration. But given their cumulative effect -- quite possibly the concrete block that broke the climate-camel's already straining back -- I think they may be what history someday seizes on. And they are emblematic of George W. Bush's utter failure to help the world rein in carbon emissions at what may have been the last possible moment.
When Bush first took office, China (and really India as well) were right at the bottom of their energy takeoff. China had actually become steadily more energy efficient over the previous decade, as absurd state industries began to shut down. But both countries were poised, thanks to the creation of the World Trade Organization, for the true explosion of their export economies, and for the subsequent rapid migration of rural residents to the factory cities that became the largest exodus in human history.
The obvious, easy, and cheap candidate to power that boom was always going to be coal: China has its own vast stockpiles and the kind of labor force and rail links to make exploiting it relatively easy. But by 2000 we already knew enough to conclude just how dangerous it would be if China went whole-hog into the coal business. George W., remember, had pledged during the 2000 campaign that he would enact a "four-pollutant bill" for America's own coal-fired power plants, forcing them to start reducing carbon dioxide.
But Bush abandoned that plan within weeks of taking office, kneecapping Christine Todd Whitman, his EPA chief, just before her first foreign trip. She grinned and took it, and the rest of the world winced and took it. From that day forward there was no real chance that the world would make substantive progress against carbon during the Bush years.
For one thing, the lack of U.S. action provided everybody else who didn't want to change with a perfect scapegoat, an unbeatable excuse for doing nothing. The Chinese, for instance, could say with perfect justice that they certainly shouldn't have to take the lead -- because they've been burning fossil fuel only a short time, it will be decades before they're as responsible for global warming as the U.S., never mind their much higher population. (Not only that, of course, but a huge percentage of the Chinese emissions come from building stuff for us, now that we've gutted our manufacturing economy.)
And so the Chinese took the path of least resistance. Anyone who has visited there in recent years knows the result: cities choked in coal haze, shiny new high-tension lines draping every ridge and valley in the same hypnotic swoop and fall as the Great Wall itself. And anyone who reads the rising carbon numbers from the instruments on the side of Mauna Loa knows the larger consequence: The world is now above even the bleakest "business as usual" paths laid out just a few years ago by climate policy experts.
But even for those -- Europe and Japan -- that wanted to do something about climate, the U.S. refusal to engage meant that nothing much could happen. Yes, the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified -- somewhat miraculously, since without our participation it required virtually every other developed nation to sign on. But because of America's recalcitrance (right back to the Clinton years) they were never strong enough to do much in any event. The eight Bush years turned into an international interregnum on climate policy. The American delegations sabotaged international meetings, slowed down any proposal to actually change, and in general served as the anchor thrown off the back of the caboose.
It's not entirely clear that even the most well-intentioned president could have headed off the China coal binge. It would have taken a shrewd mix of diplomacy, technology-sharing, and moral pressure to head them in a different direction. But even subtle nudges in their trajectory in the early years of the decade would have resulted in far less damage than we see today. And, of course, we'll never know since Bush didn't try. If anything, his team cheered on the Chinese.
As a result of all this planned malfeasance, Bush leaves Obama in the worst possible place to do anything substantial about carbon. For one thing, the Chinese now have all those coal-fired power plants and so, just like us, an enormous problem with sunk costs if they ever try to shut them down. (And shut them down is what Jim Hansen has told us must happen; if the earth is not done burning coal by 2030, then 350 parts per million CO2 goes forever by the board.) And because the Chinese are now producing as much CO2 as we are, our own coal lobby has a powerful rhetorical argument to use against any real action close to home. You can hear it anytime you want on C-Span -- some coal-state Republican or another announcing piously that it "will do no good for America to reign in its carbon emissions until China does the same."
Negotiating away the results of these eight years will be Obama's biggest environmental task, bigger even than figuring out how to limit our own emissions. By Copenhagen next December, the Americans and the Chinese will need to have rechoreographed entirely the poisonous dance they've spent the last decade perfecting. If they can't, the possibility of a breakthrough agreement is nil.
Oh, and since the most important element of that breakthrough will doubtless be finding some way to partially compensate China (still an overwhelmingly poor nation) for the cost of switching to more expensive fuel sources, the recession that Bush leaves us with is yet one more obstacle. If he'd set out to purposefully screw up the chances for dealing with global warming, it's unlikely Bush could have done a better job. (But the purposeful party was no doubt Dick Cheney.)
Bill McKibben, a Grist board member, is a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College and co-founder of 350.org.
Bill McKibbon
Updated: 1/20/2009 1:01:39 PM
Given the sheer number of candidates for "worst legacy of the Bush years," it may seem perverse to pick the hundreds of coal-fired power plants that have opened across China during his administration. But given their cumulative effect -- quite possibly the concrete block that broke the climate-camel's already straining back -- I think they may be what history someday seizes on. And they are emblematic of George W. Bush's utter failure to help the world rein in carbon emissions at what may have been the last possible moment.
When Bush first took office, China (and really India as well) were right at the bottom of their energy takeoff. China had actually become steadily more energy efficient over the previous decade, as absurd state industries began to shut down. But both countries were poised, thanks to the creation of the World Trade Organization, for the true explosion of their export economies, and for the subsequent rapid migration of rural residents to the factory cities that became the largest exodus in human history.
The obvious, easy, and cheap candidate to power that boom was always going to be coal: China has its own vast stockpiles and the kind of labor force and rail links to make exploiting it relatively easy. But by 2000 we already knew enough to conclude just how dangerous it would be if China went whole-hog into the coal business. George W., remember, had pledged during the 2000 campaign that he would enact a "four-pollutant bill" for America's own coal-fired power plants, forcing them to start reducing carbon dioxide.
But Bush abandoned that plan within weeks of taking office, kneecapping Christine Todd Whitman, his EPA chief, just before her first foreign trip. She grinned and took it, and the rest of the world winced and took it. From that day forward there was no real chance that the world would make substantive progress against carbon during the Bush years.
For one thing, the lack of U.S. action provided everybody else who didn't want to change with a perfect scapegoat, an unbeatable excuse for doing nothing. The Chinese, for instance, could say with perfect justice that they certainly shouldn't have to take the lead -- because they've been burning fossil fuel only a short time, it will be decades before they're as responsible for global warming as the U.S., never mind their much higher population. (Not only that, of course, but a huge percentage of the Chinese emissions come from building stuff for us, now that we've gutted our manufacturing economy.)
And so the Chinese took the path of least resistance. Anyone who has visited there in recent years knows the result: cities choked in coal haze, shiny new high-tension lines draping every ridge and valley in the same hypnotic swoop and fall as the Great Wall itself. And anyone who reads the rising carbon numbers from the instruments on the side of Mauna Loa knows the larger consequence: The world is now above even the bleakest "business as usual" paths laid out just a few years ago by climate policy experts.
But even for those -- Europe and Japan -- that wanted to do something about climate, the U.S. refusal to engage meant that nothing much could happen. Yes, the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified -- somewhat miraculously, since without our participation it required virtually every other developed nation to sign on. But because of America's recalcitrance (right back to the Clinton years) they were never strong enough to do much in any event. The eight Bush years turned into an international interregnum on climate policy. The American delegations sabotaged international meetings, slowed down any proposal to actually change, and in general served as the anchor thrown off the back of the caboose.
It's not entirely clear that even the most well-intentioned president could have headed off the China coal binge. It would have taken a shrewd mix of diplomacy, technology-sharing, and moral pressure to head them in a different direction. But even subtle nudges in their trajectory in the early years of the decade would have resulted in far less damage than we see today. And, of course, we'll never know since Bush didn't try. If anything, his team cheered on the Chinese.
As a result of all this planned malfeasance, Bush leaves Obama in the worst possible place to do anything substantial about carbon. For one thing, the Chinese now have all those coal-fired power plants and so, just like us, an enormous problem with sunk costs if they ever try to shut them down. (And shut them down is what Jim Hansen has told us must happen; if the earth is not done burning coal by 2030, then 350 parts per million CO2 goes forever by the board.) And because the Chinese are now producing as much CO2 as we are, our own coal lobby has a powerful rhetorical argument to use against any real action close to home. You can hear it anytime you want on C-Span -- some coal-state Republican or another announcing piously that it "will do no good for America to reign in its carbon emissions until China does the same."
Negotiating away the results of these eight years will be Obama's biggest environmental task, bigger even than figuring out how to limit our own emissions. By Copenhagen next December, the Americans and the Chinese will need to have rechoreographed entirely the poisonous dance they've spent the last decade perfecting. If they can't, the possibility of a breakthrough agreement is nil.
Oh, and since the most important element of that breakthrough will doubtless be finding some way to partially compensate China (still an overwhelmingly poor nation) for the cost of switching to more expensive fuel sources, the recession that Bush leaves us with is yet one more obstacle. If he'd set out to purposefully screw up the chances for dealing with global warming, it's unlikely Bush could have done a better job. (But the purposeful party was no doubt Dick Cheney.)
Bill McKibben, a Grist board member, is a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College and co-founder of 350.org.
Friday, November 28, 2008
annexation issues
The DERM oficial couldnt make the Council meeting but he DID give some kind of report to the Council members. There was NO debate or discussion of any possible areas of pollution in the Milam tracts. A DERM map as of 2004 indicates at least TWO open contaminated sites; three environmental crime sites and DERM enforecement cases; 3 facilties handling hazardous materials; 53 small quantity generators; 16 underground storage tanks; 4 hazardous waste material remediation sites; 16 grease traps; 4 solid waste disposal sites; one Superfund site; and one landfill at the site of the canada dry bottling plant. When are THESE potential pollution issues going to be debated and discussed? EVER? this map DOES say that all of the potential sites are NOT listed and that there may very well be more that are NOT listed. If the County has cleaned up some of these they need to tell us how many and where? Which ones were partially cleaned up? 20% ? 35%? How much has been done, and how much MORE needs to be done? Hoping businesses that have been bankrupt for 25 years will pay for a cleanup is not a real option. Are we willing to roll the dice, and HOPE no pollution shows up?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
annexation issues
As far as anyone can see, VG has done NO due diligence or addressed any of the other issues with annexation, besides talking to some of the owners of some of the possible annexed properties. Talking to several VG residents suggests NO other issues has been revealed or discussed with them in ANY Council session. The dozen or so didnt even know the other issues existed. If VG wants to annex polluted lands, that is up to them. If they want to have NO CONTROL over zoning and what can and cant be put into their lands that is THEIR business. MS has FIVE times their population and has a bigger stake in the proceedings, so if VG doesnt want to do DUE DILIGENCE, that is their choice. We do want, and REQUIRE, due diligence from our City officials before making any decisions. Who decided that VG should get the cream of the crop in those areas between 36th st and 41st street? That is clearly MS area, on the North side of 36th strett. Let VG have area 9.
Friday, November 14, 2008
annexation issues
Any area we might annex without control of the zoning would NOT be in our control and we would be vulnerable to whatever the County wants to allow there. The wants and needs of the County are not always in alignment with the wants and needs of MS. How could we control the QUANTITY and QUALITY of the businesses in the annexed lands if we cant control the zoning? How would we know that we are NOT annexing polluted lands? Does paying the County $338,000 a year for mitigation fees for FOREVER make any sense? Too many questions; too little DUE DILIGENCE done.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
DERM
It is only at Mr Dotson's insistence that the DERM representative will be coming to address the pollution issues in the areas under consideration for annexation. Nobody else has said a WORD about this concern. NOBODY. The County has said they have cleaned up some of the areas but has NOT said how much more needs to be done. There were some SIGNIFICANTLY polluted areas out there and we need to know how much pollution remains, as it could entail considerable financial risks to us if we annex polluted properties. This is, hopefully, a part of the process of DUE DILIGENCE if the DERM info is accurate and timely. To say that bankrupt businesses that have not been viable or are extinct for the past 20 years are responsible for the cleanups, is preposterous, of course. They went out of business for a reason. Some current or past businesses wont clean up a mess they didnt make, and really shouldnt be held responsible. Others may simply refuse, or dont have the financial means to do a cleanup. Some cleanups have run into the millions of dollars. THEN what do we do? Aerodex has been defunct for over 20 years, likewise Miami Drum. ALL of these issues need to be addressed, discussed and debated before any intelligent decision can be made. The same process needs to happen with mitigation fees, boundaries, FEC, and zoning, not to mention taking a hard look at the basic numbers that the City Manager suggested.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
annexation issues
While its not difficult to outperform the Springs Council at almost anything, neither they nor VG has really done anything close to due diligence on this annexation issue. There has been little or no mention of zoning, possible pollution, or mitigation fees so far by either entity. If the County at some point in the future decides to dump all their peep shows,sex motels, and/or low income housing into these unincorporated areas because they are out of the way, what redress will the municipalities have if they have NO control over zoning? If the County is sure the pollution concerns are minimal, they should put it in writing that THEY will be responsible for any cleanups necessary, or take out a multimillion-dollar insurance policy against that possibility. Equitable boundaries are still an issue and the development potentials, and lack of same, are concerns that need to be addressed still. What about the 100+ million dollars in infrastructure needed and planned for by the County from 36 st to 58 st? Are there similar plans for South of 36 street? Area 9? What about the MIA developments? For anybody to compare themselves with the MS Council and management is not setting the bar very high as they have a LONG history of VERY expensive projects, fiscal irresponsibility, disorganization, waste, lack of transparency,questionable numbers, and mismanagement throughout the city administration. While they are surely not the only ones with these issues, this ineptitude and incompetency affects us directly and comes out of our pocket, at the end of the day. Larry, Moe,and Curly make a lot of people look smart.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
annexation issues
Is it possible that the Mayor and his co-conspirators will again pack the Council chambers with pro-annexation cheerleaders, have a pep rally, and decide they are ready to annex any and all properties available? WITHOUT the vaguest hint of DUE DILIGENCE, like last time? Moe, Larry, and Curly will simply declare that the pollution, zoning, mitigation fees, and boundary issues are irrelevant (like they did with the Pistorino report on the gym project) and proceed "forward"- right over the cliff? Will they AGAIN fail to do any semblance of DUE DILIGENCE in this issue, as they are obligated to do by virtue of the trust the people have placed in them when they were elected? Are all of these issues going to get a thorough and detailed investigation and debate at this special meeting? Where is the peoples voices in these HUGE issues that will affect our community for DECADES into the future? Will going back thru generations of defunct and bankrupt annexation property owners REALLY establish anyone with responsibility or the financial ability to clean up the pollution? Will the County GUARANTEE that any cleanups that need to be done will be done at their expense? How can we regulate and control the quality of the businesses there if we have NO control over the zoning? Are we going to be stuck with 239k in annual mitigation fees FOREVER? The boundaries are not fair or equitable as they are now, and somehow, our negotiator, the Mayor, has allowed the Village of VG to dictate to us the terms of any possible agreement. We are 13k+ residents; VG is 2358 residents. Isnt this a lot like the tail wagging the dog? At last count 9 of the County commissioners did NOT want to allow any annexation so why are we being pressed to decide on this issue WITHOUT us having done DUE DILIGENCE yet? We DO plan to do DUE DILIGENCE this time, right? It would be a welcomed change.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
annexation issues
The City Manager isnt telling us ALL the truth. One example, when he says that state law says that whoever made the mess has to clean it up, he is half-right. What he DOESNT say is that if the owners are no longer in business- Aerodex, or unable or unwilling to pay for the cleanup, who DOES pay for it? It appears that the county and the municipality split the costs 50/50. This could cost us MILLIONS. Also, when he says that the Council has no intent of changing the zoning to make it residential that may be true BUT has ZERO, NONE, ZIP impact on whether it will happen if the county maintains the zoning powers. The County will have the powers to decide whether any zoning changes are to be made there, NOT MS Council. If the wants and needs of the County come into conflict with those of MS, who do you think will win THAT battle? If the County decides to put up high-rises, condos, or low-income housing there there will be NOTHING MS can do about it. Add to it that NINE of the County Commisioners arent in favor of allowing any more annexing at this time, the 41st street vs 36 street boundary dispute, mitigation fees, the terminal ordinance, and other pollution cleanup concerns and annexation doesnt work for MS. DERM is not to be trusted to decide on the pollution concerns and the potential costs as they have regularly sided with the County in the past. We need an independent, experienced, and knowledgable consultant with NO ties to the County or any municipality.
Monday, July 7, 2008
pollution
There are several old dumps in the areas being considered for annexation. Who will, or would, clean those up? I have heard that if no entity can be found to hold responsible the costs would be split 50/50 between the city and the county. Where are the maps that were in the City Hall lobby before? How accurate is this information? If its true, we could get stuck with BIG cleanups to pay for.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
annexation
I was very surprised to NOT hear ONE city official mention POLLUTION as a BIG problem with annexation, even though it is well known to locals. WHO will clean up these areas? AeroDex is out of business, the SuperFund is broke, the companies that did the polluting are gone, or wont do the cleanups.. WHO is going to do those expensive cleanups? NINE commissioners do NOT want to give up their zoning powers to us.. HOW is this POSSIBLY going to work in OUR FAVOR? I don't see it.
This is in response to last nights Council meeting where the Mayor is pushing annexation again. They apparently feel that they slipped the new gym by without doing their DUE DILIGENCE and can maybe slip another one over on the people. They are on a roll now and want to follow-up while the people are still sleeping. If the people continue to sleep, of course, they will deserve what they get. People will complain a while when their bills and taxes go up but apparently don't care enough to actually DO anything until its too late. It is my belief that the new gym will put us into bankruptcy by constant change orders and cost overruns into the MILLIONS. It is the history of these city officials in the past and will be no different in the future. They have no finished a project in the past 3 1/2 years anywhere CLOSE to on time OR on budget. To expect them to do ANY different THIS time would be insanity on OUR part because NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Since the contractors only have a sketch to work from there will be DOZENS of change orders that the City will request and they will be filled at the cost of MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to the taxpayers.
IF, by some miracle, the new gym project does NOT put us into bankruptcy, annexation will.
This is in response to last nights Council meeting where the Mayor is pushing annexation again. They apparently feel that they slipped the new gym by without doing their DUE DILIGENCE and can maybe slip another one over on the people. They are on a roll now and want to follow-up while the people are still sleeping. If the people continue to sleep, of course, they will deserve what they get. People will complain a while when their bills and taxes go up but apparently don't care enough to actually DO anything until its too late. It is my belief that the new gym will put us into bankruptcy by constant change orders and cost overruns into the MILLIONS. It is the history of these city officials in the past and will be no different in the future. They have no finished a project in the past 3 1/2 years anywhere CLOSE to on time OR on budget. To expect them to do ANY different THIS time would be insanity on OUR part because NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Since the contractors only have a sketch to work from there will be DOZENS of change orders that the City will request and they will be filled at the cost of MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to the taxpayers.
IF, by some miracle, the new gym project does NOT put us into bankruptcy, annexation will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)