This is probably very good news if you're an opponent of Broadwater:
Broadwater fate is out of Bush's hands
Decision on appeal will be made by Obama administration
By Denise Civiletti
Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
Dec. 18, 2008
The fate of Broadwater's proposed floating natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound will not be decided by the Bush administration, after all.
A decision on Broadwater's appeal of New York's rejection of its plan has been postponed until at least mid-February. U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez on Dec. 10 issued a stay in the appeal proceedings that will keep the appeal record open until Feb. 13, effectively punting the decision to the incoming Obama administration.
“It's one more nail in the coffin,” Broadwater opponent Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “We're hoping the new administration is going to keep its promises of advancing renewables and relieve us of our dependence on foreign fossil fuels,” she said. “The market for LNG is not good right now anyway. Broadwater would have been a giant white elephant floating in Long Island Sound.”
Broadwater Energy senior vice president John Hritcko said the stay was “not unanticipated” because of the scope of the review. “There is a large record to consider,” Mr. Hritcko said.
The N.Y. secretary of state on April 10 ruled Broadwater's proposal inconsistent with the state's coastal management policy. That ruling would effectively block Broadwater's plans to moor a 1,200-foot-long floating natural gas terminal in the middle of L.I. Sound, about nine miles off the coast of Wading River — in spite of the fact that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the Broadwater application. That's because the federal Coastal Zone Management Act gives the state the last word on activities that impact coastal areas. But the federal law allows the federal commerce secretary to override the state's consistency ruling, and Broadwater appealed to the commerce secretary to do just that.
Mr. Gutierrez's decision to keep the record open for an additional 60 days — to collect additional information from various federal agencies — means it's likely that President-elect Barack Obama's pick for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, will decide Broadwater's appeal.
Mr. Richardson served as energy secretary in the Clinton administration, from 1998 to 2001 and, as a candidate for president in the last campaign, declared he would be “the energy president.” In a key energy policy speech in May 2007, he pledged to lead “an energy revolution” as president, to wean the U.S. from foreign oil dependence and “free the U.S. from its status of international hostage of costly energy” by focusing on developing renewable energy sources. But in the same speech he also spoke of natural gas as a “relatively nonpolluting, plentiful, reliable energy source.”
Mr. Hritcko said the identity of the commerce secretary will not be the deciding factor in Broadwater's appeal.
“It's an administrative review by legal staff, based on the record, the merits of the arguments on both sides and legal precedent. It's a conclusion that's handed to the secretary by the staff. It's not a political decision,” he said. Mr. Hritcko noted that only two LNG appeals have ever been brought to the commerce secretary under the CZMA, and both were brought during the tenure of Secretary Gutierrez. The secretary upheld the state in one appeal and overrode the state in the other.
A spokesperson for the N.Y. state department was optimistic about the eventual outcome of the Broadwater appeal. “We've made our position vigorously to the Department of Commerce,” said Joel Barkin, deputy secretary for public affairs, in a telephone interview Wednesday. “We believe we made our decision properly and we are confident that ultimately we will be upheld.”
denise@timesreview.com
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
You gotta love Riverhead
What a game! What a team! What a season! What a town!
Saturday’s Long Island championship game was classic 2008 Riverhead Blue Waves football. A romp, effectively wrapped up in the first half. It seemed like every Waves possession ended in a Waves touchdown. Give the ball to Miguel, put six points up on the board. Two Maysonet TDs separated by — what — 11 seconds?
But, in classic Blue Waves style, Maysonet was only the beginning. There was Gilliam. There was Moore. There was Velys. And LaGue. And Fitzgerald. And Meyer. And the rest of the undefeated championship team.
Let’s not forget Coach Shay, who’s come a long, long way from being “reassigned” in 2007 for covering up the lens of a security camera in the gymnasium.
But this isn’t about football, exactly.
This is more about what Saturday meant to Riverhead and about my adopted home town.
Saturday, Riverhead kicked butt.
In a big way.
There was the 42-6 score posted on the board at Kenneth P. LaValle Stadium at Stony Brook University.
But the story of Riverhead’s triumph was told in the stands and in the parking lot almost as much as it was told on the field.
Riverhead turned out to support the home team. The Riverhead crowd filled up most of two levels of the stadium seating. (In contrast, the turnout for our rivals on the gridiron, not counting Elmont’s excellent marching band, fit into one section of the one-level bleachers across the field.) But — and this is the really cool part — the Riverhead crowd wasn’t there just because it was the L.I. championship game. No, no. Riverhead’s “road” crowd — the people who turn out to watch “away” games — is as big or bigger than any other team’s “road” crowd in the league. There are the parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles of team members. And then there are the people like Tony James, star of a Waves team of more than 30 years ago, in the stands every week, ringing a bell, shaking a tambourine and shouting out words of advice and encouragement to current team members on the field. And the teachers, administrators and staff. And the people who come just because … it’s Riverhead, their team, their town.
Riverhead, the much-maligned, often dumped-on putative seat of Suffolk County government. Riverhead, the little town that couldn’t.
Oh, yes, we can. Yes, we can. And we do.
Whether it’s Blue Waves football or any one of a host of other teams, clubs and groups in our school district (for example, our award-winning Latinists, our nationally recognized, exemplary Council for Unity, our award-winning choirs, to name a just a few), Riverhead’s young people shine. They excel. They do us proud. Every day.
They are children of honest, hardworking people who live in a community that still has a soul, a sense of place, an identity — increasingly precious commodities in the modern world.
The magic this weekend — the players on the field and the people in the stands — reminded me all over again why Riverhead is such a great place to live and raise a family.
Thank you, Blue Waves. And congratulations.
Ms. Civiletti invites you to join a discussion of this topic at civiletti.blogspot.com. Her e-mail address is denise@timesreview.com.
Saturday’s Long Island championship game was classic 2008 Riverhead Blue Waves football. A romp, effectively wrapped up in the first half. It seemed like every Waves possession ended in a Waves touchdown. Give the ball to Miguel, put six points up on the board. Two Maysonet TDs separated by — what — 11 seconds?
But, in classic Blue Waves style, Maysonet was only the beginning. There was Gilliam. There was Moore. There was Velys. And LaGue. And Fitzgerald. And Meyer. And the rest of the undefeated championship team.
Let’s not forget Coach Shay, who’s come a long, long way from being “reassigned” in 2007 for covering up the lens of a security camera in the gymnasium.
But this isn’t about football, exactly.
This is more about what Saturday meant to Riverhead and about my adopted home town.
Saturday, Riverhead kicked butt.
In a big way.
There was the 42-6 score posted on the board at Kenneth P. LaValle Stadium at Stony Brook University.
But the story of Riverhead’s triumph was told in the stands and in the parking lot almost as much as it was told on the field.
Riverhead turned out to support the home team. The Riverhead crowd filled up most of two levels of the stadium seating. (In contrast, the turnout for our rivals on the gridiron, not counting Elmont’s excellent marching band, fit into one section of the one-level bleachers across the field.) But — and this is the really cool part — the Riverhead crowd wasn’t there just because it was the L.I. championship game. No, no. Riverhead’s “road” crowd — the people who turn out to watch “away” games — is as big or bigger than any other team’s “road” crowd in the league. There are the parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles of team members. And then there are the people like Tony James, star of a Waves team of more than 30 years ago, in the stands every week, ringing a bell, shaking a tambourine and shouting out words of advice and encouragement to current team members on the field. And the teachers, administrators and staff. And the people who come just because … it’s Riverhead, their team, their town.
Riverhead, the much-maligned, often dumped-on putative seat of Suffolk County government. Riverhead, the little town that couldn’t.
Oh, yes, we can. Yes, we can. And we do.
Whether it’s Blue Waves football or any one of a host of other teams, clubs and groups in our school district (for example, our award-winning Latinists, our nationally recognized, exemplary Council for Unity, our award-winning choirs, to name a just a few), Riverhead’s young people shine. They excel. They do us proud. Every day.
They are children of honest, hardworking people who live in a community that still has a soul, a sense of place, an identity — increasingly precious commodities in the modern world.
The magic this weekend — the players on the field and the people in the stands — reminded me all over again why Riverhead is such a great place to live and raise a family.
Thank you, Blue Waves. And congratulations.
Ms. Civiletti invites you to join a discussion of this topic at civiletti.blogspot.com. Her e-mail address is denise@timesreview.com.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Riverhead Blue Waves football L.I. Class II Champs
It was awe-inspiring. Our Blue Waves trounced the Elmont Spartans 42-6 in the Class II L.I. Championship final game today at Stony Brook University. See The News-Review's game story here. And nearly as awe inspiring as the victory itself was the turnout of the Riverhead community to root the team on to victory today. The stands of LaValle stadium were filled to the brim with cheering fans from home. It made me very proud of our town — and our team! Way to GO WAVES!
CHECK OUT THE NEWS-REVIEW'S LIVE BLOG FROM TODAY'S LI CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
News-Review sportswriters will be blogging live from the L.I. Championship game today at Stony Brook University. We'll be posting photos there too. Check it out: www.riverheadnewsreview.com
GO WAVES!
GO WAVES!
NY AG Andrew Cuomo sues FERC over Broadwater permits
By Denise Civiletti
Times/Review Newspapers, Mattituck, N.Y.
(Nov. 26) Two New York agencies are asking a federal court to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of Broadwater Energy's application to site, build and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in L.I. Sound.
Times/Review Newspapers, Mattituck, N.Y.
(Nov. 26) Two New York agencies are asking a federal court to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of Broadwater Energy's application to site, build and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in L.I. Sound.
In a petition filed earlier this month with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City, the New York departments of state and environmental conservation claim that FERC violated the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act and the Natural Gas Act when it issued permits on March 20 to Broadwater Energy LLC and Broadwater Pipeline LLC to construct and operate the floating LNG terminal and a 22-mile subsea pipeline in New York waters of L.I. Sound, about nine miles north of Wading River.
Though the petition does not detail the state's arguments regarding the alleged violations of federal law by FERC, which will be contained in the state's subsequent brief and memorandum of law, at issue is FERC's practice of granting permit approvals prior to completion of review and approval by the appropriate state agencies under the federal Coastal Zone Management and Clean Water acts.
FERC has issued such permits expressly conditioned on approval by the required state agencies pursuant to the CZMA and Clean Water Act. At least two states, Washington and Delaware, already are challenging FERC's practice of issuing such conditional permits before state review is completed and approvals or certifications are issued by state agencies. Those actions are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
The question, according to a brief filed by Washington state in its lawsuit against FERC, is "whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can, through policy and practice, rewrite the terms of federal statutes" that require prior state approval.
The federal law was specifically crafted to allow states that are hosts to these projects and must live with their impacts a "protected" period of time to evaluate them, Joan Marchioro, an attorney in Washington State's attorney general's office, told The Suffolk Times in September. FERC's policy of issuing "conditional" licenses turns the statute on its head, she said, and "once FERC says to an applicant, 'You're good to go,' it puts all the pressure on the state."
A call seeking comment from the New York attorney general's office was not returned by presstime.
"It's a violation of the [federal] Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act for FERC to license the project prior to hearing from the state regarding CZMA and the Clean Water Act. Those must be decided by the state first," Peter Bergen, the attorney representing the towns of Riverhead and Southold on the Broadwater matter, said in September, when rehearing requests were denied by FERC.
"It violates the plain language of the statutes," he said. Mr. Bergen said section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act and section 401 of the Clean Water Act, both federal statutes, plainly require the host state to approve the Broadwater plan before FERC may issue its permits. "We raised that issue in our rehearing request and FERC just blew us off," Mr. Bergen said.
Broadwater Energy LLC, a joint venture of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipelines, proposes to build a 1,200-foot-long floating LNG terminal in the Sound. The terminal, a storage and "regasification" facility, would be capable of supplying the New York metropolitan area with one billion cubic yards of natural gas each day. It would take delivery of supercooled liquefied natural gas from two to three oceangoing tankers a week, and heat the liquid to return it to a gaseous state. It would then supply the distribution network with gas via 22-mile subsea pipeline that would connect to the existing Iroquois pipeline that traverses the Sound and connects to a land-based distribution pipeline in western Suffolk County.
The Broadwater proposal drew fire from environmental and civic groups on both sides of the Sound, and was quickly opposed by the towns of Riverhead, Brookhaven, Southold, East Hampton and Huntington, as well as by Suffolk County and the Connecticut attorney general.
FERC approved Broadwater's permit applications in March over the broad opposition of local governments and citizen groups. But under federal law, the project must be ruled consistent with the state's coastal policy and the clean water act by the state DOS and DEC, respectively. The new legal challenge brought by the state addresses FERC's policy of approving permits before the state's consistency rulings are issued. Subsequent to FERC's permit approval, the New York State Department in fact ruled Broadwater's plan inconsistent with the state's coastal management policy. Broadwater has asked the U.S. commerce secretary to override the state's consistency determination in the interest of national security. A decision on that pending petition is not expected until 2009.
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Meet your new neighbor, a registered sex offender
We may not live in a battleground state, but we still get robocalls. And all too often, the robocall is to inform us that a level two or three registered sex offender has moved into the Riverhead area.
Like their political counterparts, these robocalls tend to induce fear.
Here's the one I got on my voice mail Thursday night:
"Good evening. This is Nancy Carney from the Riverhead school district. We have received notification from the Southampton Town Police Department that a moderate risk, level two sex offender is residing in the Riverhead area."
Also like their political counterparts, these robocalls are not very informative. The school official doesn't tell us who the sex offender is or where he lives or works "in the Riverhead area."
How useful.
If you are a parent -- and you are if you're getting this robocall, which is going out only to parents of children registered in the district -- odds are you'd want to know this pertinent information. I mean, isn't that the whole point of the sex offender registration and notification law? To get that information out to the public, especially parents, to protect our children?
Maybe. Maybe not.
The robocall message continues: "Information regarding the individual is available at the district office." In other words, we have the information, but we're just not giving it to you now.
So how do I get the information? It's important for me to know, right? It's important enough that there's a state law mandating disclosure of the addresses of sexual predators, so surely it must be easy to get my hands on the information, right?
Not exactly, at least not according to the school district.
"Should you wish further information," the robocall message continues, "you may examine our records regarding this matter at the Riverhead Central School District office Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m."
In other words, I have to take off from work to go to the school district office to "examine" this record. That's swell. But, wait -- they're not done making this as complicated and inconvenient as possible: "It will be required that you complete a Freedom of Information request prior to the examination of these files." And the robocaller doesn't offer any help on how to make the Freedom of Information request. (I'd bet plenty of parents aren't even familiar with what that is, let alone how to make it.)
Since the police department informed the school district of the sex offender moving in, maybe I could get the information from the police.
"Do not contact the local police department," warns the robocall, "as they are unable to provide you with any information."
Say what?
I'm not sure why the school district thinks it's a good idea to make such completely uninformative and somewhat misleading robocalls about a subject so important to parents. But I'll bet lawyers had something to do with it.
In the interest of providing useful information to other parents who are as concerned as I am about sexual predators roaming our streets, here's the deal.
You can find out the names, addresses and descriptions of the level two and three registered sex offenders living in our community by going to the state sex offender registry Web site, http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/, where you can also view mug shots and find out the details about the offenders' convictions. Be warned: It is not a pleasant experience; this stuff will make your skin crawl.
You can get a lot of the same information, plus interactive maps, from a Web site called familywatchdog.us. In addition, you can sign up for e-mail alerts from familywatchdog.us, which will notify you every time a level two or three registered sex offender moves into your ZIP code. The Stony Brook-based Parents for Megan's Law organization offers the same service through its Web site, parentsformeganslaw.org.
Sex offenders are classified as levels one, two or three, according to the likelihood of the offender repeating his or her sex crime. Level three is someone considered at high risk of repeating. Level two indicates moderate risk.
According to the state registry, a total of 32 level two and three sex offenders live in the "Riverhead area" (including the 11901 and 11933 ZIP codes). Of those 32, 16 are homeless men being warehoused by the county social services department in the controversial trailer sitting in the parking lot of the county jail. The agency used to put homeless sex offenders in housing in communities throughout the county, until there was an uproar in places like Coram and Mastic about "sex offender saturation." Then the county simply began dumping them in Riverhead -- effectively doubling the number of level two and three registered sex offenders who call Riverhead "home."
Twelve of the 16 men sleeping in the trailer -- you can't call it "living" since they have no kitchen or shower, just cots lined up nice and tight -- are level three offenders.
In contrast, of the 16 registered sex offenders living in private homes in Riverhead, only five are classified level three.
Some of these offenders are considered "sexually violent offenders," i.e., they committed forcible rape or sodomy. Many of them committed crimes against children, with some victims as young as 4 or 5 years old.
Parents, don't bury your heads in the sand. Get informed. And don't let bureaucratic red tape and "lawyered" notifications dissuade you from exercising your right to know. The information is readily available on the Internet, 24/7. Go get it. This is one of those times when what you don't know can hurt you -- or the people you love most.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Some things are not negotiable
I set out to write a column about how lucky we are to live in such a beautiful corner of the world. I was reminded of that over the weekend, when our roads were clogged with tourists in search of a little piece of something we take for granted every day: the splendor that is the North Fork. I spent some time this weekend interviewing people at a couple of local corn mazes, and more than one remarked on how lucky I am to "actually" live and work out here.
Yes, that's true. We are blessed to actually live and work here.
We take it all for granted. The natural beauty of our surroundings, the provision of basic necessities, the love and support of family and friends, the right to live our lives in peace and freedom.
Another thing we take for granted is truth. We don't appreciate the innate value of truth, how precious it is, or how central it is to our way of life.
As I reflected on the things I intended to write about, the things we take for granted, I couldn't get thoughts about truth out of my head. I've been bombarded with untruths lately, and shards of truth twisted into untruths, all masquerading as truth. If you've got an e-mail account, you know what I mean.
Perhaps because I'm a newspaper editor, I am treated to more than my fair share of e-mails that purport to disclose the "truth" about Barack Obama that the "liberal elite media" refuses to report. Some of these messages pour in from all corners of the country. Some originate from right here on the North Fork. Obama is a Muslim. Obama is not a U.S. citizen. His Hawaiian birth certificate was forged. Obama refuses to salute the flag. Obama won't wear a flag pin. Obama's education was paid for by radical Muslim organizations that are using him to infiltrate the U.S. government, so they can overthrow it.
I knew that sooner or later it would come down to a matter of biblical prophesy: Obama is the anti-Christ. And I quote (from an e-mail that arrived in my inbox Tuesday night: "According to The Book of Revelations [sic]: The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal ... The prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything."
Never mind that the Book of Revelation doesn't even mention "the anti-Christ," or that Islam didn't come into existence until more than 400 years after the Book of Revelation was written during the first century A.D. Why bother with truth? As Huffington Post blogger Chez Pazienza observed recently, "the truth is negotiable." In this Internet world we live in, where the proliferation of "information" is easy, instantaneous and free, it is the lie, he observes, that has value. Especially in politics.
Mr. Pazienza puts it quite eloquently: "Whereas once there were a select few sources of information, and those sources were generally deemed credible by all but those on the furthest fringes of the public, now anyone can be his or her own news source. And while ... the rise of citizen journalism and hyper-connectivity has been good for the ethics of media as a whole, it's also created a treacherous wasteland of journalistic mini-fiefdoms, each spouting its own version of reality and together making it impossible, at times, to tell honest, well-researched fact from made-up crap conjured out of thin air to further an agenda."
I've had enough of the "made-up crap conjured out of thin air to further an agenda" to last a lifetime.
Truth really is not negotiable, you know. And truth should never, ever be taken for granted -- just because you see it on TV, or online, or in print doesn't make it truth. The next time you get a scurrilous e-mail, think before you click "forward." Research its claims. Like nature, good health and the love of your family, truth is precious -- and fragile. Don't take truth for granted.
denise@timesreview.com
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Steve Levy, quit dumping on Riverhead
Wake up, Riverhead! What's it going to take to get the people of this community to rise up and tell County Executive Steve Levy we're not going to stand for being a dumping ground for the county's homeless sex offenders and we're not going to tolerate any more bull?
How about this? The county is now planning to replace the cots in the trailer with bunk beds, so the county can double up the number of men "living" in the trailer? (See story in the Oct. 9 edition of The News-Review.) That will allow twice as many sex offenders to live in the trailer.
Stack 'em up and pack 'em in, Stevie boy. Thank you very much.
When the county first set up house for homeless sex offenders in a trailer in the parking lot of the county jail in Riverside in early 2007, county officials told this community the trailer was going to be moved from one location in Suffolk County to another.
Bull chips. It hasn't budged.
Despite complaints from residents and town officials, not only did the county keep the trailer here, it brought in an even bigger one, so it could house even more homeless sex offenders. Now 16 convicted sex offenders, some of them bearing the "violent sex offender" designation and the vast majority of whom are deemed "level three" by the state, or at high risk of repeating their heinous crimes -- many of them against little children -- call that trailer home.
When residents and town officials complained, because this concentration of dangerous sex offenders, thanks to the County of Suffolk, was living within walking distance of the library and several public schools, county officials told us not to worry. The sex offenders were kept locked up in the trailer at night under the watchful eye of private security guards behind a secure fence (even though the men are not, technically, in jail) and during the day they are taken in a county van to their "home" social services offices.
More bull chips. The "secure" fence has a gaping hole in it and a wide-open gate through which anyone can stroll, any time. (They're fixing it now, they say.)
Well, we asked, what about on weekends and holidays, when county offices are closed? What happens then?
On weekends, the county spokes-hack tells us, the men are driven up-island to shower at an industrial complex whose location the county refuses to disclose.
All right, that's half a day. What about the other day-and-a-half every weekend? And the trailer's got no kitchen. What do they do for meals?
Humminna ... humminna ... humminna...
The needle on the bull chip meter just went wild.
The county rejected my idea of moving the trailer to land outside the county's minimum security jail in Yaphank -- a very good idea, if I do say so myself -- because the Yaphank site is undergoing a $150 million renovation that "makes it impossible" to place the trailer there.
Wanna bet this is just more bull?
And now, in the add-insult-to-injury department: bunk beds, so the county can squeeze 40 men in a trailer now equipped to house only 20.
Remember, folks, the county trailer came into being because other communities -- Coram and Mastic -- objected loudly to the large number of registered sex offenders in county housing within their borders. Mr. Levy's solution was to put them in a trailer and rotate the trailer around the county. It would be moved every week or two, we were told at the time.
Social Services deputy commissioner and Jamesport resident Greg Blass (our former county legislator, one-time Family Court judge and the husband of Councilwoman Barbara Blass) told The New York Times in February 2007 that the trailer would be rotated around county-owned sites "in large, undeveloped areas away from communities."
Uh, like downtown Riverhead?
"[Sex offenders] have tended to locate permanently in places where they were placed in temporary shelters," Mr. Blass was quoted in The Times. "This lets us avoid making any one area a haven for sex offenders. It's an attempt to prevent saturation."
Except saturation is OK if it's in Riverhead.
Mr. Levy, a Democrat cross-endorsed by the Republicans last time out, thinks he is politically invulnerable; he certainly doesn't think he needs Riverhead's votes. He believes he can do whatever suits him.
And right now, dumping on Riverhead suits the county executive just fine. It's convenient, and not too many voters seem to give a damn. This is Riverhead, after all. We're used to it.
Besides, Stevie figures what better place to dump all the county's homeless sex offenders than a town where a convicted sex offender once headed up the Business Improvement District and actually ran for supervisor? We must be a very tolerant place.
C'mon, people, make some noise.
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
$85 billion? What 85 billion?
Check this out. AIG blew through most of that $85 billion already, without accomplishing what it was loaned the money to do. Now it's planning to feed off the $700 billion bailout fund. I wrote about it here.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Repeating the scary past
"This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today."
Those were the words of President Franklin Roosevelt in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1933 -- his famous "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" speech aimed at rallying a downtrodden America to rise up and overcome the Great Depression.
Here's how our 32nd president described the "conditions facing our country" 75 years ago:
"Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone."
Sound familiar?
"More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return," Roosevelt continued. "Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment."
Or maybe a certain presidential candidate.
But back to our straight-talking president as he confronted a nation in the throes of economic calamity.
He said, "Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men."
The practices to which Mr. Roosevelt referred included what economist John Kenneth Galbraith, economic historian of the Great Depression, called "large-scale corporate thimble rigging" that "took a variety of forms, of which by far the most common was the organization of corporations to hold stock in yet other corporations, which in turn held stock in yet other corporations."
Does that sound familiar, too?
Carter Glass, a newspaperman turned politician, authored the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, predicted the consequences of banks lending money for stock market speculation, and after the stock market crash in 1929 and the widespread bank failures that followed, wrote a banking reform bill in 1931 to provide the Federal Reserve Board with more control over speculative credit practices by banks. His bill, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, regulated the "practices of the unscrupulous money changers" that drove the nation into the Great Depression.
It worked pretty well for 66 years, until the unscrupulous money changers had their way with Congress and then President Bill Clinton in 1999. They repealed Glass-Steagall with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Former Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas -- Sen. John McCain's economic adviser in his campaign and, reportedly, a likely cabinet appointee in a McCain administration -- sponsored the "deregulatory" legislation. He said at its passage:
"In the 1930s, at the trough of the Depression, when Glass-Steagall became law, it was believed that government was the answer. It was believed that stability and growth came from government overriding the functioning of free markets. We are here today to repeal Glass-Steagall because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers."
Until the greed of "unscrupulous money changers" in the unregulated free market runs the free market into the ground. Then government becomes the answer again -- to the tune of probably a trillion dollars in the economic calamity of the 21st century.
Sen. McCain, by the way, voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley, in a vote that closely followed partisan lines in the Republican-dominated 106th Congress. Sen. Joe Biden voted against the House bill in May 1999, but then voted for conference bill that reconciled the House and Senate versions in November 1999 -- a vote which Mr. McCain, then seeking the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, missed because he was campaigning in New Hampshire.
Sen. Barack Obama, at the time a member of the Illinois state senate, and Gov. Sarah Palin, then mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, didn't get to vote on it.
It pays to note that the Leach in "Gramm-Leach-Bliley" is former Republican congressman Jim Leach of Iowa, who crossed party lines to endorse Mr. Obama and delivered a speech at the Democratic National Convention this year. Mr. Leach would reportedly have some role in an Obama administration.
When President Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, known as the financial services modernization act, into law on Nov. 12, 1999, he said it made "the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s." Did he know just how "important" those changes would be?
"Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new economy," Mr. Clinton said.
Freedom to innovate granted to Mr. Roosevelt's "unscrupulous money changers" got us pretty much right back to where we were when FDR took office. But for the intervention of Mr. Glass' Fed, you and I might soon be standing on a bread line.
In 1999, while Bill Clinton and the 106th Congress were entertaining us with the juicy details of the president's Oval Office trysts with intern Monica Lewinsky, they were actually busy undoing the underpinnings of the security of the nation's financial system. The phone sex and stogies were merely a side show. In the background, unbeknownst to most of us, there was true bipartisan cooperation to serve the interests of the titans of finance who, left to their own devices, would get us into a fix very similar to the conditions about which FDR spoke in March 1933.
That's the bipartisan cooperation comic genius Jon Stewart of The Daily Show last week called a "clusterf#@k to the poor house." He's right. He was right, too, about this: "Those who do not study the past get an exciting opportunity to repeat it."
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Avoiding "economic calamity"... let's hope so
Is anybody else having trouble keeping track of all the hundreds of billions being doled out by the US government to prop up global financial markets and "avoid economic calamity" (quoting a NY Times headline this morning)?
The House yesterday rejected the so-called "bailout" plan that would have dumped $700 billion into financial markets. But at the same time, the feds are spreading billions of dollars around like Monopoly money.
From an article in today's NY Times:
"With money markets around the world seizing in fear, the Fed on Monday announced that it would provide an extra $150 billion through an emergency lending program for banks, and an additional $330 billion through so-called swap lines with foreign central banks to help money markets from Europe to Asia....
"That was on top of the $230 billion the Fed borrowed last week so it could finance its previous efforts to prop up the American International Group and other institutions. But these are only the latest in a long series of jaw-dropping departures from normal policy that the Fed has undertaken this year as it seeks to inject vast amounts of capital into the financial system. And they are unlikely to be the last."
I don't pretend to fully understand how all this works (or doesn't), try as I might, but it is certainly very very scary.
One thing that's much easier to understand is the lack of leadership on display in Washington. They played a game of chicken on the bailout bill. Nobody wanted to be caught holding the bag. Both "sides" wanted to be able to hold the the other responsible. Typical. And disgraceful.
Here's one other thing I don't get. How can McCain with a straight face blame Obama for the bailout plan being ditched by Congress, when McCain's party rejected it overwhelmingly. Even the eight members of the House representing McCain's home state of Arizona voted NO, including the state's four Republican congressmen. (The congressman from Alaska, also a Republican, voted no, too, I might add.) Way to deliver.
It's funny (using that word loosely) how the presidential candidates and all the political nonsense have so rapidly become largely irrelevant as we watch the train wreck that is Wall Street-Washington DC.
The House yesterday rejected the so-called "bailout" plan that would have dumped $700 billion into financial markets. But at the same time, the feds are spreading billions of dollars around like Monopoly money.
From an article in today's NY Times:
"With money markets around the world seizing in fear, the Fed on Monday announced that it would provide an extra $150 billion through an emergency lending program for banks, and an additional $330 billion through so-called swap lines with foreign central banks to help money markets from Europe to Asia....
"That was on top of the $230 billion the Fed borrowed last week so it could finance its previous efforts to prop up the American International Group and other institutions. But these are only the latest in a long series of jaw-dropping departures from normal policy that the Fed has undertaken this year as it seeks to inject vast amounts of capital into the financial system. And they are unlikely to be the last."
I don't pretend to fully understand how all this works (or doesn't), try as I might, but it is certainly very very scary.
One thing that's much easier to understand is the lack of leadership on display in Washington. They played a game of chicken on the bailout bill. Nobody wanted to be caught holding the bag. Both "sides" wanted to be able to hold the the other responsible. Typical. And disgraceful.
Here's one other thing I don't get. How can McCain with a straight face blame Obama for the bailout plan being ditched by Congress, when McCain's party rejected it overwhelmingly. Even the eight members of the House representing McCain's home state of Arizona voted NO, including the state's four Republican congressmen. (The congressman from Alaska, also a Republican, voted no, too, I might add.) Way to deliver.
It's funny (using that word loosely) how the presidential candidates and all the political nonsense have so rapidly become largely irrelevant as we watch the train wreck that is Wall Street-Washington DC.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
MEET THE HOMELESS SEX OFFENDERS THE COUNTY DUMPED IN RIVERHEAD NOT FAR FROM YOUR CHILD'S SCHOOL
These are the registered sex offenders currently housed in the Dept. of Social Services trailer in the parking lot of the county jail in Riverside, on Route 24, according to the NYS sex offender registry. There are presently 17 men living in the trailer, dumped there by the county (beginning in 2007), a stone's throw from Riverhead library and within walking distance to two public elementary schools, an intermediate school, a middle school and a high school. Eleven of these men were convicted of sex crimes against children, as indicated below.
I've posted their information and mug shots here so you can see for yourself, educate your children and, I hope, complain to County Executive Steve Levy for using Riverhead as a dumping ground for the county's homeless sex offenders. It's dangerous and it's just plain wrong. (My editorial about this situation is posted below.)
Speak out. Call Steve Levy at 853-4000 or e-mail him at county.executive@suffolkcountyny.gov.
Under state law, the court classifies sex offenders according to the risk of them committing another sex crime.
Andre Briggs (aka Andre Greene)
DOB 8/3/1963
Level 2
black; 5-11; 170;
5/31/1986- sodomy 1st degree, rape 1st degree, sexual abuse 1st degree
female, unknown age
************************
Donald Brown (aka Donald Evans)
DOB 6/26/1982
Level 3
black; 6-0; 207
1999- sodomy 1st degree
victim female, 8 yrs. old
************************
Carmine Califano
DOB 7/31/1962
Level 3
white; 5-9; 185
brown hair, green eyes
sexually violent offender
1992- sodomy 1st degree, sexual abuse 1st degree,
victim female 11 yrs old
************************
Luis Casanova
DOB 3/22/1953
Level 3
black; hispanic; 5-3; 185
black hair, brown eyes
3/8/2001 - use of a child less than 17 in a sexual performance
sexual abuse 1st degree
possessing a sexual performance by a child less than 16
victim female, 13 y/o
************************
Anthony Consolazio
DOB 4/14/1968
Level 3
white; 5-6; 165; blonde hair green eyes
sexually violent offender
course of sexual conduct against child
sodomy 3rd degree
victims male, 10 yrs old; male, 15
************************
*
Eric Gallon
DOB 9/9/1983
Level 3
black; 5-8; 185
2002- rape 2nd degree
victim female, 14 y/o
************************
Eric Greaves
DOB 2/15/1982
Level 3
white; 6-0; 135; brown hair, brown eyes
2002- rape 2nd degree
************************
Robert Harris
DOB 10/16/1963
Level 3
black; 5-6; 185
2006- rape 2nd degree
victim female 13 yrs old
************************
Joseph Milnes
DOB 8/16/1953
Level 3
white; 5-9; 175; brown hair, blue eyes
2000- attempted rape 1st degree
victim female, 18 yrs old
************************
Raul Oquendo
DOB 5/2/1967
Level 2
white; hispanic; 5-7; 155; black hair, brown eyes
2006- rape 2nd degree
Victim female, 11 yrs old
************************
Louis Reyes
DOB 9/9/1954
Level 3
white; hispanic; 5-10; 195; brown hair, brown eyes
sexually violent offender
1996- rape 1st degree, female, 33 y/o
************************
Lucas Rivera
DOB 9/7/1961
Level 3
white; hispanic; 5-10; 160; brown hair, brown eyes
predicate sex offender
attempted sodomy 3
************************
******
Daniel Rosenblad
DOB 5/25/1964
Level 2
white; 5-10; 160; blonde hair, blue eyes
sexual abuse 1st degree
victim male, 7 yrs old
************************
******
Raul Torres
DOB 12/31/1965
Level 3
white; hispanic; 5-11; 215; brown hair, hazel eyes
sexually violent offender
sexual abuse 1st degree
victim female, 6 yrs old
************************
********
Robert Trocchio
DOB 2/24/1963
Level 3
white; 5-6; 177; black hair, hazel eyes
1982 sodomy 1st degre
************************
Jermaine Walton
DOB 6/20/1974
Level 3
black; 5-8; 155; black hair, brown eyes
sexually violent offender
sexual abuse 1st
victim female younger than 17 yrs old
****************************
I've also mapped out the registered sex offenders living in the 11901 zip code (on both sides of the Peconic) other than those who are incarcerated at the county jail or living in the DSS trailer. (See below.)
Please note this information is current as of today, and is subject to change DAILY. Under Meghan's Law, the police must notify the school district when a registered sex offender moves into the district. The district notifies its residents. The notification is not taking place regarding the homeless men in the county trailer, because, as social services recipients, they have a right to confidentiality, according to the county executive's spokesman. Good for them, bad for our kids.
If you click on the blue pins, you will see the registered sex offenders name, classification and conviction information.
View Larger Map
I've posted their information and mug shots here so you can see for yourself, educate your children and, I hope, complain to County Executive Steve Levy for using Riverhead as a dumping ground for the county's homeless sex offenders. It's dangerous and it's just plain wrong. (My editorial about this situation is posted below.)
Speak out. Call Steve Levy at 853-4000 or e-mail him at county.executive@suffolkcountyny.gov.
Under state law, the court classifies sex offenders according to the risk of them committing another sex crime.
- Level one (low risk);
- Level two (medium risk); and
- Level three (high risk).
Andre Briggs (aka Andre Greene)
DOB 8/3/1963
Level 2
black; 5-11; 170;
5/31/1986- sodomy 1st degree, rape 1st degree, sexual abuse 1st degree
female, unknown age
************************
Donald Brown (aka Donald Evans)
DOB 6/26/1982
Level 3
black; 6-0; 207
1999- sodomy 1st degree
victim female, 8 yrs. old
************************
Carmine Califano
DOB 7/31/1962
Level 3
white; 5-9; 185
brown hair, green eyes
sexually violent offender
1992- sodomy 1st degree, sexual abuse 1st degree,
victim female 11 yrs old
************************
Luis Casanova
DOB 3/22/1953
Level 3
black; hispanic; 5-3; 185
black hair, brown eyes
3/8/2001 - use of a child less than 17 in a sexual performance
sexual abuse 1st degree
possessing a sexual performance by a child less than 16
victim female, 13 y/o
************************
Anthony Consolazio
DOB 4/14/1968
Level 3
white; 5-6; 165; blonde hair green eyes
sexually violent offender
course of sexual conduct against child
sodomy 3rd degree
victims male, 10 yrs old; male, 15
************************
*Eric Gallon
DOB 9/9/1983
Level 3
black; 5-8; 185
2002- rape 2nd degree
victim female, 14 y/o
************************
Eric Greaves
DOB 2/15/1982
Level 3
white; 6-0; 135; brown hair, brown eyes
2002- rape 2nd degree
************************
Robert Harris
DOB 10/16/1963
Level 3
black; 5-6; 185
2006- rape 2nd degree
victim female 13 yrs old
************************
Joseph Milnes
DOB 8/16/1953
Level 3
white; 5-9; 175; brown hair, blue eyes
2000- attempted rape 1st degree
victim female, 18 yrs old
************************
Raul Oquendo
DOB 5/2/1967
Level 2
white; hispanic; 5-7; 155; black hair, brown eyes
2006- rape 2nd degree
Victim female, 11 yrs old
************************
Louis Reyes
DOB 9/9/1954
Level 3
white; hispanic; 5-10; 195; brown hair, brown eyes
sexually violent offender
1996- rape 1st degree, female, 33 y/o
************************
Lucas Rivera
DOB 9/7/1961
Level 3
white; hispanic; 5-10; 160; brown hair, brown eyes
predicate sex offender
attempted sodomy 3
************************
******Daniel Rosenblad
DOB 5/25/1964
Level 2
white; 5-10; 160; blonde hair, blue eyes
sexual abuse 1st degree
victim male, 7 yrs old
************************
******Raul Torres
DOB 12/31/1965
Level 3
white; hispanic; 5-11; 215; brown hair, hazel eyes
sexually violent offender
sexual abuse 1st degree
victim female, 6 yrs old
************************
********Robert Trocchio
DOB 2/24/1963
Level 3
white; 5-6; 177; black hair, hazel eyes
1982 sodomy 1st degre
************************
Jermaine Walton
DOB 6/20/1974
Level 3
black; 5-8; 155; black hair, brown eyes
sexually violent offender
sexual abuse 1st
victim female younger than 17 yrs old
****************************
I've also mapped out the registered sex offenders living in the 11901 zip code (on both sides of the Peconic) other than those who are incarcerated at the county jail or living in the DSS trailer. (See below.)
Please note this information is current as of today, and is subject to change DAILY. Under Meghan's Law, the police must notify the school district when a registered sex offender moves into the district. The district notifies its residents. The notification is not taking place regarding the homeless men in the county trailer, because, as social services recipients, they have a right to confidentiality, according to the county executive's spokesman. Good for them, bad for our kids.
If you click on the blue pins, you will see the registered sex offenders name, classification and conviction information.
View Larger Map
County treats Riverhead as a dumping ground — again
The county has set up a quasi-jail for dangerous homeless sex offenders and our hometown gets the honor of playing host. Consider it one of the perks of being the putative county seat. (Riverhead is really the seat of Suffolk County government in name only. County government abandoned Riverhead for Hauppauge long ago. And even the "Riverhead" offices of county government are located across the river, in Northampton, Town of Southampton.)
Over the objection of town officials and our local county legislators, County Executive Steve Levy, for the past couple of years, has housed homeless convicted sex offenders in a trailer in the parking lot of the county jail in Riverside. Many, if not most, of the men housed in this trailer are classified as the most dangerous sex offenders, Level 3 offenders, who are considered by the state to be the most likely to repeat their crimes -- "a high risk of repeat offense and a threat to public safety exists," in the words of the state's Department of Criminal Justice Services. Currently 13 of the 15 men who have the trailer listed as their address on the state's sex offender registry are Level 3 offenders. Nine of those men were convicted of sex offenses against children.
This quasi-jail "program" has been so "successful" -- characterized as such by Mr. Levy's social services department spokesman -- that the county is now expanding it. They've now brought a bigger trailer into the parking lot so they can house even more homeless sex offenders there.
"It's been an ideal solution to keeping homeless sex offenders out of neighborhoods," the spokesman said. Out of neighborhoods they care about, anyway.
The sex offender trailer is within easy walking distance of Riverhead Free Library, Suffolk County Historical Society (the site of hundreds of school field trips), two public elementary schools, an intermediate school, the middle school and the high school, and what's left of downtown Riverhead, which includes another popular attraction for children and school trips, Atlantis Marine World.
The Riverside jail parking lot may seem like a good location to Mr. Levy, but to me, it's all wrong. Unlike Mr. Levy, I have teenage daughters who attend Riverhead public schools, walk from school to the library and potentially share the sidewalks with the Level 3 sex offenders who've been dumped in downtown Riverhead by the County of Suffolk.
But not to worry. The dangerous sex offenders are bused during the day to their "home" social services office, and, when they are returned to the trailer in the evening, they are not allowed to leave. They are watched by a private security firm hired for that purpose. And the location is behind barbed wire.
Well, the barbed wire fence has a gaping hole in it. (See story, page 1) And I don't buy that the men are not allowed to leave the trailer. Remember these men are not in jail. They have served their time. They simply have no place to live.
The county's trailer has no cooking facilities. Where do they eat? What happens when county social services offices are closed on weekends and holidays? What happens when a resident refuses to go to the social services office? Where do the residents go after they've showered at the "industrial site" up-island on weekends? To Mr. Levy's home in Holbrook for tea and cookies?
Even if Mr. Levy doesn't care about Riverhead neighborhoods and Riverhead kids, we know he cares about the Almighty Dollar. And on that score, this "program" can't be too "successful." There's the cost of the trailer itself, the cost of the private security firm, the cost of transporting these men to the various social services offices throughout the county and back five days a week, the cost of transporting them to the unspecified "industrial" location for showers every weekend, and the cost of renting the shower facility.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to put this trailer over at the minimum security county jail in Yaphank -- which is truly not in a neighborhood -- and allow the men to shower and eat there? Those that work could take advantage of the county's marvelous public transportation system to get to their jobs. Those who have no jobs could be put to work on the county farm, to help pay their own freight. And if they roam off the county farm unescorted, they'll find themselves at county police headquarters -- instead of in a neighborhood with schools, libraries and museums, filled with your children and mine.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Another conference
Another conference of newspaper people trying to figure out how to salvage their trade. Most of the publishers are very puzzled by the internet in general and by how to respond to what it's done to the newspaper industry in particular.
The daily newspaper industry is in a shambles. Now that they are giving away their work product online, without being able to replace lost print ad and circulation revenue online, they're losing their shirts. Their stocks are depreciating. Investors are panicking. They're laying people off in droves.
The weekly community newspapers, on the other hand, still have something of a niche market. We're one of the few places people can turn to as a reliable source of extremely local news. The internet hasn't had the same impact on us as it has on the dailies — yet. So there's conference after conference of weekly publishers trying to figure out how not to end up like the dailies.
Nobody's really got the answer. Maybe because there isn't one.
The scary thing to me (other than the potential loss of job security, of course) is the future of journalism. Journalism — real journalism, good journalism — is one of the cornerstones of a free society. If we lose it — and we ARE losing it, little by little — what happens to our freedom? That's what scares me the most about this state of affairs.
Journalism costs money to do. Good reporters, photographers, researchers, fact-checkers, editors — all of those people need to earn money to live. If there's no income from which to pay them, what happens? We're seeing this already on the national and international scene. There's been a major contraction in the industry. Newspapers that used to deploy reporters and photographers to Washington DC to cover the US government or to places overseas to cover world events aren't doing that any more. So news and information is coming through fewer and fewer sources. That's not healthy. We've yet to see the full effects of this trend. It won't be good for journalism and it won't be good for truth and it won't be good for freedom, here in the US and around the world.
These conferences leave me simultaneously depressed and inspired. Seems impossible, doesn't it? On the one hand there's the doom and gloom state of the newspaper industry. On the other hand, there's an opportunity to meet and learn from journalists like Rex Smith, editor of the Albany Times-Union, who led a couple of seminars this weekend, including one on ethics in the newsroom. He reminded me of our mission as journalists.
The fundamentals of journalism:
Seek the truth and report it fully.
Act independently.
Be transparent and accountable.
Minimize harm.
This weekend also presented the opportunity to visit the Newseum, a museum dedicated to news and journalism. That place is an inspiration in itself.
It is said that journalism is "the first draft of history." The Newseum is a place where you can see history as it unfolded, reported by men and women (many of whom lost their lives doing so) who were eyewitnesses to history. The exhibits there (Pulitzer prize-winning photo gallery, the 9/11 gallery, the history of news gallery, the many documentary films shown in various small theaters throughout its six-floors) are moving and awe-inspiring. If you ever visit Washington DC, don't miss this place.
The daily newspaper industry is in a shambles. Now that they are giving away their work product online, without being able to replace lost print ad and circulation revenue online, they're losing their shirts. Their stocks are depreciating. Investors are panicking. They're laying people off in droves.
The weekly community newspapers, on the other hand, still have something of a niche market. We're one of the few places people can turn to as a reliable source of extremely local news. The internet hasn't had the same impact on us as it has on the dailies — yet. So there's conference after conference of weekly publishers trying to figure out how not to end up like the dailies.
Nobody's really got the answer. Maybe because there isn't one.
The scary thing to me (other than the potential loss of job security, of course) is the future of journalism. Journalism — real journalism, good journalism — is one of the cornerstones of a free society. If we lose it — and we ARE losing it, little by little — what happens to our freedom? That's what scares me the most about this state of affairs.
Journalism costs money to do. Good reporters, photographers, researchers, fact-checkers, editors — all of those people need to earn money to live. If there's no income from which to pay them, what happens? We're seeing this already on the national and international scene. There's been a major contraction in the industry. Newspapers that used to deploy reporters and photographers to Washington DC to cover the US government or to places overseas to cover world events aren't doing that any more. So news and information is coming through fewer and fewer sources. That's not healthy. We've yet to see the full effects of this trend. It won't be good for journalism and it won't be good for truth and it won't be good for freedom, here in the US and around the world.
These conferences leave me simultaneously depressed and inspired. Seems impossible, doesn't it? On the one hand there's the doom and gloom state of the newspaper industry. On the other hand, there's an opportunity to meet and learn from journalists like Rex Smith, editor of the Albany Times-Union, who led a couple of seminars this weekend, including one on ethics in the newsroom. He reminded me of our mission as journalists.
The fundamentals of journalism:
Seek the truth and report it fully.
Act independently.
Be transparent and accountable.
Minimize harm.
This weekend also presented the opportunity to visit the Newseum, a museum dedicated to news and journalism. That place is an inspiration in itself.
It is said that journalism is "the first draft of history." The Newseum is a place where you can see history as it unfolded, reported by men and women (many of whom lost their lives doing so) who were eyewitnesses to history. The exhibits there (Pulitzer prize-winning photo gallery, the 9/11 gallery, the history of news gallery, the many documentary films shown in various small theaters throughout its six-floors) are moving and awe-inspiring. If you ever visit Washington DC, don't miss this place.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Is FERC acting lawfully or exceeding its administrative authority?
I know I'm a wonk. That's the only way to explain why I find these things so intriguing and downright exciting.
But there are some interesting legal issues to explore on the Broadwater front. (See the article we've published today about FERC's denial of the rehearing requests filed by the NY, Conn., Suffolk County, and four towns, reprinted below.)
The jurisdictional issue is key. Administrative agencies, like FERC, cannot promulgate regulations or policies inconsistent with the enabling legislation that confers regulatory jurisdiction upon the agencies. That's a basic principle of administrative law.
But is that, in fact, what FERC is doing by issuing "conditional" licenses prior to the states' coastal consistence certifications, as the attorney for Riverhead and Southold argues? (The states of Washington and Delaware make this claim, too, in their lawsuits against FERC pending in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.)
Here's what the statute, Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act [15 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)], says:
No license or permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until the state or its designated agency has concurred with the applicant's certification or until, by the state's failure to act, the concurrence is conclusively presumed, unless the Secretary, on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant, finds, after providing a reasonable opportunity for detailed comments from the Federal agency involved and from the state, that the activity is consistent with the objectives of this chapter or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security.
So, does this prohibition "No license or permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until the state or its designated agency has concurred with the applicant's [consistency] certification..." mean FERC cannot legally issue licenses conditioned on the state's concurrence with the applicant's consistency certification?
That's the question in a nutshell.
There's a similar "condition precedent" in the Clean Water Act (Section 401).
By issuing the conditional licenses in advance of the coastal consistency and clean water act certifications by states, is FERC running amok?
These are interesting legal questions with far-reaching implications. Do you think New York and Connecticut will bring their own federal suits on the same grounds? I bet they will.
From The Suffolk TImes, Sept. 11, 2008:
FERC refuses to reconsider Broadwater permit
Towns will challenge FERC in federal court
By Denise Civiletti
Federal regulators last Thursday refused multiple requests by state, county and town officials to reconsider their March 20 approvals of Broadwater Energy’s floating liquefied natural gas terminal and subsea pipeline in Long Island Sound.
Following New York state’s April 10 coastal consistency ruling, New York and Connecticut, Suffolk County and the towns of Riverhead, Southold, Brookhaven, East Hampton and Huntington asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conduct a new hearing on Broadwater’s applications for permits to construct and operate an LNG storage and regasification terminal in the middle of the Sound and the 22-mile subsea pipeline it would use to supply an existing natural gas transmission network with 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily.
But in a 97-page decision defending the findings of its environmental impact study and its original permit approvals, FERC unequivocally rejected the rehearing requests, setting the stage for a federal court battle between local and state governments on one hand and federal energy regulators on the other. At issue will be FERC’s authority to issue permits prior to coastal consistency certification by the host state as required by federal law, according to the attorney representing Riverhead and Southold.
“It’s a violation of the [federal] Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act for FERC to license the project prior to hearing from the state regarding CZMA and the Clean Water Act. Those must be decided by the state first,” said Peter Bergen, the attorney representing the towns of Riverhead and Southold.
FERC issued Broadwater’s permits in advance of New York’s issuing its coastal zone consistency certification, and that’s illegal, Mr. Bergen maintains. “It violates the plain language of the statutes,” he said. Mr. Bergen said section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act and section 401 of the Clean Water Act, both federal statutes, plainly require the host state to approve the Broadwater plan before FERC may issue its permits.
Instead, FERC has been issuing permits ahead of state coastal consistency and Clean Water Act certifications, according to Mr. Bergen and attorneys for New York and other states involved in litigation with FERC.
“We raised that issue in our rehearing request and FERC just blew us off,” Mr. Bergen said. “That’s one of the issues we’re going to take to court.”
At least two other states, Washington and Delaware, are already challenging FERC’s practice of issuing conditional permits prior to state coastal consistency and Clean Water Act certifications. Their actions are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
The issue, according to a brief filed by Washington state in its lawsuit against FERC, is “whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can, through policy and practice, rewrite the terms of federal statutes...” Washington state says the answer is clearly no.
The federal law was specifically crafted to allow states that are hosts to these projects and must live with their impacts a “protected” period of time to evaluate them, said Joan Marchioro, an attorney in Washington state’s attorney general’s office. FERC’s policy of issuing “conditional” licenses turns the statute on its head, she said, and “once FERC says to an applicant ‘you’re good to go,’ it puts all the pressure on the state.”
The New York Department of State would only say it is reviewing its options at this time, and the attorney representing Suffolk County did not return a phone call seeking comment. But Mr. Bergen said he recommended to Riverhead and Southold that the towns take this challenge to the federal court and he believes the other parties would follow suit.
Broadwater senior vice president John Hritcko said he is pleased with FERC’s decision denying a rehearing.
“The commission went through it issue by issue and they did a good job reviewing each one of the points made in the rehearing requests,” Mr. Hritcko said in a telephone interview from his office in Houston, Tex., headquarters of Shell Oil, joint venture partner in Broadwater Energy with TransCanada Pipelines.
Broadwater, meanwhile, has appealed the N.Y. coastal consistency ruling to the U.S. secretary of commerce, who has the authority to override the state’s consistency ruling. That appeal is pending, with a ruling by the commerce secretary expected in early 2009, according to Ted Beuttler, a staff attorney in the commerce department’s office of general counsel for ocean services.
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
But there are some interesting legal issues to explore on the Broadwater front. (See the article we've published today about FERC's denial of the rehearing requests filed by the NY, Conn., Suffolk County, and four towns, reprinted below.)
The jurisdictional issue is key. Administrative agencies, like FERC, cannot promulgate regulations or policies inconsistent with the enabling legislation that confers regulatory jurisdiction upon the agencies. That's a basic principle of administrative law.
But is that, in fact, what FERC is doing by issuing "conditional" licenses prior to the states' coastal consistence certifications, as the attorney for Riverhead and Southold argues? (The states of Washington and Delaware make this claim, too, in their lawsuits against FERC pending in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.)
Here's what the statute, Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act [15 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)], says:
No license or permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until the state or its designated agency has concurred with the applicant's certification or until, by the state's failure to act, the concurrence is conclusively presumed, unless the Secretary, on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant, finds, after providing a reasonable opportunity for detailed comments from the Federal agency involved and from the state, that the activity is consistent with the objectives of this chapter or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security.
So, does this prohibition "No license or permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until the state or its designated agency has concurred with the applicant's [consistency] certification..." mean FERC cannot legally issue licenses conditioned on the state's concurrence with the applicant's consistency certification?
That's the question in a nutshell.
There's a similar "condition precedent" in the Clean Water Act (Section 401).
By issuing the conditional licenses in advance of the coastal consistency and clean water act certifications by states, is FERC running amok?
These are interesting legal questions with far-reaching implications. Do you think New York and Connecticut will bring their own federal suits on the same grounds? I bet they will.
From The Suffolk TImes, Sept. 11, 2008:
FERC refuses to reconsider Broadwater permit
Towns will challenge FERC in federal court
By Denise Civiletti
Federal regulators last Thursday refused multiple requests by state, county and town officials to reconsider their March 20 approvals of Broadwater Energy’s floating liquefied natural gas terminal and subsea pipeline in Long Island Sound.
Following New York state’s April 10 coastal consistency ruling, New York and Connecticut, Suffolk County and the towns of Riverhead, Southold, Brookhaven, East Hampton and Huntington asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conduct a new hearing on Broadwater’s applications for permits to construct and operate an LNG storage and regasification terminal in the middle of the Sound and the 22-mile subsea pipeline it would use to supply an existing natural gas transmission network with 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily.
But in a 97-page decision defending the findings of its environmental impact study and its original permit approvals, FERC unequivocally rejected the rehearing requests, setting the stage for a federal court battle between local and state governments on one hand and federal energy regulators on the other. At issue will be FERC’s authority to issue permits prior to coastal consistency certification by the host state as required by federal law, according to the attorney representing Riverhead and Southold.
“It’s a violation of the [federal] Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act for FERC to license the project prior to hearing from the state regarding CZMA and the Clean Water Act. Those must be decided by the state first,” said Peter Bergen, the attorney representing the towns of Riverhead and Southold.
FERC issued Broadwater’s permits in advance of New York’s issuing its coastal zone consistency certification, and that’s illegal, Mr. Bergen maintains. “It violates the plain language of the statutes,” he said. Mr. Bergen said section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act and section 401 of the Clean Water Act, both federal statutes, plainly require the host state to approve the Broadwater plan before FERC may issue its permits.
Instead, FERC has been issuing permits ahead of state coastal consistency and Clean Water Act certifications, according to Mr. Bergen and attorneys for New York and other states involved in litigation with FERC.
“We raised that issue in our rehearing request and FERC just blew us off,” Mr. Bergen said. “That’s one of the issues we’re going to take to court.”
At least two other states, Washington and Delaware, are already challenging FERC’s practice of issuing conditional permits prior to state coastal consistency and Clean Water Act certifications. Their actions are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
The issue, according to a brief filed by Washington state in its lawsuit against FERC, is “whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can, through policy and practice, rewrite the terms of federal statutes...” Washington state says the answer is clearly no.
The federal law was specifically crafted to allow states that are hosts to these projects and must live with their impacts a “protected” period of time to evaluate them, said Joan Marchioro, an attorney in Washington state’s attorney general’s office. FERC’s policy of issuing “conditional” licenses turns the statute on its head, she said, and “once FERC says to an applicant ‘you’re good to go,’ it puts all the pressure on the state.”
The New York Department of State would only say it is reviewing its options at this time, and the attorney representing Suffolk County did not return a phone call seeking comment. But Mr. Bergen said he recommended to Riverhead and Southold that the towns take this challenge to the federal court and he believes the other parties would follow suit.
Broadwater senior vice president John Hritcko said he is pleased with FERC’s decision denying a rehearing.
“The commission went through it issue by issue and they did a good job reviewing each one of the points made in the rehearing requests,” Mr. Hritcko said in a telephone interview from his office in Houston, Tex., headquarters of Shell Oil, joint venture partner in Broadwater Energy with TransCanada Pipelines.
Broadwater, meanwhile, has appealed the N.Y. coastal consistency ruling to the U.S. secretary of commerce, who has the authority to override the state’s consistency ruling. That appeal is pending, with a ruling by the commerce secretary expected in early 2009, according to Ted Beuttler, a staff attorney in the commerce department’s office of general counsel for ocean services.
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
FERC says 'no' to rehearing requests; municipalites to challenge FERC authority, lawyer says
Federal regulators last Thursday refused multiple requests by state, county and town officials to reconsider their March 20 approvals of Broadwater Energy’s floating liquefied natural gas terminal and subsea pipeline in Long Island Sound.
Following New York state’s April 10 coastal consistency ruling, New York and Connecticut, Suffolk County and the towns of Riverhead, Southold, Brookhaven, East Hampton and Huntington asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conduct a new hearing on Broadwater’s applications for permits to construct and operate an LNG storage and regasification terminal in the middle of the Sound and the 22-mile subsea pipeline it would use to supply an existing natural gas transmission network with 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily. But in a 97-page decision defending the findings of its environmental impact study and its original permit approvals, FERC unequivocally rejected the rehearing requests, setting the stage for a federal court battle between local and state governments on one hand and federal energy regulators on the other. At issue will be FERC’s authority to issue permits prior to coastal consistency certification by the host state as required by federal law, according to the attorney representing Riverhead and Southold.
“It’s a violation of the [federal] Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act for FERC to license the project prior to hearing from the state regarding CZMA and the Clean Water Act. Those must be decided by the state first,” said Peter Bergen, the attorney representing the towns of Riverhead and Southold. FERC issued Broadwater’s permits in advance of New York’s issuing its coastal zone consistency certification, and that’s illegal, Mr. Bergen maintains.
“It violates the plain language of the statutes,” he said. Mr. Bergen said section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act and section 401 of the Clean Water Act, both federal statutes, plainly require the host state to approve the Broadwater plan before FERC may issue its permits. Instead, FERC has been issuing permits ahead of state coastal consistency and Clean Water Act certifications, according to Mr. Bergen and attorneys for New York and other states involved in litigation with FERC.
“We raised that issue in our rehearing request and FERC just blew us off,” Mr. Bergen said. “That’s one of the issues we’re going to take to court.”
At least two other states, Washington and Delaware, are already challenging FERC’s practice of issuing conditional permits prior to state coastal consistency and Clean Water Act certifications. Their actions are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. The issue, according to a brief filed by Washington state in its lawsuit against FERC, is “whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can, through policy and practice, rewrite the terms of federal statutes...” Washington state says the answer is clearly no.
The federal law was specifically crafted to allow states that are hosts to these projects and must live with their impacts a “protected” period of time to evaluate them, said Joan Marchioro, an attorney in Washington state’s attorney general’s office. FERC’s policy of issuing “conditional” licenses turns the statute on its head, she said, and “once FERC says to an applicant ‘you’re good to go,’ it puts all the pressure on the state.”
The New York Department of State would only say it is reviewing its options at this time, and the attorney representing Suffolk County did not return a phone call seeking comment. But Mr. Bergen said he recommended to Riverhead and Southold that the towns take this challenge to the federal court and he believes the other parties would follow suit.
Broadwater senior vice president John Hritcko said he is pleased with FERC’s decision denying a rehearing.
“The commission went through it issue by issue and they did a good job reviewing each one of the points made in the rehearing requests,” Mr. Hritcko said in a telephone interview from his office in Houston, Tex., headquarters of Shell Oil, joint venture partner in Broadwater Energy with TransCanada Pipelines. Broadwater, meanwhile, has appealed the N.Y. coastal consistency ruling to the U.S. secretary of commerce, who has the authority to override the state’s consistency ruling. That appeal is pending, with a ruling by the commerce secretary expected in early 2009, according to Ted Beuttler, a staff attorney in the commerce department’s office of general counsel for ocean services.
Following New York state’s April 10 coastal consistency ruling, New York and Connecticut, Suffolk County and the towns of Riverhead, Southold, Brookhaven, East Hampton and Huntington asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conduct a new hearing on Broadwater’s applications for permits to construct and operate an LNG storage and regasification terminal in the middle of the Sound and the 22-mile subsea pipeline it would use to supply an existing natural gas transmission network with 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily. But in a 97-page decision defending the findings of its environmental impact study and its original permit approvals, FERC unequivocally rejected the rehearing requests, setting the stage for a federal court battle between local and state governments on one hand and federal energy regulators on the other. At issue will be FERC’s authority to issue permits prior to coastal consistency certification by the host state as required by federal law, according to the attorney representing Riverhead and Southold.
“It’s a violation of the [federal] Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act for FERC to license the project prior to hearing from the state regarding CZMA and the Clean Water Act. Those must be decided by the state first,” said Peter Bergen, the attorney representing the towns of Riverhead and Southold. FERC issued Broadwater’s permits in advance of New York’s issuing its coastal zone consistency certification, and that’s illegal, Mr. Bergen maintains.
“It violates the plain language of the statutes,” he said. Mr. Bergen said section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act and section 401 of the Clean Water Act, both federal statutes, plainly require the host state to approve the Broadwater plan before FERC may issue its permits. Instead, FERC has been issuing permits ahead of state coastal consistency and Clean Water Act certifications, according to Mr. Bergen and attorneys for New York and other states involved in litigation with FERC.
“We raised that issue in our rehearing request and FERC just blew us off,” Mr. Bergen said. “That’s one of the issues we’re going to take to court.”
At least two other states, Washington and Delaware, are already challenging FERC’s practice of issuing conditional permits prior to state coastal consistency and Clean Water Act certifications. Their actions are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. The issue, according to a brief filed by Washington state in its lawsuit against FERC, is “whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can, through policy and practice, rewrite the terms of federal statutes...” Washington state says the answer is clearly no.
The federal law was specifically crafted to allow states that are hosts to these projects and must live with their impacts a “protected” period of time to evaluate them, said Joan Marchioro, an attorney in Washington state’s attorney general’s office. FERC’s policy of issuing “conditional” licenses turns the statute on its head, she said, and “once FERC says to an applicant ‘you’re good to go,’ it puts all the pressure on the state.”
The New York Department of State would only say it is reviewing its options at this time, and the attorney representing Suffolk County did not return a phone call seeking comment. But Mr. Bergen said he recommended to Riverhead and Southold that the towns take this challenge to the federal court and he believes the other parties would follow suit.
Broadwater senior vice president John Hritcko said he is pleased with FERC’s decision denying a rehearing.
“The commission went through it issue by issue and they did a good job reviewing each one of the points made in the rehearing requests,” Mr. Hritcko said in a telephone interview from his office in Houston, Tex., headquarters of Shell Oil, joint venture partner in Broadwater Energy with TransCanada Pipelines. Broadwater, meanwhile, has appealed the N.Y. coastal consistency ruling to the U.S. secretary of commerce, who has the authority to override the state’s consistency ruling. That appeal is pending, with a ruling by the commerce secretary expected in early 2009, according to Ted Beuttler, a staff attorney in the commerce department’s office of general counsel for ocean services.
denise@timesreview.com
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Broadwater rehearing denied by feds
By Denise Civiletti
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Thursday denied requests by New York, Connecticut, Suffolk County and the towns of Riverhead, Southold, Brookhaven, East Hampton and Huntington to reconsider its approval of Broadwater Energy's permits to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound, nine miles off the coast of Wading River in the Town of Riverhead.
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Thursday denied requests by New York, Connecticut, Suffolk County and the towns of Riverhead, Southold, Brookhaven, East Hampton and Huntington to reconsider its approval of Broadwater Energy's permits to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound, nine miles off the coast of Wading River in the Town of Riverhead.
FERC on March 20 issued conditional approvals to Broadwater Energy, a joint venture of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipelines, to site, construct, and operate a 1,215-foot-long LNG import terminal in Long Island Sound. The commission also issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Broadwater Pipeline LLC, an affiliate of Broadwater Energy, to construct, own, and operate a 21.7-mile-long pipeline subsea lateral from the LNG terminal to he Iroquois gas transmission system pipeline in Kings Park.
Both approvals were conditioned on a determination by the N.Y. secretary of state that the terminal would be consistent with New York's coastal management policies. Gov. David Paterson announced on April 10 that the N.Y. secretary of state had found Broadwater's proposed terminal inconsistent with state coastal policies.
The states of New York and Connecticut, as well as Suffolk County and four municipalities, subsequently asked FERC to reconsider its permit approvals after the New York secretary of commerce ruled on April 10 that the off-shore LNG storage and regasification terminal was inconsistent with New York's coastal management policy.
On Thursday, FERC said no.
What legal action the states, county and towns may pursue following FERC's denial was not immediately apparent.
Meanwhile, Broadwater Energy has appealed the N.Y. Department of State's consistency determination to the U.S. secretary of commerce, who has the authority to override the state's consistency ruling upon finding that the terminal is in the interest of national security. That appeal is pending before the U.S. commerce secretary. A ruling on that appeal is expected in early 2009, according to Ted Beuttler, a staff attorney in the commerce department's office of general counsel for ocean services.
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
We really need term limits
Change is in the air. Not just the change of seasons evident in the first hints of autumn in the cool September morning air. Political change. Change is the word of the day.
In politics, change is good. Even change for the sake of change. I believe in term limits. Nothing is worse for democracy than a political system in which incumbents are so entrenched they're untouchable. It creates an atmosphere in which special interests flourish at the expense of citizens and taxpayers.
We desperately need change in Albany. Our state legislative process has been hijacked by partisan politics, special interests and backroom deals. It's been this way for so long, we barely think twice about it any more. Legendary is the phenomenon of the "three men in a room" deciding our fate: the governor, the speaker of the assembly and the president of the senate. The leadership of each chamber of the state legislature calls the shots. Bills introduced without leadership approval go nowhere. Bills introduced by a member of the minority party without a majority member cosponsor? Fuggedaboudit.
In this system, it benefits us citizens to have an entrenched incumbent who's a member of the majority party representing our district in Albany. As far as that's concerned, we here in the First District are in the catbird's seat. We've got a senator whose tenure stretches back more than 30 years, who is a member of the senate's ruling party (Republican). And we've got an assemblyman who is likewise a member of the assembly's ruling party (Democrat); though he's new to the job, as long as he keeps his nose clean and his trousers zipped, he's probably got the job for life. That's just how it goes.
I've got no ax to grind where State Senator Ken LaValle is concerned. His heart is in the right place. He's compassionate and caring, smart and articulate. And though we don't always agree about everything, I like the man. I'm sorry to have to hold him up as an example of what's wrong with the system.
Ken LaValle is so entrenched, the Democrats aren't even bothering to run anyone against him this year. Just as well. Nearly every candidate they've put up to "challenge" the incumbent for the last two decades has been a joke. Or a fill-in -- somebody, anybody, just to have a name on the ballot. So why bother? This year, the Democrats took a pass. They say they're concentrating on an incumbent they perceive to be more vulnerable to a challenge by a strong Democratic candidate. (Brookhaven Supervisor Brian Foley is running against incumbent senator Cesar Trunzo.) Why waste money -- even a minimal amount -- running a race against Ken LaValle? But really, the Democrats haven't had a serious horse in this race for 20 years or more.
When incumbents are untouchable, they don't have to worry about spending time, effort or money getting re-elected. But they still raise funds for their campaigns. Because they can. Lobbyists seeking to curry favor with the legislature are all too eager to grease the skids with the parties in power, filling their candidates' campaign coffers with dough. In the first six months of this year, Mr. LaValle raised $62,625 from corporations, partnerships and political action committees, and another $14,455 from individuals. (He had $135,260 on hand at the end of the reporting period.) Our senator, as a senior member of the Republican caucus, has a fair amount of clout in Albany, and that makes him valuable to people who want something out of the state legislature.
Without a real need to spend serious money on their campaigns, incumbents use these campaign accounts as handy little slush funds to pay a variety of expenses: cell phone service, breakfasts, lunches and dinners out, lodging, floral arrangements, certificates and plaques, gasoline, and, of course, tickets to fundraisers for other candidates, political committees or charitable causes. Our own senator spent a total of about $18,000 out of his campaign account on such items during the first six months of 2008, according to his campaign committee's disclosure report on file with the state board of elections. (Included: $8,650 on tickets and contributions, $5,274 on restaurant tabs, $1,600 on cell phone service, $1,028 on flowers and $1,437 on plaques and awards.) The money is well spent from a politician's perspective. His contributions spread good will among his constituents. Tickets bought with his campaign cash allow him to attend events -- to be seen and get his name out there. It's political capital. And it goes a long way to ensure that an incumbent like Ken LaValle remains untouchable.
Expenditures on these kinds of items by the campaign committee for Assemblyman Marc Alessi, a relative newbie, pale in comparison: $144 on restaurant tabs; $370 on cell phone service; and $1,060 in tickets and contributions, not including a $2,000 donation from his campaign account to the Independence Party. Mr. Alessi took in $54,415 and spent $15,700 in the first six months of this year, and showed a closing balance of $43,821 on his July periodic report.
But there are perks for us in having a powerful incumbent like Mr. LaValle representing our district. He knows how to bring home the bacon. A senior incumbent Republican in the State Senate gets a big chunk of bacon to bring home, too. Mr. LaValle doled out nearly $2.2 million in "member items" this year. "Member items" are funds members of the assembly and senate can distribute however they see fit. The amount a member gets is determined by which party he's in and how much seniority he's got. Gov. Paterson, searching for ways to close the state's budget gap, wants to eliminate "member items" in next year's budget, saving the state about half a billion dollars. Fat chance. These payments to organizations and community groups also are an important source of political capital for incumbents. When a politician has more than $2 million to spread around his district among key constituent groups, he can win a lot of loyalty. No way the legislators will let that fountain of good will dry up.
There are so many systemic ailments in our system, I find it difficult to get too excited about any one candidate, especially a candidate for executive office, no matter how convincing a case for change he or she makes. If elected, they still have to deal with the legislature, and without true campaign finance reform and term limits in place, the legislature is, more or less, a permanent government, beholden not to the voters but to the people who fund their campaign accounts to keep the system going: special interest groups and business entities looking for a return on their investment -- and that may not necessarily be in the best interests of the people.
denise@timesreview.com
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.Saturday, August 23, 2008
Dog Toy Warning
I was sent this link by a Suffolk Times reader. It's worth looking at. The Chai Story is a blog about a dog that was seriously injured by an apparently defective toy made by Four Paws, a "pimple ball" that was (and maybe still is) sold by Petland Discount. Other dogs have also been injured by this toy.
I'm going to check out whether this is being sold by the big pet stores in Riverhead.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Oh, for the love of Vinny
Vinny Nasta, artist and educator who died this week in a plane crash at age 46 (see stories at riverheadnewsreview.com), is gone from this life far too soon, but he continues to teach, inspire and make people love, laugh and learn
I knew Vinny for many years, though not very well. Back when, as director of the East End Arts Council, I dealt with Vinny when he'd mount at least one exhibit of student work in our gallery every year. Deal with him but once, and you knew how deeply he cared for his pupils. They were more than pupils to Vinny. And he was more than a teacher to them.
This week, as I read through messages posted on the wall of a Facebook group created in his memory, and interviewed students and former students of this affable, fun-loving and passionate man, I encountered the same statements over and over again. It was almost eerie, as if they were all reading from the same script -- a testament to the breadth and depth of his commitment to youth and his passion for teaching.
From the teens in Riverhead, to the college students and the alumni artists, photographers and businessmen and women across the country and across the globe, their voices were one:
He was more than a teacher to me. He was one of my best friends. He was like my big brother. He was like my father. He made me believe in myself. He encouraged me more than anyone. He made me understand that I could accomplish something. I wouldn't have gone to college if it weren't for Mr. Nasta. I wouldn't be an artist today if it weren't for Mr. Nasta. He understood me. He cared about me. He cared about everyone. He would do anything for anyone. He was always there for me. He listened. He cared. He cared. He cared.
The intensity and the depth of love and grief that poured forth this week from the young people whose lives Vinny Nasta touched over the past 17 years at Riverhead High School was one of the most startling and moving things I've ever experienced as a journalist.
Their love for this man and the pain they felt at his untimely passing united them, and "the thing Mr. Nasta loved" -- as Erika Haas, the Riverhead High School junior who started the Facebook site in his memory, put it -- technology, gave them the means by which to come together to express that love and pain.
"I thought it was only fitting," Erika answered when I asked what made her set up the Facebook site, "to use the thing Mr, Nasta loved, technology, to create a memorial to him."
She set it up Monday morning, and by time the Duchess County Sheriff's Office, later that morning, officially released the name of the pilot killed at the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome on Sunday afternoon, the "In Loving Memory of Vincent Nasta" Facebook group had more than four dozen members. Its numbers steadily climbed throughout the day Monday and Tuesday. As I write this Wednesday morning, it's 371 people strong, and growing still. Its members are almost all Riverhead students and alumni, representing almost every graduating class between 1995 and 2010, every class touched by Vinny Nasta. While most were students in his classes, not all had that honor. You didn't have to be one of his students to be one of his kids -- another oft-repeated refrain of the people who knew Vinny best, his kids.
Vinny's room was a place of refuge as well as learning, a haven where kids who might not otherwise have found their way through adolescence could "chill with Nasty." It was a place where they could belong, share their feelings, express their fears, laugh out loud, and feel good about themselves. Vinny's room was a place where kids dared to dream, and learned to soar.
"Fly high, Nasta," wrote Riverhead alum Sean Rachubka, "fly high."
The halls of Riverhead High School will be a little darker without Vinny Nasta's bright smile and warm presence, but, as his friend and colleague Frank Yolanga wrote, "Heaven just got a little bit brighter."
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers
Just because they say it's so ...
Column published in The Suffolk Times, Aug. 21, 2008
If something is repeated often enough, it becomes "true," right? That's why I'm compelled to answer the spin being spun about The Suffolk Times by various letter writers. The current flurry of criticism started with our "Gay on the North Fork" series in June and hit a crescendo following the publication of a reader's "Guest Spot" denouncing the use of torture of prisoners of war by the U.S. military.
If something is repeated often enough, it becomes "true," right? That's why I'm compelled to answer the spin being spun about The Suffolk Times by various letter writers. The current flurry of criticism started with our "Gay on the North Fork" series in June and hit a crescendo following the publication of a reader's "Guest Spot" denouncing the use of torture of prisoners of war by the U.S. military.
We've found ourselves on the receiving end of many letters and e-mails -- some sent anonymously, so they never made it into the paper, because we require all letters to be signed by their authors -- accusing The Suffolk Times of all sorts of things, including printing only letters to the editor that conform to the editor's opinion about the president, or the war, or __________ (fill in the blank); of "slanting" our "reporting"; of having a "liberal agenda" instead of being "fair and balanced" (like Rupert Murdoch); and of not "reporting local news" (in favor of national or international news) in furtherance of our liberal agenda.
The Suffolk Times consists of about 100 pages each week, give or take. There is nothing but local news between its covers, except on the commentary pages, which are reserved for editorial and reader opinion. Local news is what we do. It's all we do. And it's what we've been doing for 151 years, since August of 1857. It's what community journalism is all about. It's been, and continues to be, this newspaper's formula for success.
We don't "report" on the war or, generally, the federal government, except as its actions and policies affect local people and issues. Yes, we have opined about the war, though not as much as some folks would have you believe. But news articles and commentary are two different things.
I'll readily admit I'm not a fan of Mr. Bush or the war. So I started wondering whether we've printed more editorials and op-ed columns criticizing the president and the war than I realized. I decided to do some research.
I searched The Suffolk Times Web site for all instances of the word "Bush" in editorials and columns between Jan. 1, 2004, and Aug. 7, 2008. That's roughly 238 editions of this newspaper.
In that time, in those 238 weeks, the word "Bush" appeared in editorials 12 times. One was in an editorial about the Iraq war, on the occasion of the U.S. military death toll's reaching 2,000. One was reflecting on the 2006 midterm elections. One was an endorsement of John Kerry for president (an endorsement, as I recall, some unhappy readers complained we, as a local paper, had no "right" to make.) One mentioned the president's name in passing, in an editorial about a former supervisor's "taking a page right out of the Bush-Cheney campaign handbook." The other eight all referenced the president in connection with local issues, such as Broadwater (four editorials), the effect of budget cuts on local hospitals (three), and immigration reform (an editorial in which we praised the president's position opposing a bill passed by the House.)
The word "Bush" also appeared in "columns" 36 times during the past four years and seven months. Seven of those references were completely unrelated or were mentions in passing in "columns" that were not commentary columns, such as the garden column or the Southold Seniors column; the search picked up references such as "under the bushes" and mentions of a local couple getting a tour of the White House but not seeing the president. The other 29 references were in op-ed columns in the commentary section.
The vast majority of those 29 columns had little or nothing to do with Bush or his policies -- they merely mentioned his name. Nine were "guest spot" or "equal time" columns submitted by readers. Of those, one, on Nov. 15, 2006, defended the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. One was about humorous campaign bumper stickers and one was about the number of Bush lawn signs versus the number of Kerry lawn signs.
Of the 20 columns mentioning Bush that were written by staff members, only six were actually about Mr. Bush or his administration's policies, and I wrote all six of them. Their topics? Two were about Broadwater, one was about Plum Island, two were about the war, and one was about the proposed marriage amendment. All of these big issues have big local impacts and I make no apology for thinking about them or speaking out on them.
I believe the commentary section of The Suffolk Times is a valuable forum for community discourse -- even discourse on non-local topics. It's one of the few forums where Southolders can publicly debate issues with one another.
We don't "censor" letters or op-ed columns. We do edit them, which can be a hefty job. We get lots of them, and I read and edit every one myself. I bend over backwards to help many letter writers make their points (whether I agree with them or not), taking a lot of time to correct grammar, syntax, usage and spelling, to make some letters more readable and others comprehensible. I ask people to tone down personal attacks. And I suggest substitutes for obscenities that some letter writers use (because this is, after all, a family newspaper).
What don't we print? We don't print letters that are libelous, because by publishing a libelous statement we bear legal responsibility for its libelous nature. We don't print letters to the editor generated by letter-writing campaigns mass-mailed to media outlets across the nation. (We get these every week.) And we don't print "open letters" to public officials or the community at large or letters to specific people (other than the editor).
If you would like to see more commentary supporting Mr. Bush, or the war, or expressing an opinion on any topic that interests you, then contribute something. This is your forum. Write a letter (350 words maximum, please), or an op-ed column (about 750 words). Put your name (no pseudonyms, please) and hamlet of residence on it, provide a contact phone number where you can be reached, and e-mail it to editor@timesreview.com. (Documents in Word format, attached to the e-mail message, please.) If you're not computer-savvy, we still accept letters the old-fashioned way, addressed to: Editor, The Suffolk Times, P.O. Box 1500, Mattituck, NY 11952 or faxed to 631-298-3287. Please type or print. If we can't read it, we can't publish it.
We look forward to hearing from you, even if it's to tell us how wrong we are or how stupid our opinion is. It reminds me of how much I cherish my freedom of expression.
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
