Congratulations to Stephen Fowler, Newark's economic development director, who wants everyone to know that the citizens who pay his salary don't matter when it comes to the decisions being made by industries to which he and the city government pimp for tax dollars.
Fowler went above and beyond the city administration's normal disregard for public opinion when he wrote the following item for the Advocate's Story Chat Forum:
"To clarify a point that's been discussed in relation to this story - the sole reason for withdrawing the ethanol production facility was the company’s inability to escape the added cost to develop a facility on a small site within a large rail loop. It amounted to at least $10 million in extra costs compared to the five sites they ultimately chose to develop.
"We've asked the company directly if public reaction had anything to do with their decision. The answer was no - without hesitation.
"In addition, the City, the Railroad, and Steve Layman were each contacted directly via phone Monday evening by the top US company official. Later, an email was sent to Mr. Layman because he was not available at his office phone.
"Now that I've reappeared on this blog, I suspect I'll be the target for more accusations and unfounded statements. So be it. Fire away. That's what public sector employees should be prepared for."
Thus did Fowler take great pains to inform the public that its input into the question of whether or not E85 should build a plant in Newark means nothing to E85 or to the city. This demonstrates an arrogance that put him in the running for the next "I Be Government And You Be My Bitch Award."
Showing posts with label ethanol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethanol. Show all posts
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
So long, E85
News that E85 is no longer interested in building an ethanol plant in Newark is cause for citizen celebration.
Today's Advocate report did not give the reason for the company's disinterest. It merely quoted a company official's notification to Newark government - which was by e-mail. Here's the Advocate's quote from that communication: "I sincerely regret to inform you that E85, due to business reasons and in consideration of its due diligence, has decided not to exercise the option on the Newark property."
... leaving open the question of "consideration of its due diligence" means exactly what?
Whatever it means, the most significant quote in the Advocate's report is this: "The decision to abandon the west Newark location of the ethanol refinery is a great victory for residents who were concerned about our health and the cumulative air pollution," said Bruce Frey, a West End resident of Newark. "It's a defeat for uninformed politicians ready to pander to polluting companies with no track record of operations or safety."
Nobody could say it better.
Today's Advocate report did not give the reason for the company's disinterest. It merely quoted a company official's notification to Newark government - which was by e-mail. Here's the Advocate's quote from that communication: "I sincerely regret to inform you that E85, due to business reasons and in consideration of its due diligence, has decided not to exercise the option on the Newark property."
... leaving open the question of "consideration of its due diligence" means exactly what?
Whatever it means, the most significant quote in the Advocate's report is this: "The decision to abandon the west Newark location of the ethanol refinery is a great victory for residents who were concerned about our health and the cumulative air pollution," said Bruce Frey, a West End resident of Newark. "It's a defeat for uninformed politicians ready to pander to polluting companies with no track record of operations or safety."
Nobody could say it better.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Your tax dollars at work ... for ethanol
What exactly is E85 and what is the federal government saying is so good about it? Read it here.
Though the federal push for ethanol gets all the publicity, your Ohio taxes are being used in a big way too.
And you'll be amazed at how public money is being spent from Washington to make this feel-good boondoggle pay off for businesses. Read it here.
More funding opportunities for E85 opportunists here.
Just so ya know where your money is going.
Though the federal push for ethanol gets all the publicity, your Ohio taxes are being used in a big way too.
And you'll be amazed at how public money is being spent from Washington to make this feel-good boondoggle pay off for businesses. Read it here.
More funding opportunities for E85 opportunists here.
Just so ya know where your money is going.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Columbus Monthly publicizes Newark ethanol discussion
Any magazine article that begins with the words "Bruce Humphrey" ought to be pretty informative, which is why I recommend the current (July) issue of Columbus Monthly.
Author Jeff McCallister began his article on Newark's proposed ethanol plant with my name, though my importance to the piece is miniscule. I simply served as his launching pad, no more.
The article, "Torn by corn" is a good summary of Newark's debate over whether we want an ethanol plant in this city or not. Jeff did a good job of summarizing the complex issues and explaining how and why citizens' quality of life is at stake. He is employed by Suburban Newspapers.
By the way, Columbus Monthly is available at Giant Eagle and, I was told, Krogers. It is not carried by the bookstore at the mall, nor was it available at Meijers when I looked for it there.
Author Jeff McCallister began his article on Newark's proposed ethanol plant with my name, though my importance to the piece is miniscule. I simply served as his launching pad, no more.
The article, "Torn by corn" is a good summary of Newark's debate over whether we want an ethanol plant in this city or not. Jeff did a good job of summarizing the complex issues and explaining how and why citizens' quality of life is at stake. He is employed by Suburban Newspapers.
By the way, Columbus Monthly is available at Giant Eagle and, I was told, Krogers. It is not carried by the bookstore at the mall, nor was it available at Meijers when I looked for it there.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
New ethanol pollution rule: A kiss of death?
Congratulations ethanol factories, thanks to the evermore nutty Bush Administration, you'll be able to stink up the world even more than before. Starting in July, the EPA's new rule will allow you to pollute the air 150 percent more than you already pollute.
This could be the kiss of death for the ethanol project of Newark.
Surely nobody who cares about health or stink will now argue that an ethanol plant is welcome here. Here's a report by CNSNews.
This could be the kiss of death for the ethanol project of Newark.
Surely nobody who cares about health or stink will now argue that an ethanol plant is welcome here. Here's a report by CNSNews.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
E85 tax credits (and all other tax credits) are disguised as free money
I have a theory about the finances supporting the e85 project in Newark and the ethanol industry in general. My theory is that this is a boondoggle designed to produce a feel-good product that can be supported only by government - meaning tax money - and not by the marketplace.
A little peek at what probably is a monumental tax-giveaway came this morning at the Advocate web site, where it was reported that E85 would be the benefactor of an Ohio ethanol tax credit of $217,509 for seven years (meaning I think, that much for each of the seven years, but we'll see).
We've read so much about tax credits cloaked as free money that the real implications of them seem to escape us. When tax credits are given to a business, then tax penalties are levied on everyone else. It's that simple.
Tax credits, unlike what governments would like us to remember, are not free. They are expenditures of tax money - by governments - for tax-privileged businesses.
Stay tuned.
A little peek at what probably is a monumental tax-giveaway came this morning at the Advocate web site, where it was reported that E85 would be the benefactor of an Ohio ethanol tax credit of $217,509 for seven years (meaning I think, that much for each of the seven years, but we'll see).
We've read so much about tax credits cloaked as free money that the real implications of them seem to escape us. When tax credits are given to a business, then tax penalties are levied on everyone else. It's that simple.
Tax credits, unlike what governments would like us to remember, are not free. They are expenditures of tax money - by governments - for tax-privileged businesses.
Stay tuned.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Fayetteville man writes about ethanol plants
A former city councilman from Fayetteville NC has written a column for the Observer, published 3/29/07 entitled: An E85 ethanol plant: The more you know, the less you’ll like it. In it, he refers to a conversation with Newark Mayor Bruce Bain. It's worth a read for anyone following the ethanol-plant controversy.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
E85 - find out and give us the facts, or forget it
Two articles published today (4/1/07) by the Fayetteville NC Observer attempt to spotlight the value and risks of having an ethanol plant built in Fayetteville by C. Sivasankaran, the Indian investor who has been called a “serial entrepreneur.”
Coincidentally, today is when the Newark Gannett unequivocally endorsed C. Sivasankaran's plan to build such a plant here.
The differences in approach between the paper in Fayetteville and the paper in Newark are simply amazing in their depth and approach.
Bruce Bain, the industry-hunting Newark mayor, might himself have dictated the Advocate editorial. Meanwhile, the reporters in North Carolina attempted legitimate research, the likes of which Newark hasn't seen in many years. Those reporters have asked questions that need to be directed toward government officials of Newark.
First among those questions should be: How much do you know about the financial stability of E85, its backer, and of his long-term intentions?
Second would be: Exactly how much is it going to cost 1) Newark taxpayers; 2) Ohio taxpayers; 3) federal taxpayers? In exchange for our tax money, what are we going to receive? Not just blah-blah-blah-maybe-50-jobs or whatever. What "jobs?" Exactly how many and exactly what technical and educational qualifications must they have, and how much are they going to pay these people, and exactly how much tax-return will that bring? Any public office-holders who intend to allow this project to go forward should have these numbers. And any legitimate factory planner should be able to provide them.
The tally of Newark's costs must include all such items as road, street, water, sewage upgrades - and maintenance. And if they're already in place, exactly how much did they cost? They must include local tax incentives (which the Advocate says do not exist, but let's check anyway). They must include grants from all levels of government, and they must include all ethanol-production incentives from the feds and maybe state.
So what are these numbers, exactly? Exactly what are we buying and how much is it going to cost and how much is it going to take to maintain? Then tell us what exactly - in writing - how much are taxpayers of Newark going to receive in exchange?
If city council members, Mayor Bain, the Board of Licking County Commissioners, and promoters from E85 (which consists of "a small crew of professionals working out of their homes," according to one of the Observer's articles) - if these folks can't answer these questions, then government's position on E85's proposal ought to be clear: Let's forget it.
Links to the two articles from the Fayetteville (NC) Observer:
E85’s finances giving some reason to doubt
Serial entrepreneur’ is the money behind E85
Link to the Advocate endorsement:
Ethanol plant would be a benefit
Coincidentally, today is when the Newark Gannett unequivocally endorsed C. Sivasankaran's plan to build such a plant here.
The differences in approach between the paper in Fayetteville and the paper in Newark are simply amazing in their depth and approach.
Bruce Bain, the industry-hunting Newark mayor, might himself have dictated the Advocate editorial. Meanwhile, the reporters in North Carolina attempted legitimate research, the likes of which Newark hasn't seen in many years. Those reporters have asked questions that need to be directed toward government officials of Newark.
First among those questions should be: How much do you know about the financial stability of E85, its backer, and of his long-term intentions?
Second would be: Exactly how much is it going to cost 1) Newark taxpayers; 2) Ohio taxpayers; 3) federal taxpayers? In exchange for our tax money, what are we going to receive? Not just blah-blah-blah-maybe-50-jobs or whatever. What "jobs?" Exactly how many and exactly what technical and educational qualifications must they have, and how much are they going to pay these people, and exactly how much tax-return will that bring? Any public office-holders who intend to allow this project to go forward should have these numbers. And any legitimate factory planner should be able to provide them.
The tally of Newark's costs must include all such items as road, street, water, sewage upgrades - and maintenance. And if they're already in place, exactly how much did they cost? They must include local tax incentives (which the Advocate says do not exist, but let's check anyway). They must include grants from all levels of government, and they must include all ethanol-production incentives from the feds and maybe state.
So what are these numbers, exactly? Exactly what are we buying and how much is it going to cost and how much is it going to take to maintain? Then tell us what exactly - in writing - how much are taxpayers of Newark going to receive in exchange?
If city council members, Mayor Bain, the Board of Licking County Commissioners, and promoters from E85 (which consists of "a small crew of professionals working out of their homes," according to one of the Observer's articles) - if these folks can't answer these questions, then government's position on E85's proposal ought to be clear: Let's forget it.
Links to the two articles from the Fayetteville (NC) Observer:
E85’s finances giving some reason to doubt
Serial entrepreneur’ is the money behind E85
Link to the Advocate endorsement:
Ethanol plant would be a benefit
Friday, March 30, 2007
If you want to make a difference, get off your butt
The concerns of people opposing the construction of an ethanol plant in Newark have been well-publicized. Folks came together in an organization they called CLEAN (search this blog for "CLEAN" and/or "ethanol") and asked questions that should concern everyone on that end of town, everyone who sympathizes with those folks, and everyone who thinks an ethanol plant is a worthless addition to this city.
The question is: will anyone get off their butt and talk back to city government?
Opponents were given some first-rate coat-tails to grab when Eme Lybarger visited for a public meeting recently. Representing the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, http://www.celdf.org/ she met with a relatively small and wet-rag group, judging by her reaction. She admitted that community response to the meeting left her pessimistic about the will of the community to fight off developers of the plant, or words to that effect.
To me, it's incredibly unfair that people should have to spend money and time to fight off an enterprise so silly and worthless as an ethanol plant - which is no more than another government-financed solution to a non-problem - one that makes no economic sense whatever, one being showcased as a way to "solve" an energy problem that doesn't exist by driving up corn prices AND most likely gasoline prices too - all of which will benefit ... who?
Mostly an investor from India who is the prime mover of E85, the ethanol company building these plants in various U.S. locations.
If, eventually, market forces determine that ethanol is indeed based on political flimflam, who will pay to have Newark's ethanol plant dismantled and cleaned up? Why, that would be the same taxpayers who cleaned up after the old refinery in Heath.
All that aside, the fact that the neighbors don't want this thing ought to be the measure by which it is judged by the city and all others. Representatives of the people - the mayor, the council, and all government regulators - ought not to have any conflicts about where their allegiance lies.
But they do. Politics is politics and money is money.
The people of Newark need to get off their collective butt and start doing more about their collective future.
Citizens are in charge here if, and only if, they will stand up and say so. To do that is to have the battle won.
People who want to make a difference need to read THE PRICE OF FREEDOM and then go make a difference.
The question is: will anyone get off their butt and talk back to city government?
Opponents were given some first-rate coat-tails to grab when Eme Lybarger visited for a public meeting recently. Representing the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, http://www.celdf.org/ she met with a relatively small and wet-rag group, judging by her reaction. She admitted that community response to the meeting left her pessimistic about the will of the community to fight off developers of the plant, or words to that effect.
To me, it's incredibly unfair that people should have to spend money and time to fight off an enterprise so silly and worthless as an ethanol plant - which is no more than another government-financed solution to a non-problem - one that makes no economic sense whatever, one being showcased as a way to "solve" an energy problem that doesn't exist by driving up corn prices AND most likely gasoline prices too - all of which will benefit ... who?
Mostly an investor from India who is the prime mover of E85, the ethanol company building these plants in various U.S. locations.
If, eventually, market forces determine that ethanol is indeed based on political flimflam, who will pay to have Newark's ethanol plant dismantled and cleaned up? Why, that would be the same taxpayers who cleaned up after the old refinery in Heath.
All that aside, the fact that the neighbors don't want this thing ought to be the measure by which it is judged by the city and all others. Representatives of the people - the mayor, the council, and all government regulators - ought not to have any conflicts about where their allegiance lies.
But they do. Politics is politics and money is money.
The people of Newark need to get off their collective butt and start doing more about their collective future.
Citizens are in charge here if, and only if, they will stand up and say so. To do that is to have the battle won.
People who want to make a difference need to read THE PRICE OF FREEDOM and then go make a difference.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Confiscating a neighborhood for profit
The question of whose rights take precedence in the matter of the proposed ethanol plant for Newark is the thing that nags me and keeps me interested.
I live a few miles away from the site and I might not be able to care less if it weren't for the fact that people living near the factory site are going to get shafted if the city and the developers go ahead with this thing because, simply put, they don't want the potential danger and nuisance. And even if there weren't that potential, if the people there don't want it, that should be the overriding consideration for government. It is not. What government seems most concerned about are bucks and the feel-good goose they get from hatching a new factory.
So Newark has a classic standoff between citizens and the government-business complex. On one side are people who want to be left alone and on the other side are people in government (namely the city government) and developers (mostly a billionaire from India) who want more money and are willing to confiscate neighborhoods and change lives in order to get it.
Recently a representative from something called "Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund" met with Newark residents about their options. It offers a grassroots litigation support program and that seems to be what it's going to take to stop this government-business steamroller, if anything can.
This Tea Party is about the rights of citizens versus government nannies who point and shoot at the command of political donors, so stay tuned.
I live a few miles away from the site and I might not be able to care less if it weren't for the fact that people living near the factory site are going to get shafted if the city and the developers go ahead with this thing because, simply put, they don't want the potential danger and nuisance. And even if there weren't that potential, if the people there don't want it, that should be the overriding consideration for government. It is not. What government seems most concerned about are bucks and the feel-good goose they get from hatching a new factory.
So Newark has a classic standoff between citizens and the government-business complex. On one side are people who want to be left alone and on the other side are people in government (namely the city government) and developers (mostly a billionaire from India) who want more money and are willing to confiscate neighborhoods and change lives in order to get it.
Recently a representative from something called "Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund" met with Newark residents about their options. It offers a grassroots litigation support program and that seems to be what it's going to take to stop this government-business steamroller, if anything can.
This Tea Party is about the rights of citizens versus government nannies who point and shoot at the command of political donors, so stay tuned.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The right of citizens to decide ...
... on pollution, noise, odor, increased truck and train traffic, emergency response, property values, water safety, water usage, and the long-term economic prosperity - issues would directly affect the quality of life for all residents and business owners in the vicinity of the proposed ethanol plant. Read the latest CLEAN news release.
Friday, March 2, 2007
CLEAN Questions
The following are questions being asked of Newark officials by Citizen Leaders for Environmental Advocacy in our Neighborhoods. CLEAN wants assurance that the ethanol plant proposed for Newark will be clean, safe, and quiet - pretty much what any family would want to know about a neighbor who would build something close by.
Representatives of that group, other interested persons, and city officials have met twice to deal with specific issues. CLEAN has followed up with an e-mail to the city, asking for written responses to 15 questions. Except for questions numbered 3, 4, 5, and 7, which I consider rhetorical and/or impossible for anyone to answer, here they are.
1 - ... It would make sense for the city to conduct both an environmental impact study as well as an economic impact study to ensure the public health, safety, and economic success of the city. Will the city fufill its commitment to the health, safety, and quality of life to the residents of this area and commission these studies?
2 - The city stated that E85 would be responsible for the cost of any damages to a resident. In the event that an accident occurs, and the plant becomes inoperable, will E85 have the financial ability to pay for damages and costs incurred by residents? What will the procedure be and how long would it take to be compensated for damages? How would E85 and the City of Newark deal with potential litigation following an accident?
6 - Will the city develop a plan to ensure that residents do have a safe area to go to if an accident occurs?
9 - What would the city deem as a reason or reasons to not allow E85 to build the proposed ethanol plant?
10 - Several council members have stated that if they vote against the proposed zoning, the city would be open to litigation by not approving the zoning change. Will city council be able to vote based on the concerns and objections from residents and voters in Newark ...?
***The following questions come from the Performance Standards (Article 140) from the Newark City Zoning Code:***
11 - In reference to Odor (Articlel40.8): "No malodorous gas or matter shall be permitted which is discernible on any adjoining property, with the exception of appropriate use of agricultural fertilizer in an agricultural district." How can the city consider zoning for a polluting, odor causing industry adjacent to residential areas?
12 - In reference to Fire or Explosion (140.2): "Noise, which is objectionable, as determined as determined by Ordinance of the Newark City Council, due to volume,frequency, or beat shall be muffled, or otherwise controlled as to not affect adjoining and surrounding property." We have been told that the proposed ethanol plant will produce noise. What city ordinances are currently in force to control industrial noise? If none exist, is Newark City Council considering an ordinance to regulate the noise from the proposed plant that would be adjacent and very near heavily populated residential areas?
13 - In reference to Noise (140.5): "Any activity involving the use of flammable or explosive materials shall be protected by adequate fire-fighting and fire-suppression equipment and by such safety devises as are normally used in the handling of any such material." From the comments from the fire chief at the last public meeting, it would appear that the financial investment to purchase safety devices normally used in an ethanol related accident has not yet been made. What are the city's plans to purchase safety devices used to deal with an ethanol explosion, what will the cost be, and where will these funds come from?
14 - In reference to Smoke and Air Pollution, (140.7): "Any discharge into the air shall be controlled and regulated by any appropriate State and Federal rules and regulations, specifically including those promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agencies, and by City Ordinance." The current understanding is that E85 would monitor its own emissions, and that the EPA would not become involved until complaints were made by residents. What current city ordinances are in place to monitor emissions from polluting industry? If there are none, will the city council put an ordinance in place to control the pollution emitted by E85?
15 - What are the future steps including city meetings, permit applications, zoning, as well as answering the concerns of the public will the city take?
Representatives of that group, other interested persons, and city officials have met twice to deal with specific issues. CLEAN has followed up with an e-mail to the city, asking for written responses to 15 questions. Except for questions numbered 3, 4, 5, and 7, which I consider rhetorical and/or impossible for anyone to answer, here they are.
1 - ... It would make sense for the city to conduct both an environmental impact study as well as an economic impact study to ensure the public health, safety, and economic success of the city. Will the city fufill its commitment to the health, safety, and quality of life to the residents of this area and commission these studies?
2 - The city stated that E85 would be responsible for the cost of any damages to a resident. In the event that an accident occurs, and the plant becomes inoperable, will E85 have the financial ability to pay for damages and costs incurred by residents? What will the procedure be and how long would it take to be compensated for damages? How would E85 and the City of Newark deal with potential litigation following an accident?
6 - Will the city develop a plan to ensure that residents do have a safe area to go to if an accident occurs?
9 - What would the city deem as a reason or reasons to not allow E85 to build the proposed ethanol plant?
10 - Several council members have stated that if they vote against the proposed zoning, the city would be open to litigation by not approving the zoning change. Will city council be able to vote based on the concerns and objections from residents and voters in Newark ...?
***The following questions come from the Performance Standards (Article 140) from the Newark City Zoning Code:***
11 - In reference to Odor (Articlel40.8): "No malodorous gas or matter shall be permitted which is discernible on any adjoining property, with the exception of appropriate use of agricultural fertilizer in an agricultural district." How can the city consider zoning for a polluting, odor causing industry adjacent to residential areas?
12 - In reference to Fire or Explosion (140.2): "Noise, which is objectionable, as determined as determined by Ordinance of the Newark City Council, due to volume,frequency, or beat shall be muffled, or otherwise controlled as to not affect adjoining and surrounding property." We have been told that the proposed ethanol plant will produce noise. What city ordinances are currently in force to control industrial noise? If none exist, is Newark City Council considering an ordinance to regulate the noise from the proposed plant that would be adjacent and very near heavily populated residential areas?
13 - In reference to Noise (140.5): "Any activity involving the use of flammable or explosive materials shall be protected by adequate fire-fighting and fire-suppression equipment and by such safety devises as are normally used in the handling of any such material." From the comments from the fire chief at the last public meeting, it would appear that the financial investment to purchase safety devices normally used in an ethanol related accident has not yet been made. What are the city's plans to purchase safety devices used to deal with an ethanol explosion, what will the cost be, and where will these funds come from?
14 - In reference to Smoke and Air Pollution, (140.7): "Any discharge into the air shall be controlled and regulated by any appropriate State and Federal rules and regulations, specifically including those promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agencies, and by City Ordinance." The current understanding is that E85 would monitor its own emissions, and that the EPA would not become involved until complaints were made by residents. What current city ordinances are in place to monitor emissions from polluting industry? If there are none, will the city council put an ordinance in place to control the pollution emitted by E85?
15 - What are the future steps including city meetings, permit applications, zoning, as well as answering the concerns of the public will the city take?
Ethanol plant representatives donate to Mayor Bain's campaign
Newark Mayor Bruce Bain has accepted $1,000 in political donations from a firm connected with the effort to build an ethanol plant in Newark.
T. Donald Pinto of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. was one of three panel members who met with citizens 2/27/07 to answer questions from citizens and was identified in a news report as "representing E85," the company that wants to build the ethanol plant.
Malcolm Pirnie representatives contributed $1,000 to Mayor Bain's campaign chest, $500 each from William Dee, Stamford Ct, president and CEO, and Richard Herriott, professional engineer who lives in Worthington.
Buying influence is standard procedure in America
but that doesn't mean we have to put up with it here
That the mayor of Newark accepted $1,000 from a company with interests in building a factory in his city is not illegal, but is it fair to the other people he represents, people who contributed less or nothing at all?
Likely there are other vendors with whom the city does business mixed in the mayor's list of contributors. And likely there are lots of others in local government who have vendor money in their campaign jeans. And almost certainly Newark and Licking County are no worse about selling influence than lots of other places, if they are as bad.
That aside, it isn't fair to citizens that companies and wealthy individuals can buy great blocks of influence from the office-holders who are supposed to be acting in the best interests of everyone. There is no way the mayor can be impartial about the ethanol factory question after promoters have slipped a thousand-dollar bill in his political purse. Moreover, the mayor's underlings who so fiercely and with so much determination defend these ethanol outsiders are serving at the pleasure of the mayor, and there is a connection between what the mayor thinks and what these people say and do.
The really sad thing about this is that Newark's mayor is not doing anything illegal. He is not doing anything that other mayors and office holders - from the lowest to the most mighty - are not doing. So ingrained is this system for buying influence that scarcely anyone objects to it. It is, you see, "the system."
There is a slight difference, though, between Mayor Bain's acceptance of this money and all those others: Mayor Bain has been called on it, and if the word spreads about it, and if the ethanol plant promoters are allowed to steam-roller the neighbors to that proposed plant, then maybe all this will wash out on next election day.
T. Donald Pinto of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. was one of three panel members who met with citizens 2/27/07 to answer questions from citizens and was identified in a news report as "representing E85," the company that wants to build the ethanol plant.
Malcolm Pirnie representatives contributed $1,000 to Mayor Bain's campaign chest, $500 each from William Dee, Stamford Ct, president and CEO, and Richard Herriott, professional engineer who lives in Worthington.
Buying influence is standard procedure in America
but that doesn't mean we have to put up with it here
That the mayor of Newark accepted $1,000 from a company with interests in building a factory in his city is not illegal, but is it fair to the other people he represents, people who contributed less or nothing at all?
Likely there are other vendors with whom the city does business mixed in the mayor's list of contributors. And likely there are lots of others in local government who have vendor money in their campaign jeans. And almost certainly Newark and Licking County are no worse about selling influence than lots of other places, if they are as bad.
That aside, it isn't fair to citizens that companies and wealthy individuals can buy great blocks of influence from the office-holders who are supposed to be acting in the best interests of everyone. There is no way the mayor can be impartial about the ethanol factory question after promoters have slipped a thousand-dollar bill in his political purse. Moreover, the mayor's underlings who so fiercely and with so much determination defend these ethanol outsiders are serving at the pleasure of the mayor, and there is a connection between what the mayor thinks and what these people say and do.
The really sad thing about this is that Newark's mayor is not doing anything illegal. He is not doing anything that other mayors and office holders - from the lowest to the most mighty - are not doing. So ingrained is this system for buying influence that scarcely anyone objects to it. It is, you see, "the system."
There is a slight difference, though, between Mayor Bain's acceptance of this money and all those others: Mayor Bain has been called on it, and if the word spreads about it, and if the ethanol plant promoters are allowed to steam-roller the neighbors to that proposed plant, then maybe all this will wash out on next election day.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Ethanol plant stink: "hopefully minimized for the most part"
In one of its essays meant to ease your mind about the proposed ethanol plant, WCLT interviewed someone they identified as "Mike Riggleman with the Ohio EPA." You know right away how this is going to turn out. Ohio EPA is the standard mouthpiece for government-approved industrial pollution.
Anyway Riggleman says: "Of course there will be emissions of criteria pollutants which are nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter and carbon monoxide."
Gee, sir, will this perhaps stink?
"They are going to be putting a lot of control equipment out there. Hopefully, the odor will be minimized greatly. We are running an odor model to make sure that as much as possible that the odor doesn't get past their property line for the most part."
Don't ya love it? Hopefully minimized as much as possible for the most part?
Anyway Riggleman says: "Of course there will be emissions of criteria pollutants which are nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter and carbon monoxide."
Gee, sir, will this perhaps stink?
"They are going to be putting a lot of control equipment out there. Hopefully, the odor will be minimized greatly. We are running an odor model to make sure that as much as possible that the odor doesn't get past their property line for the most part."
Don't ya love it? Hopefully minimized as much as possible for the most part?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
CLEAN news
CLEAN Coalition announced the publication of its website at www.thecleancoalition.com Check it out for news of their efforts to learn about the advantages and disadvantages that might be the result of constructing an ethanol factory in Newark. Upcoming meetings will be listed there.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Who ever heard of hacking a Tea Party?
Maybe it's an honor, maybe only paranoia, but I believe this journal was hacked twice: the first time when I posted the information about Mr. Sivasankaran, a resident of India who is an investor behind E85, Inc., the company that wants to build a factory in Newark for the production of ethanol.
The second time was when I posted new information on the same subject. The force at work, whether hacker or happenstance, wiped out my journal again, stopping short of the entry in which I quoted Mayor Bain as saying ethanol factories pollute no more than a single old car.
Titled: "We don’t have to worry about ethanol plant pollution," the entry quoted the mayor's statement to council on 1/2/07: “Keep in mind an ethanol plant today in one year’s time has pollution equal to that of a 1965 Chevrolet.” That's what the hacker left intact.
Maybe I should be flattered that anything I wrote could be so important to anyone else, if it was the work of a hacker. Wow. Maybe international intrigue right here in Newark.
The second time was when I posted new information on the same subject. The force at work, whether hacker or happenstance, wiped out my journal again, stopping short of the entry in which I quoted Mayor Bain as saying ethanol factories pollute no more than a single old car.
Titled: "We don’t have to worry about ethanol plant pollution," the entry quoted the mayor's statement to council on 1/2/07: “Keep in mind an ethanol plant today in one year’s time has pollution equal to that of a 1965 Chevrolet.” That's what the hacker left intact.
Maybe I should be flattered that anything I wrote could be so important to anyone else, if it was the work of a hacker. Wow. Maybe international intrigue right here in Newark.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
EPA Finds Toxic Pollutants At Ethanol Plants
CBS News reported in 2002 that factories that convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels "many times greater" than they promised, the government says. Promoters speak of improved technology that reduces pollution nowadays, so this report from 2002 may not be entirely germane to the local situation. It needs to be considered, nonetheless. Read it here.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Meet the man who is behind the ethanol factory
Meet Mr. Sivasankaran ...
... a resident of India, is the prime mover for E85, Inc., the company that wants to build a factory in Newark for the production of ethanol. Read about him.Read about him.
... a resident of India, is the prime mover for E85, Inc., the company that wants to build a factory in Newark for the production of ethanol. Read about him.Read about him.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
We don’t have to worry about ethanol plant pollution
Mayor Bain stated in council meeting 1/2/07: “Keep in mind an ethanol plant today in one year’s time has pollution equal to that of a 1965 Chevrolet.”
Sunday, January 21, 2007
CLEAN asks questions about ethanol plant
At the first mention of an ethanol plant’s intention to locate in the Newark area, I wondered about the environmental effects. A quick investigation by Internet didn’t turn up much, but my suspicions about the value of “more jobs” (as politicians and media and the business community always promote) - versus the possibility of more cancers - remained unresolved.
Fortunately, there were others with unresolved questions about the value of having E85 Inc. as a neighbor. CLEAN is a group they’ve formed to learn the details and begin, right now, talking about whether this community should welcome the company or not.
This is what people have to do in order to determine their own destinies. Get on it fast, stay on it together, talk about it loudly and intelligently. Go toe to toe with those in government and business.
No matter what the resolution, Newark needs to take note of how some citizens are taking control.
Fortunately, there were others with unresolved questions about the value of having E85 Inc. as a neighbor. CLEAN is a group they’ve formed to learn the details and begin, right now, talking about whether this community should welcome the company or not.
This is what people have to do in order to determine their own destinies. Get on it fast, stay on it together, talk about it loudly and intelligently. Go toe to toe with those in government and business.
No matter what the resolution, Newark needs to take note of how some citizens are taking control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
