Hey, guess what?
You know that 1,215-foot-long gas terminal Shell Oil wants to build in a public waterway in the Long Island Sound off the coast of Wading River?
The terminal that will receive, store and “regasify” liquefied natural gas at the rate of about a billion cubic feet per day and ship it through a brand-new 23-mile seabed pipeline to consumers in New York City and New Jersey?
The one that will take in between 5.5 million and 8.2 million gallons of seawater daily, together with every living organism unfortunate enough to be sucked up with that water into the hull of the floating terminal and either be killed by its mesh screening system or by poisonous chlorine?
The terminal that will receive shipments of LNG from an estimated 104 to 150 foreign-flagged international tankers every year — tankers that will take in an additional 23 million gallons of seawater, also killing the unfortunate organisms that happen to be living therein?
The one whose operations will destroy hundreds of millions of fish eggs and larvae each year, plus an unknown number of small fish, having a potentially disastrous impact on a fishery the state and federal governments have gone to great lengths — and huge expense — to rehabilitate and protect over the past two decades?
The terminal the state DEC concluded would have significant adverse environmental impacts?
The one that will forever appropriate to Royal Dutch Shell and Trans-Canada a one-square-mile chunk of the Long Island Sound, public land and sea, which will be closed to boating and fishing — and theoretically protected from terrorist attack — by armed security boats supplied by the energy giants’ private contractor?
The terminal the U.S. Coast Guard said it doesn’t have the equipment or manpower to protect from attack? The terminal that will more than double the existing tanker traffic in L.I. Sound — which the Coast Guard already can’t protect?
The terminal whose tanker traffic and security escort will shut down the Race for hours at a clip at least six times a week, and will force lobstermen to relocate their pots, and fishing boats to pull in their lines, each time the 900-foot-long deep-draft international tankers traverse the length of the eastern Sound?
You know the one I’m talking about, don’t you? You’ve seen the pictures and the Power Point presentations, right?
Then you know there’s nothing to worry about. This appropriation of public property for private profit by Royal Dutch Shell and TransCanada, with more than a little help from their friends in Washington, will be good for us. After all, it will provide “a reliable supply of clean, safe natural gas” for the region (west of here) and possibly save L.I. ratepayers more than $2 million a year, according to an LNG industry consultant.
And those troublesome environmental impacts? Not to worry, folks. There are plenty of fish (and eggs and larvae) in the sea. Killing a few hundred million of them each year won’t put a dent in the supply. And pumping 28 million gallons of chlorine-treated seawater back into the Sound won’t matter, either. Heck, that’s only .005 percent of the “total daily seawater inflow to the Sound.” The little fishies will hardly notice the elevated chlorine levels.
Air pollution from the terminal’s smokestacks? Sure, the ambient air around the terminal won’t meet Clean Air Act standards because of the terminal’s emissions. But since the public will be banned from entering a one-square-mile area around the floating terminal, it doesn’t really count.
And so what if lobstermen will have to move their pots, and fishermen can’t drag their nets because the eastern Sound’s traditional shipping channel will be shut down every time an LNG tanker comes through, say, six times a week, forcing vessels into the area traditionally worked by local fishermen for, oh, a couple of centuries. No biggie.
Recreational boaters and fishermen will experience minor inconvenience, sure.
But all told, the Sound really is the best place for Shell and TransCanada to set up shop.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says so. And not just FERC, you know, but Entrix Inc., the “independent” environmental consultants that prepared the final environmental impact statement for FERC. And they really know what they’re doing. After all, when they’re not working for FERC reviewing and analyzing LNG permit applications, they’re working for energy companies, like Chevron, preparing LNG permit applications to submit to FERC. So they’ve really got this stuff nailed.
Relax. The fate of the Sound, the stability of our local economy, our safety and security are all in the best of hands, tended by people whose only concern is our welfare and the greater good.
If there’s one thing we know by now, it’s this: What’s good for Big Energy is good for us all.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
FERC ISSUES BROADWATER FEIS
From Times/Review Newspapers www.timesreview.com
By Denise Civiletti
Broadwater’s plan to build and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in L.I. Sound cleared a major hurdle today.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement on Broadwater’s controversial plan, concluding that, with recommended mitigation measures in place, the project “would result in limited adverse environmental impacts.”
FERC staff determined that the proposed location in central L.I. Sound, approximately nine miles north of Wading River, would be the “least environmentally damaging alternative that would still meet the purpose and need of the project.”
Now the five-member commission will determine whether to grant Broadwater Energy’s permit application as a project that is “consistent with the public interest,” according to the FEIS.
“We welcome the issuance of the FEIS,” said Broadwater senior vice president John Hritcko in a written statement. “The attention to details by the federal and state agencies involved is clearly evident and we will be reviewing the findings and conclusions over the coming days,” Mr. Hritcko said. “We are pleased that this stage of the regulatory review is complete and, in the coming months, look forward to the Commissioners’ decision on Broadwater’s proposal.
The next major hurdle for the project is obtaining a determination from the N.Y. state department that the project is consistent with the state’s coastal zone management policy. The state department had postponed its ruling until the FEIS was issued by FERC. By law, the state had six months from the issuance of the DEIS to make its consistency determination. But Broadwater Energy agreed to several extensions of the deadline, to allow the state agency the opportunity to review the FEIS before making its own decision. The current extension agreement expires Feb. 12.
Stephen Resler, deputy bureau chief of the resources management bureau in the state department’s division of coastal resources, said today the DOS plans to issue its consistency determination on or before the current deadline.
Governor Eliot Spitzer has not said publicly whether his administration would support the Broadwater application.
“This is exactly what we expected FERC to do, it’s not a surprise,” said Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, and a leader in the opposition to Broadwater’s plans. “This is why all eyes are on Gov. Spitzer. We need our governor to stand up for the environment. We didn’t expect FERC to. We do expect Gov. Spitzer to,” she said.
Broadwater Energy LLC seeks to build a 1,200-foot-long liquefied natural gas terminal in the middle of L.I. Sound, approximately nine miles north of Herod’s Point, Wading River and 11 miles south of the Connecticut shore. The facility, resembling a large vessel, would be the first of its kind in the world. It would be permanently moored offshore and would connect with the existing Iroquois pipeline via a new 30-inch, 22-mile subsea pipeline. The terminal would have a capacity of eight billion cubic feet of LNG, and would take delivery from LNG tankers at the rate of two to three tankers per week, according to the Broadwater EIS. The LNG, which is shipped in a liquid state at minus 260 degrees Farenheit, would be heated at the terminal to return it to a gaseous state.
In addition to the FERC permit and the consistency ruling from the N.Y. state department, Broadwater needs to obtain other permits and approvals from various state and federal agencies. Among them are an air quality permit from the state Department of Environmental Conservation, a DEC wastewater discharge permit, a letter of recommendation from the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port of Long Island Sound concerning the suitability of the Sound for the proposed project, and the agreement of N.Y. state to lease the underwater land on which the facility would be moored to a 7,000 square foot tower structure, as well as the land in which the new pipeline will be laid.
Broadwater’s construction timeline would have the new plant put in service in late December 2010.
By Denise Civiletti
Broadwater’s plan to build and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in L.I. Sound cleared a major hurdle today.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement on Broadwater’s controversial plan, concluding that, with recommended mitigation measures in place, the project “would result in limited adverse environmental impacts.”
FERC staff determined that the proposed location in central L.I. Sound, approximately nine miles north of Wading River, would be the “least environmentally damaging alternative that would still meet the purpose and need of the project.”
Now the five-member commission will determine whether to grant Broadwater Energy’s permit application as a project that is “consistent with the public interest,” according to the FEIS.
“We welcome the issuance of the FEIS,” said Broadwater senior vice president John Hritcko in a written statement. “The attention to details by the federal and state agencies involved is clearly evident and we will be reviewing the findings and conclusions over the coming days,” Mr. Hritcko said. “We are pleased that this stage of the regulatory review is complete and, in the coming months, look forward to the Commissioners’ decision on Broadwater’s proposal.
The next major hurdle for the project is obtaining a determination from the N.Y. state department that the project is consistent with the state’s coastal zone management policy. The state department had postponed its ruling until the FEIS was issued by FERC. By law, the state had six months from the issuance of the DEIS to make its consistency determination. But Broadwater Energy agreed to several extensions of the deadline, to allow the state agency the opportunity to review the FEIS before making its own decision. The current extension agreement expires Feb. 12.
Stephen Resler, deputy bureau chief of the resources management bureau in the state department’s division of coastal resources, said today the DOS plans to issue its consistency determination on or before the current deadline.
Governor Eliot Spitzer has not said publicly whether his administration would support the Broadwater application.
“This is exactly what we expected FERC to do, it’s not a surprise,” said Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, and a leader in the opposition to Broadwater’s plans. “This is why all eyes are on Gov. Spitzer. We need our governor to stand up for the environment. We didn’t expect FERC to. We do expect Gov. Spitzer to,” she said.
Broadwater Energy LLC seeks to build a 1,200-foot-long liquefied natural gas terminal in the middle of L.I. Sound, approximately nine miles north of Herod’s Point, Wading River and 11 miles south of the Connecticut shore. The facility, resembling a large vessel, would be the first of its kind in the world. It would be permanently moored offshore and would connect with the existing Iroquois pipeline via a new 30-inch, 22-mile subsea pipeline. The terminal would have a capacity of eight billion cubic feet of LNG, and would take delivery from LNG tankers at the rate of two to three tankers per week, according to the Broadwater EIS. The LNG, which is shipped in a liquid state at minus 260 degrees Farenheit, would be heated at the terminal to return it to a gaseous state.
In addition to the FERC permit and the consistency ruling from the N.Y. state department, Broadwater needs to obtain other permits and approvals from various state and federal agencies. Among them are an air quality permit from the state Department of Environmental Conservation, a DEC wastewater discharge permit, a letter of recommendation from the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port of Long Island Sound concerning the suitability of the Sound for the proposed project, and the agreement of N.Y. state to lease the underwater land on which the facility would be moored to a 7,000 square foot tower structure, as well as the land in which the new pipeline will be laid.
Broadwater’s construction timeline would have the new plant put in service in late December 2010.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
GAO report finds tankers are vulernable
Tankers vulnerable to attacks
GAO report cites Coast Guard overload
from The Suffolk Times, Jan. 10, 2008
By Denise Civiletti
International tankers transporting liquefied natural gas, oil and other hazardous commodities are "threatened and vulnerable" to terrorist attacks and the U.S. Coast Guard lacks the resources to protect these vessels in international and U.S. waters, according to a report made public by the U.S. Government Accountability Office Wednesday.
The Coast Guard is having difficulty meeting its current "security workload," according to the GAO, and security demands on the Coast Guard will grow significantly over the next decade as more LNG import facilities come on line, the report said. By 2015, the amount of LNG imported into the U.S. will grow more than 400 percent. A total of 32 new LNG import facilities have been either proposed or approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Maritime Administration as of March 2007, according to the report.
The report says the Coast Guard at some ports, due to a lack of resources, has been unable to meet its own requirements for security activities such as escorts and boardings. The Coast Guard faces additional challenges in the future at some domestic ports, where workload demands are likely to rise substantially as new LNG facilities come on line and LNG shipments increase. The report released to the public does not identify specific ports due to security concerns.
"The Coast Guard is scrambling to meet its expanded post-9/11 mission," Rep. Tim Bishop (D-Southampton) said in an interview Thursday. "When you layer in the burgeoning LNG industry, you can see the Coast Guard is stretched beyond its capabilities," Mr. Bishop said. The congressman, who serves on the Coast Guard subcommittee of the House Transportation Committee, said Coast Guard officials have told him they are "very concerned about their capacity to provide security for these additional [LNG] facilities." Mr. Bishop said there are now 42 new LNG applications "in various stages of development."
Indeed, in its September 2006 Waterways Suitability Report for the proposed Broadwater LNG facility, the Coast Guard concluded the Long Island Sound Coast Guard sector could not "effectively manage the potential risk to navigation safety and maritime security associated with the Broadwater Energy proposal" at its current levels of responsibilities and resources.
Mr. Bishop pointed out that the Coast Guard must sign off on any construction permit issued for a new LNG facility, like the proposed Broadwater terminal in Long Island Sound, and the Coast Guard would not do so unless it can secure the facility.
But the congressman called on the federal government to "stop the clock" on all new LNG applications. While LNG will undoubtedly become a more prominent part of our energy supply in the future, Mr. Bishop said, "we have to go about it in a sane and responsible way." He criticized the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for reviewing and approving applications "in the order in which they arrive rather than taking a more holistic approach."
The GAO conducted its study on maritime security because the country's energy needs rely heavily on ship-based imports and that reliance will continue to grow as more LNG import facilities are approved and constructed. The global LNG fleet is expected to double from 200 in 2006 to more than 400 by 2010.
"This supply chain is potentially vulnerable in many places here and abroad, as borne out by several successful overseas attacks on ships and facilities," the report said. The ships bringing crude oil and LNG to U.S. ports are mostly foreign-flagged vessels, and the U.S. has limited oversight authority over these vessels' crews or condition, until they enter U.S. waters, at which point the Coast Guard bears primary responsibility of protecting them from attack with security boardings, escorts and patrols.
During transit into and out of port, these vessels travel slowly, which increases their exposure, the GAO report said. Tankers follow timetables that are easy to track in advance and they follow a fixed set of maritime routes.
In 2003 through 2005, according to the Coast Guard, there was an annual average of about 80 foreign-flagged deep draft vessels (ships of 800 feet or more in length) carrying liquid petroleum products or coal to port facilities within Long Island Sound.
If the Broadwater offshore terminal is built, it will take delivery from an estimated two or three LNG tankers each week, according to the project's draft environmental impact statement, adding between 104 and 156 vessel arrivals in the Sound per year.
A terrorist attack on any tanker carrying oil, gasoline or LNG would likely cause a spill, fire and, in the case of oil or gasoline, an explosion.
Local fire and police departments would be an integral part of the emergency response team in the event of an attack, according to the GAO report, but most local emergency response agencies lack the specialized equipment and training needed to handle the fires, explosions and spills that would most likely result from a terrorist attack, the report says. Another equipment concern, according to the GAO, is communication equipment used by law enforcement and emergency response personnel that isn't "interoperable." Interoperable communications systems "allow emergency responders to talk to each other to effectively coordinate their efforts," according to the report. The GAO found lack of fully interoperable communications systems among law enforcement agencies and emergency responders continued at ports visited by GAO staff in conducting their study.
The GAO report recommends more planning and more funding to complete plans and purchase necessary equipment.
Mr. Bishop said the federal government is in the "very beginning stages" of a $25 billion multiyear effort to upgrade the Coast Guard's fleet and equipment. Called "Deepwater," the project in its early stages has been "an embarrassment," Mr. Bishop said. A failed attempt to retrofit eight 110-foot cutters to add 13 feet in length rendered the vessels "completely unseaworthy," the congressman said. "Now they are on the scrap heap, being cannibalized for parts."
GAO report cites Coast Guard overload
from The Suffolk Times, Jan. 10, 2008
By Denise Civiletti
International tankers transporting liquefied natural gas, oil and other hazardous commodities are "threatened and vulnerable" to terrorist attacks and the U.S. Coast Guard lacks the resources to protect these vessels in international and U.S. waters, according to a report made public by the U.S. Government Accountability Office Wednesday.
The Coast Guard is having difficulty meeting its current "security workload," according to the GAO, and security demands on the Coast Guard will grow significantly over the next decade as more LNG import facilities come on line, the report said. By 2015, the amount of LNG imported into the U.S. will grow more than 400 percent. A total of 32 new LNG import facilities have been either proposed or approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Maritime Administration as of March 2007, according to the report.
The report says the Coast Guard at some ports, due to a lack of resources, has been unable to meet its own requirements for security activities such as escorts and boardings. The Coast Guard faces additional challenges in the future at some domestic ports, where workload demands are likely to rise substantially as new LNG facilities come on line and LNG shipments increase. The report released to the public does not identify specific ports due to security concerns.
"The Coast Guard is scrambling to meet its expanded post-9/11 mission," Rep. Tim Bishop (D-Southampton) said in an interview Thursday. "When you layer in the burgeoning LNG industry, you can see the Coast Guard is stretched beyond its capabilities," Mr. Bishop said. The congressman, who serves on the Coast Guard subcommittee of the House Transportation Committee, said Coast Guard officials have told him they are "very concerned about their capacity to provide security for these additional [LNG] facilities." Mr. Bishop said there are now 42 new LNG applications "in various stages of development."
Indeed, in its September 2006 Waterways Suitability Report for the proposed Broadwater LNG facility, the Coast Guard concluded the Long Island Sound Coast Guard sector could not "effectively manage the potential risk to navigation safety and maritime security associated with the Broadwater Energy proposal" at its current levels of responsibilities and resources.
Mr. Bishop pointed out that the Coast Guard must sign off on any construction permit issued for a new LNG facility, like the proposed Broadwater terminal in Long Island Sound, and the Coast Guard would not do so unless it can secure the facility.
But the congressman called on the federal government to "stop the clock" on all new LNG applications. While LNG will undoubtedly become a more prominent part of our energy supply in the future, Mr. Bishop said, "we have to go about it in a sane and responsible way." He criticized the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for reviewing and approving applications "in the order in which they arrive rather than taking a more holistic approach."
The GAO conducted its study on maritime security because the country's energy needs rely heavily on ship-based imports and that reliance will continue to grow as more LNG import facilities are approved and constructed. The global LNG fleet is expected to double from 200 in 2006 to more than 400 by 2010.
"This supply chain is potentially vulnerable in many places here and abroad, as borne out by several successful overseas attacks on ships and facilities," the report said. The ships bringing crude oil and LNG to U.S. ports are mostly foreign-flagged vessels, and the U.S. has limited oversight authority over these vessels' crews or condition, until they enter U.S. waters, at which point the Coast Guard bears primary responsibility of protecting them from attack with security boardings, escorts and patrols.
During transit into and out of port, these vessels travel slowly, which increases their exposure, the GAO report said. Tankers follow timetables that are easy to track in advance and they follow a fixed set of maritime routes.
In 2003 through 2005, according to the Coast Guard, there was an annual average of about 80 foreign-flagged deep draft vessels (ships of 800 feet or more in length) carrying liquid petroleum products or coal to port facilities within Long Island Sound.
If the Broadwater offshore terminal is built, it will take delivery from an estimated two or three LNG tankers each week, according to the project's draft environmental impact statement, adding between 104 and 156 vessel arrivals in the Sound per year.
A terrorist attack on any tanker carrying oil, gasoline or LNG would likely cause a spill, fire and, in the case of oil or gasoline, an explosion.
Local fire and police departments would be an integral part of the emergency response team in the event of an attack, according to the GAO report, but most local emergency response agencies lack the specialized equipment and training needed to handle the fires, explosions and spills that would most likely result from a terrorist attack, the report says. Another equipment concern, according to the GAO, is communication equipment used by law enforcement and emergency response personnel that isn't "interoperable." Interoperable communications systems "allow emergency responders to talk to each other to effectively coordinate their efforts," according to the report. The GAO found lack of fully interoperable communications systems among law enforcement agencies and emergency responders continued at ports visited by GAO staff in conducting their study.
The GAO report recommends more planning and more funding to complete plans and purchase necessary equipment.
Mr. Bishop said the federal government is in the "very beginning stages" of a $25 billion multiyear effort to upgrade the Coast Guard's fleet and equipment. Called "Deepwater," the project in its early stages has been "an embarrassment," Mr. Bishop said. A failed attempt to retrofit eight 110-foot cutters to add 13 feet in length rendered the vessels "completely unseaworthy," the congressman said. "Now they are on the scrap heap, being cannibalized for parts."
Super Tuesday. Then what?
Presidential primary elections have begun. And, by golly, they will soon be over.
By the end of next month, most of the primaries will be history — only 13 primary elections and caucuses will remain. In contrast, in 2004, 49 primaries and caucuses were scheduled after March 1.
It is likely that "Super Tuesday" — Feb. 5, when voters in 23 states, including New York, will go to the polls or caucuses — will effectively determine the nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties.
The pace of this year's presidential primary season is dizzying. Why are we in such a hurry? All right, maybe everyone is as anxious as I am for a new administration in Washington. Look at the president's approval ratings. But that isn't really what shifted the primary process into turbo-drive. The Democratic National Committee in 2006 allowed the change to give minority voters a voice early in the process, since the two traditionally early contests — in New Hampshire and Iowa — took place in very white states. A laudable goal, no doubt. But states rushed to push up their primaries so as not to become "irrelevant." Only 15 states didn't move up their primary dates.
The result of this compression: the campaign may well be over on Feb. 5.
Then what? What will the candidates do until the conventions (Aug. 25-28 for the Dems and Sept. 1-4 for the GOP)? What will we, the voters, do? After a smattering of contests in March and May, there's one primary on June 3, in South Dakota. These will be all but meaningless in the scheme of things, as far as Democrats and Republicans are concerned. Then... there's no activity until the end of August.
Will notoriously apathetic Americans completely lose interest during a long, lazy summer — especially after being burned out by the longest pre-primary campaign in history. "Voter fatigue" is a new buzz-phrase thanks to the 2008 presidential race — which started in 2006.
Will the anointed candidates lose momentum over the summer? Will one of the two "major party" nominees make a terrible blunder? And what if he — or she — does? Can delegates pledged to a candidate bolt from his or her camp? These possibilities could make for much drama at the conventions — something we haven't seen in decades.
Maybe the Democratic and Republican parties, by front-loading the primary elections this way, have unwittingly set the stage for an independent candidate to capture the hearts and minds of Americans who are sick and tired of the status quo in Washington and who don't see any of the "major party" candidates as anything but more of the same, more or less. Tuesday's "record high" turnouts in New Hampshire — more than 500,000 people — topped 50 percent of registered voters. It may have even approached 60 percent. It's sad that a 50-percent-plus turnout is something to get excited about. But it is. As a nation we are disillusioned with our government and political process. And we should be.
Maybe the long stretch of "major party" inactivity between March and November is the perfect opportunity for an independent candidate to become the next president of the United States. When they moved their primary dates up, most states didn't do the same with their filing deadlines for the November ballot.
It's ironic that the compressed primary season was triggered by the stated desire to give minority voters a greater say in the presidential primary process, and a black man ends up being the favorite to win the primary in one of the traditionally early, very white, primary states, New Hampshire.
It's doubly ironic that a woman won an "upset" victory over the black candidate in the very white state thanks to her "Muskie moment" on the campaign trail the other day. Television pundits were crediting Hillary's surge at the polls Tuesday to voters' favorable reaction to her show of emotion. Go figure. I guess people felt reassured to learn Hillary really is human. She never cracked during the Lewinsky scandal. Her stoic front made her seem cold and emotionless. When I first met the senator on a North Fork visit a couple of years ago, I was most impressed — and surprised — by her personal warmth. She's not the icy you-know-what she may seem to be. But then again, neither am I.
Ms. Civiletti invites you to join a discussion of this topic at civiletti.blogspot.com. Her e-mail address is denise@timesreview.com.
By the end of next month, most of the primaries will be history — only 13 primary elections and caucuses will remain. In contrast, in 2004, 49 primaries and caucuses were scheduled after March 1.
It is likely that "Super Tuesday" — Feb. 5, when voters in 23 states, including New York, will go to the polls or caucuses — will effectively determine the nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties.
The pace of this year's presidential primary season is dizzying. Why are we in such a hurry? All right, maybe everyone is as anxious as I am for a new administration in Washington. Look at the president's approval ratings. But that isn't really what shifted the primary process into turbo-drive. The Democratic National Committee in 2006 allowed the change to give minority voters a voice early in the process, since the two traditionally early contests — in New Hampshire and Iowa — took place in very white states. A laudable goal, no doubt. But states rushed to push up their primaries so as not to become "irrelevant." Only 15 states didn't move up their primary dates.
The result of this compression: the campaign may well be over on Feb. 5.
Then what? What will the candidates do until the conventions (Aug. 25-28 for the Dems and Sept. 1-4 for the GOP)? What will we, the voters, do? After a smattering of contests in March and May, there's one primary on June 3, in South Dakota. These will be all but meaningless in the scheme of things, as far as Democrats and Republicans are concerned. Then... there's no activity until the end of August.
Will notoriously apathetic Americans completely lose interest during a long, lazy summer — especially after being burned out by the longest pre-primary campaign in history. "Voter fatigue" is a new buzz-phrase thanks to the 2008 presidential race — which started in 2006.
Will the anointed candidates lose momentum over the summer? Will one of the two "major party" nominees make a terrible blunder? And what if he — or she — does? Can delegates pledged to a candidate bolt from his or her camp? These possibilities could make for much drama at the conventions — something we haven't seen in decades.
Maybe the Democratic and Republican parties, by front-loading the primary elections this way, have unwittingly set the stage for an independent candidate to capture the hearts and minds of Americans who are sick and tired of the status quo in Washington and who don't see any of the "major party" candidates as anything but more of the same, more or less. Tuesday's "record high" turnouts in New Hampshire — more than 500,000 people — topped 50 percent of registered voters. It may have even approached 60 percent. It's sad that a 50-percent-plus turnout is something to get excited about. But it is. As a nation we are disillusioned with our government and political process. And we should be.
Maybe the long stretch of "major party" inactivity between March and November is the perfect opportunity for an independent candidate to become the next president of the United States. When they moved their primary dates up, most states didn't do the same with their filing deadlines for the November ballot.
It's ironic that the compressed primary season was triggered by the stated desire to give minority voters a greater say in the presidential primary process, and a black man ends up being the favorite to win the primary in one of the traditionally early, very white, primary states, New Hampshire.
It's doubly ironic that a woman won an "upset" victory over the black candidate in the very white state thanks to her "Muskie moment" on the campaign trail the other day. Television pundits were crediting Hillary's surge at the polls Tuesday to voters' favorable reaction to her show of emotion. Go figure. I guess people felt reassured to learn Hillary really is human. She never cracked during the Lewinsky scandal. Her stoic front made her seem cold and emotionless. When I first met the senator on a North Fork visit a couple of years ago, I was most impressed — and surprised — by her personal warmth. She's not the icy you-know-what she may seem to be. But then again, neither am I.
Ms. Civiletti invites you to join a discussion of this topic at civiletti.blogspot.com. Her e-mail address is denise@timesreview.com.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Wishes for a new year
2008 lies ahead in all its magnificent blankness, empty pages in a new notebook waiting to be written in. What will this year bring? What will fill these pages — joy and laughter, sorrow and tears, some of each?
This is the time for the annual taking-stock-of-our-lives assessment as we embark upon the new journey of a new year. It’s the time for new promises — resolutions — to take better care of our bodies, our families, our lives, our town, our planet.
It’s time to start over, our hearts filled with hope renewed. Maybe this year will be different. Maybe the failures and demons of the year just laid to rest won’t return to haunt us.
Maybe this year, humankind will find a way to live in peace — though we’re not exactly off to a promising start. Maybe this will be the year global leaders wake up to the reality of the world’s climate crisis and take the urgently needed steps to deal with it.
Maybe 2008 will be the year the revitalization of downtown Riverhead finally begins. Maybe this year the promise of EPCAL will begin to be fulfilled. This year, maybe state legislators will put aside parochial agendas and finally correct the state aid to education formula, which shortchanges Long Island school districts and has Long Island taxpayers carrying a disproportionate burden of the cost of public education.
There are so many lingering problems and issues, it’s mind-boggling.
Then there are the newer ones, like Broadwater. 2008 will be a year of decision for Broadwater, a proposal that could forever change the eastern Long Island Sound.
I used to wish for a crystal ball into which I might peer to see what lies ahead. Now, from the vantage point of my life’s experience — a half-century’s worth — I realize I prefer the tantalizing mystery and unabashed hope of the blank pages we stare at each January 1. It allows one to dream, to wonder, to hope. But then again, I was never one to peek at the last page of a mystery novel to find out how everything works out. I much prefer the suspense of the unknown. And the promise it holds.
My New Year’s wishes for Riverhead in 2008:
o Shell Oil and TransCanada are sent packing and the Broadwater proposal is decisively rejected by the state and federal governments.
o Apollo either moves forward or bows out, expeditiously either way, so downtown revitalization can become a reality, with or without them. (Dare I wish for the opening of the Suffolk Theatre? No, I suppose not.)
o The Town Board stops entertaining unrealistic proposals for EPCAL, including mega-theme parks, like the Riverhead Resorts proposal, and concentrates instead on basic issues like vehicular access and site infrastructure while it revisits and updates the redevelopment plan drafted more than a decade ago.
o The infusion of new blood on the Town Board in the persons of Tim Buckley and James Wooten makes the board more functional and less political, and town government begins to live up to the motto, “putting Riverhead first.”
o Commercial property tax assessments, thanks to the downturn in the residential real estate market, rise, forcing commercial properties to pay a greater share of the tax burden and finally giving homeowners some property tax relief.
o All Riverhead schools come off the state’s “need improvement” list. The district’s new superintendent remains fresh and enthusiastic about her new assignment. The school district administration and faculty learn better communication and refocus their respective energies on the top priority for all: providing our children with an excellent education.
o People who live in or just pass through our lovely town put trash where it belongs and quit littering our streets and highways.
o And last, but not least, we all learn tolerance and understanding, and live together in peace and harmony, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or political affiliation.
Hey, I can dream — can’t I?
This is the time for the annual taking-stock-of-our-lives assessment as we embark upon the new journey of a new year. It’s the time for new promises — resolutions — to take better care of our bodies, our families, our lives, our town, our planet.
It’s time to start over, our hearts filled with hope renewed. Maybe this year will be different. Maybe the failures and demons of the year just laid to rest won’t return to haunt us.
Maybe this year, humankind will find a way to live in peace — though we’re not exactly off to a promising start. Maybe this will be the year global leaders wake up to the reality of the world’s climate crisis and take the urgently needed steps to deal with it.
Maybe 2008 will be the year the revitalization of downtown Riverhead finally begins. Maybe this year the promise of EPCAL will begin to be fulfilled. This year, maybe state legislators will put aside parochial agendas and finally correct the state aid to education formula, which shortchanges Long Island school districts and has Long Island taxpayers carrying a disproportionate burden of the cost of public education.
There are so many lingering problems and issues, it’s mind-boggling.
Then there are the newer ones, like Broadwater. 2008 will be a year of decision for Broadwater, a proposal that could forever change the eastern Long Island Sound.
I used to wish for a crystal ball into which I might peer to see what lies ahead. Now, from the vantage point of my life’s experience — a half-century’s worth — I realize I prefer the tantalizing mystery and unabashed hope of the blank pages we stare at each January 1. It allows one to dream, to wonder, to hope. But then again, I was never one to peek at the last page of a mystery novel to find out how everything works out. I much prefer the suspense of the unknown. And the promise it holds.
My New Year’s wishes for Riverhead in 2008:
o Shell Oil and TransCanada are sent packing and the Broadwater proposal is decisively rejected by the state and federal governments.
o Apollo either moves forward or bows out, expeditiously either way, so downtown revitalization can become a reality, with or without them. (Dare I wish for the opening of the Suffolk Theatre? No, I suppose not.)
o The Town Board stops entertaining unrealistic proposals for EPCAL, including mega-theme parks, like the Riverhead Resorts proposal, and concentrates instead on basic issues like vehicular access and site infrastructure while it revisits and updates the redevelopment plan drafted more than a decade ago.
o The infusion of new blood on the Town Board in the persons of Tim Buckley and James Wooten makes the board more functional and less political, and town government begins to live up to the motto, “putting Riverhead first.”
o Commercial property tax assessments, thanks to the downturn in the residential real estate market, rise, forcing commercial properties to pay a greater share of the tax burden and finally giving homeowners some property tax relief.
o All Riverhead schools come off the state’s “need improvement” list. The district’s new superintendent remains fresh and enthusiastic about her new assignment. The school district administration and faculty learn better communication and refocus their respective energies on the top priority for all: providing our children with an excellent education.
o People who live in or just pass through our lovely town put trash where it belongs and quit littering our streets and highways.
o And last, but not least, we all learn tolerance and understanding, and live together in peace and harmony, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or political affiliation.
Hey, I can dream — can’t I?
Saturday, December 22, 2007
How it all ends
This YouTube video about how we should assess and deal with global warming is worth watching.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
LIPA's smoke and mirrors
Are you outraged by your electric bill? I know I am.
My bill is effectively doubled by LIPA's "power supply charges" — which the utility used to call "fuel surcharges" before it decided on the new euphemism.
Our cost-per-kilowatt-hour is just about doubled by LIPA's power supply charges. No matter what LIPA calls it, it's a RATE INCREASE, plain and simple. Yet this rate increase has been imposed by LIPA without review and approval by the (so-called) Public Service Commission.
Newsday business reporter Mark Harrington has an excellent article in today's edition: LIPA overestimates cost of fuel, overcharges customers.
In 2006, LIPA over-collected these bogus fuel surcharges by $197 MILLION.
LIPA has been refunding the 2006 excess revenue in 2007. But at the same time, LIPA is continuing to over-collect fuel surcharges to the tune of another $118 MILLION as of September.
LIPA is intentionally collecting more in fuel surcharges than it needs as a hedge against the "volatile" energy market. The result is the near doubling of its "cash, cash equivalents and investments" at the end of its operating year, from $413 million at the end of 2004 to $710 million at the end of 2006.
And last year, Harrington reports, LIPA "voted itself the right to overcollect more than three times the amount it previously could to hold in reserve."
LIPA operates without sufficient oversight. With a complicit PSC, it raises our de facto rates, changes its tariff to increase allowable "reserves" and manages a huge slush fund collected from us ratepayers -- who are struggling to pay our electric bills. Even as LIPA is jacking up our rates and padding its bank accounts to protect us against "volatility" it is shutting off customers who can't afford to pay their LIPA bills. "At last count," Harrington writes, "217,105 residential and commercial customers -- roughly one in five -- were late making payments, and LIPA's practice of shutting off electricity for non-payers spiked last year."
Why do we sit back silently and allow this to continue? This is our money. LIPA rates are effectively a tax. There are few realistic options for most of us but to buy electricity from this monopoly. The PSC was created to regulate utility monopolies and protect the public from abuse. It isn't doing its job. What will it take to get people to stand up and say, "ENOUGH! We demand change!" We have a governor who prides himself on being a crusader for consumer rights. When will we see that brought to bear on the PSC and LIPA? LIPA ratepayers are being shafted. And LIPA is allowed to do whatever it wants with our money with very little oversight. Meanwhile, we just keep footing the bill without a peep.
My bill is effectively doubled by LIPA's "power supply charges" — which the utility used to call "fuel surcharges" before it decided on the new euphemism.
Our cost-per-kilowatt-hour is just about doubled by LIPA's power supply charges. No matter what LIPA calls it, it's a RATE INCREASE, plain and simple. Yet this rate increase has been imposed by LIPA without review and approval by the (so-called) Public Service Commission.
Newsday business reporter Mark Harrington has an excellent article in today's edition: LIPA overestimates cost of fuel, overcharges customers.
In 2006, LIPA over-collected these bogus fuel surcharges by $197 MILLION.
LIPA has been refunding the 2006 excess revenue in 2007. But at the same time, LIPA is continuing to over-collect fuel surcharges to the tune of another $118 MILLION as of September.
LIPA is intentionally collecting more in fuel surcharges than it needs as a hedge against the "volatile" energy market. The result is the near doubling of its "cash, cash equivalents and investments" at the end of its operating year, from $413 million at the end of 2004 to $710 million at the end of 2006.
And last year, Harrington reports, LIPA "voted itself the right to overcollect more than three times the amount it previously could to hold in reserve."
LIPA operates without sufficient oversight. With a complicit PSC, it raises our de facto rates, changes its tariff to increase allowable "reserves" and manages a huge slush fund collected from us ratepayers -- who are struggling to pay our electric bills. Even as LIPA is jacking up our rates and padding its bank accounts to protect us against "volatility" it is shutting off customers who can't afford to pay their LIPA bills. "At last count," Harrington writes, "217,105 residential and commercial customers -- roughly one in five -- were late making payments, and LIPA's practice of shutting off electricity for non-payers spiked last year."
Why do we sit back silently and allow this to continue? This is our money. LIPA rates are effectively a tax. There are few realistic options for most of us but to buy electricity from this monopoly. The PSC was created to regulate utility monopolies and protect the public from abuse. It isn't doing its job. What will it take to get people to stand up and say, "ENOUGH! We demand change!" We have a governor who prides himself on being a crusader for consumer rights. When will we see that brought to bear on the PSC and LIPA? LIPA ratepayers are being shafted. And LIPA is allowed to do whatever it wants with our money with very little oversight. Meanwhile, we just keep footing the bill without a peep.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Hold on to your wallets
Times/Review Newspapers Editorial
November 8, 2007
Think your utility bills are killing you now? Well, get ready to dig even deeper into your pockets this winter, if the state Public Service Commission staff has its way.
The PSC staff is recommending that National Grid, which bought out KeySpan in August, be allowed to recover from ratepayers 100 percent of the cost of cleaning up the 83 contaminated manufactured gas production sites it got from KeySpan. Estimated price tag for the cleanup: over $1 billion. (See Times/Review story by North Shore Sun reporter Anna Gustafson, "Rate payers to foot the bill?") This could raise our utility rates — including the already sky-high cost of electricity — as much as 30 percent, according to local lawmakers. Even if you're not a primary natural gas customer, you're still going to pay. LIPA buys natural gas from National Grid to generate the electricity it sells you. LIPA passes its fuel cost increases directly to ratepayers by way of fuel surcharges, recently renamed "power supply charges," that have effectively doubled your electric costs by adding almost 10 cents per kilowatt to your bill — on top of per-kilowatt-hour charges that are already among the highest in the nation.
Legislators, including First District Assemblyman Marc Alessi, warned us this might happen when the National Grid deal was before the PSC for approval this summer. They implored the PSC to address the cleanup costs in the buyout agreement. Once again, the PSC proved itself more interested in preserving the utilities' profitability than in protecting ratepayers. It ignored the legislators' demands and approved a buyout agreement that was mum on the MPG remediation cost. The ink was barely dry on the deal when National Grid asked PSC for permission to pass the remediation cost on to us, and PSC now appears poised to give the giant utility exactly what it wants.
We urge the commissioners to put the public interest before special interests for a change. Don't make ratepayers pay for the utility's neglect or malfeasance. With crude oil prices hitting $100 a barrel this winter, driving heating and electric costs even higher, Long Island ratepayers simply can't bear this additional spike in utility charges, especially in an economic climate of grave uncertainty. The reverberation effect of this increase could shatter the local economy.
With history as our guide, it's clear the remediation cost pass-through is probably as good as done. National Grid, whose lobbyist is the former chairman of the PSC, has more sway with the commission than does the public whose interest it's supposed to serve. No surprise there. The real question is whether our state Legislature has the independence (from the utility/energy lobbies) and principle to enact meaningful legislative reform, putting the public interest in the forefront of utility regulation, where it belongs. Time will tell. Meanwhile, turn off the lights, bundle up and open your wallet. It's going to be a long, cold, costly winter.
Copyright 2007 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
A cosmic joke
It was the fall of 1972. Richard Nixon was about to hand George McGovern a historic defeat.
I was a high school sophomore, not quite 15, but very tuned in to current events and national politics.
We all were. It was a tumultuous time: Vietnam, the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement. The events of the day were not abstract concepts; they affected us directly. Older siblings were drafted into the service and sent to Southeast Asia. Too many came home in coffins. The streets of the nation's cities were teeming with protests, some of which turned violent. Young versus old, black versus white, women versus men, peacenik versus hawk. And it was all on the nightly news, from the jungles in Vietnam to urban riots and campus demonstrations.
In 1972, for the first time ever, 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds would be allowed to vote in a presidential election, thanks to the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified the year before. That was big. Huge, in my almost-15-year-old eyes. It meant I'd be voting in the next presidential contest, in 1976. And I was convinced that young people would turn the tide in American politics. (Wrong.)
I remember sitting around the lunch table one day discussing politics. (Yes, we really did have discussions like that in the cafeteria. And, no, we were not geeks.) I faithfully wore my McGovern button on my blue uniform blazer every day that fall. My leanings got me into arguments with pro-Nixon classmates, who far outnumbered us McGovernites at my small Catholic high school.
Passionate and outspoken, I found myself engaged in heated debates during lunch more often than not. On this day, following just such a discussion, a couple of friends told me they expected me to be the first woman elected president of the United States. My immediate reaction, after calculating that I wouldn't be eligible to run until 1994 (you have to be 35 — ancient! — to run for president): No way! We'll definitely elect a woman president long before then.
Truly, I have been wrong about so many things along life's winding path. But the spectacularly wrong belief I professed with such certainty that afternoon in 1972 must rank among my all-time worst prognostications. I was so sure. It seemed so clear. But, boy, was it wrong.
So wrong that I still remember it vividly, 35 years later — when, not only haven't we elected a woman president, but this is the first time in U.S. history a woman has a real shot at the presidential nomination by one of the major parties.
And we're still discussing the fact that she's a woman. At least we've gotten beyond talking about what she wears or how she styles her hair.
How ironic that in this race, when a woman is finally on the presidential short list, a black man is also a serious contender in the race, also for the first time in history. Now, I'm not sure I'm ready to vote for Barack Obama for president — but not because of his race. It's just that I don't know if I'm ready to vote for a presidential candidate who's younger than I am.
We're careening toward an inevitable, historic clash of the long-overdue deliverance on unfulfilled promises in America: gender versus race. As the 2008 race heats up — albeit prematurely, even before we can digest the results of the 2007 local elections — Hillary and Barack will beat each other up, neutralizing each other and guaranteeing the status quo.
This is a practical joke of cosmic proportions, and probably proof that God is a wealthy, white, male Republican after all.
But, hey, I could be wrong. After all, I've been wrong before.
Friday, November 02, 2007
News-Review endorsements
We've got our voters guide on the News-Review Web site, with the paper's endorsements.
This wasn't easy. We hated not endorsing a candidate in the supervisor's race. Our reasoning is explained in the endorsement. Personally, I'm still not sure which lever I'm going to pull in that race.
Some people have expressed surprise about our endorsement of Ed Densieski for Highway Superintendent. That wasn't easy either. Certainly, Ed showed lack of judgment as an elected official two years ago in starting a business with Calverton sandminer/trucker Mike Cholowsky, a convicted felon. But he says he has dissolved the partnership and, while Densieski Fuel is still listed as an active corporation in N.Y., that doesn't mean the partnership with Cholowsky is still active. And there was never, at any time, any indication that Ed did anything illegal or unethical as a result of that business association.
Ed came across during the candidate interview we conducted as the better candidate, plain and simple. Gio is a heck of a nice guy. But he didn't seem to possess the vigor and verve the job is going to demand to make the changes the department desperately needs. The only reason to withhold the endorsement from Ed would have been because of his previous business partnership — and a very short-lived one, at that — with someone who has a criminal conviction in his past. That simply didn't seem fair to us.
This wasn't easy. We hated not endorsing a candidate in the supervisor's race. Our reasoning is explained in the endorsement. Personally, I'm still not sure which lever I'm going to pull in that race.
Some people have expressed surprise about our endorsement of Ed Densieski for Highway Superintendent. That wasn't easy either. Certainly, Ed showed lack of judgment as an elected official two years ago in starting a business with Calverton sandminer/trucker Mike Cholowsky, a convicted felon. But he says he has dissolved the partnership and, while Densieski Fuel is still listed as an active corporation in N.Y., that doesn't mean the partnership with Cholowsky is still active. And there was never, at any time, any indication that Ed did anything illegal or unethical as a result of that business association.
Ed came across during the candidate interview we conducted as the better candidate, plain and simple. Gio is a heck of a nice guy. But he didn't seem to possess the vigor and verve the job is going to demand to make the changes the department desperately needs. The only reason to withhold the endorsement from Ed would have been because of his previous business partnership — and a very short-lived one, at that — with someone who has a criminal conviction in his past. That simply didn't seem fair to us.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Budget must be discussed
Budget must be discussed
Denise Civiletti
The town budget process is typically tedious but very important.
What question is more fundamental than how our elected officials spend our tax dollars — except maybe how much of our hard-earned dollars government will take for taxes? The answers to both lie in the budget.
However, budgets are easy to manipulate to the political advantage of the person controlling the budget process, the town supervisor. Every two years, you can bet the sitting supervisor, whoever he may be, presents a budget that produces the lowest possible tax rate. There's even a name for it: "election year budget," a document that uses every gimmick imaginable to keep the tax rate increase low to please voters. Often election year budgets are unrealistic. Sometimes they are downright irresponsible. Supervisors have been known to prepare budgets that purposefully underestimate known expenses, leaving it to the Town Board to restore necessary funding on crucial line items. Then the supervisor can tell potentially angry taxpayers (voters): "My budget held the line on taxes. The Town Board hiked spending and taxes." It's an unconscionable practice — and violates the supervisor's duty as budget officer — but it's the oldest "election year budget" trick in the books and one very frequently employed by sitting supervisors of all political stripes.
That's why the budget process has typically been long and, often, contentious.
Phil Cardinale prides himself on what he calls transparency in government. He's got the TV cameras rolling in every work session and regular meeting of the Town Board. That's great.
But if business is being transacted outside those televised meetings, the rolling cameras are meaningless.
I'm afraid that's the case when it comes to the fundamental question of how our town government is spending our tax dollars. The budget process Mr. Cardinale has implemented has effectively foreclosed public discussion and scrutiny of the supervisor's tentative budget. He has not held a single budget meeting with the Town Board. One is scheduled to take place, finally, at today's work session — but only because the three Republican members of the board demanded it this week. My question is: What took them so long?
Mr. Cardinale told me on Friday he had council members meet "two by two" with the town's financial administrator to discuss changes they wanted to make to the supervisor's proposed budget. (If three board members are in a meeting, it must be open to the public, you see.)
Former Supervisor Jim Stark, Mr. Cardinale's challenger in this year's election, in last week's paper accused him of "cooking the books" — overestimating revenues and underestimating expenses.
Are Mr. Stark's accusations valid, or simply political grandstanding? Who knows? Thanks to masterful manipulation of the agenda and budget process by Mr. Cardinale and a readily manipulated Town Board, which has given the supervisor a pass on this, a public vetting of the supervisor's tentative budget didn't happen in time to be meaningful for voters. And it's coming too late for the weekly press to even inform the public of the content of the preliminary budget on which the board will hold a public hearing next week (assuming the board makes changes to the supervisor's tentative plan). Please remember to check our Web site (riverheadnewsreview.com) for a story on today's meeting.
Maybe the supervisor's budget is perfect and in need of no revision. Maybe Mr. Stark is all wet when he says if the Cardinale budget is corrected we're looking at a 30 percent tax hike. (I certainly hope so.) But the supervisor was slippery and the Town Board fell flat on its face. Board members should have insisted on public scrutiny of the tentative budget right from the beginning — and not waited until the 11th hour to ask that the budget be put on a work session agenda.
Surrounding towns have opened up their budget processes as the law requires. Riverhead — ironically, under the administration of a man who claims open government as his hallmark — has gone in the opposite direction.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Save EPCAL for industry
Indoor snow mountain mega-theme park or NASCAR race track? Which one?
How about neither?
The whole EPCAL site should be reserved for industrial development. The town should put in improvements, such as roads, and subdivide it so that it’s selling industrial lots and not 700-plus acre tracts. There’s no need to unload the land there all at once. They’re not making any more land, you know. Why have a fire sale? The land is money in the bank for the next generation.
When the town sells huge chunks of undeveloped land at EPCAL to private developers, it puts the fate of its economic development zone into the hands of private businesses that only have their own financial interests at heart. Look what happened with the sale of the so-called industrial core to a private developer. He flipped title to the buildings to eager purchasers before the ink on his deed from the town was dry, before he even had an approved subdivision. He did little to improve the site. And so it remains, dubbed “the Wild West,” a truly unappealing excuse for an industrial park.
The town should revisit the reuse plan developed for the site in 1997. It’s obsolete and unworkable and so is the zoning adopted to implement it. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think it was devised in a back room specifically to make sure nothing ever happened there. It’s been one of the most effective preservation plans ever adopted.
Eliminate the recreational zoning at EPCAL and develop the former Grumman site as the cohesive, high tech, light industrial center it should be. That’s what will fulfill the purpose behind the transfer of the property to the town: to reclaim the jobs and property taxes we lost when Grumman left. No theme park or hotel or race track or any of the other silly uses will do that.
The planned recreational district, if you look at the events of the past decade, is the source of most of the EPCAL fiascos that have made Riverhead the laughingstock of Long Island — and beyond. Over the years we’ve seen every cockamamie scheme for the site imaginable. The film studio plans. The failed Field Day rock concert, which resulted in Riverhead becoming a synonym for stupidity around the world. The air show “fundraiser” that had traffic backed up on Route 25 and William Floyd Parkway from EPCAL to Exit 68 on the LIE. The phony amusement park proposed by a group of NYC accountants who submitted a hokey business plan consisting of a three-ring binder filled with pictures of rides downloaded from the Internet and a phony letter of financial backing from a German investment company where one of the principals had formerly been employed? The Indian casino, courtesy of the Shinnecock tribe. And the water ski park on a man-made lake — where excavators, in their zeal to remove valuable sand, accidently struck ground water. Oops. The plan by Ken Wilpon to build a hotel/convention center and hundreds of homes there — which fizzled just after the last election. And along the way, proposals for sand mines disguised as golf courses, and even a zoo.
You could fill a book with the things that never happened at EPCAL. I’m sure I’m forgetting a few, including at least one or two car racing complexes.
So when word came of a Scotsman proposing to build a 350-foot-tall indoor ski mountain at EPCAL, I shook my head, laughed and thought, “Yeah, sure, what’s next?” A lot of people had the same reaction. We’ve learned to take this stuff with a grain of salt. For good reason.
Will Riverhead Resorts ever really happen? If history is any guide, the answer is no. On the other hand, indoor ski trails are in operation and under construction all around the globe. They’re not as far out as you might think. But then, this is Riverhead. And Riverhead is just ... different.
Already there’s some confusion about exactly what Riverhead Resorts is planning — for real. Supervisor Phil Cardinale says the ski mountain isn’t critical to Riverhead Resports’ plan; it will go forward with its complex of multiple themed resorts with or without the artificial mountain. But the developer told L.I. Business News last week that the mountain is critical to its plan — as an “anchor” attraction. So which is it? In an interview with News-Review editor John Stefans this week, the developer’s rep tried to backpeddle, claiming he wasn’t correctly quoted in the other newspaper. The quote was “taken out of context” he told us.
But — whatever. The notion of eight theme parks at EPCAL — with or without a manmade mountain — is, to my mind, one of the more preposterous things I’ve heard proposed for the site. And that’s no small feat. How are all the people going to get there? The site has no suitable access. You think traffic on surrounding roads is bad now? Just wait. On a recent Sunday afternoon, traffic on Edwards Avenue was bumper to bumper from Route 25 to Calverton Links — nearly to the LIE! And that was just the pumpkin picking crowd.
How about neither?
The whole EPCAL site should be reserved for industrial development. The town should put in improvements, such as roads, and subdivide it so that it’s selling industrial lots and not 700-plus acre tracts. There’s no need to unload the land there all at once. They’re not making any more land, you know. Why have a fire sale? The land is money in the bank for the next generation.
When the town sells huge chunks of undeveloped land at EPCAL to private developers, it puts the fate of its economic development zone into the hands of private businesses that only have their own financial interests at heart. Look what happened with the sale of the so-called industrial core to a private developer. He flipped title to the buildings to eager purchasers before the ink on his deed from the town was dry, before he even had an approved subdivision. He did little to improve the site. And so it remains, dubbed “the Wild West,” a truly unappealing excuse for an industrial park.
The town should revisit the reuse plan developed for the site in 1997. It’s obsolete and unworkable and so is the zoning adopted to implement it. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think it was devised in a back room specifically to make sure nothing ever happened there. It’s been one of the most effective preservation plans ever adopted.
Eliminate the recreational zoning at EPCAL and develop the former Grumman site as the cohesive, high tech, light industrial center it should be. That’s what will fulfill the purpose behind the transfer of the property to the town: to reclaim the jobs and property taxes we lost when Grumman left. No theme park or hotel or race track or any of the other silly uses will do that.
The planned recreational district, if you look at the events of the past decade, is the source of most of the EPCAL fiascos that have made Riverhead the laughingstock of Long Island — and beyond. Over the years we’ve seen every cockamamie scheme for the site imaginable. The film studio plans. The failed Field Day rock concert, which resulted in Riverhead becoming a synonym for stupidity around the world. The air show “fundraiser” that had traffic backed up on Route 25 and William Floyd Parkway from EPCAL to Exit 68 on the LIE. The phony amusement park proposed by a group of NYC accountants who submitted a hokey business plan consisting of a three-ring binder filled with pictures of rides downloaded from the Internet and a phony letter of financial backing from a German investment company where one of the principals had formerly been employed? The Indian casino, courtesy of the Shinnecock tribe. And the water ski park on a man-made lake — where excavators, in their zeal to remove valuable sand, accidently struck ground water. Oops. The plan by Ken Wilpon to build a hotel/convention center and hundreds of homes there — which fizzled just after the last election. And along the way, proposals for sand mines disguised as golf courses, and even a zoo.
You could fill a book with the things that never happened at EPCAL. I’m sure I’m forgetting a few, including at least one or two car racing complexes.
So when word came of a Scotsman proposing to build a 350-foot-tall indoor ski mountain at EPCAL, I shook my head, laughed and thought, “Yeah, sure, what’s next?” A lot of people had the same reaction. We’ve learned to take this stuff with a grain of salt. For good reason.
Will Riverhead Resorts ever really happen? If history is any guide, the answer is no. On the other hand, indoor ski trails are in operation and under construction all around the globe. They’re not as far out as you might think. But then, this is Riverhead. And Riverhead is just ... different.
Already there’s some confusion about exactly what Riverhead Resorts is planning — for real. Supervisor Phil Cardinale says the ski mountain isn’t critical to Riverhead Resports’ plan; it will go forward with its complex of multiple themed resorts with or without the artificial mountain. But the developer told L.I. Business News last week that the mountain is critical to its plan — as an “anchor” attraction. So which is it? In an interview with News-Review editor John Stefans this week, the developer’s rep tried to backpeddle, claiming he wasn’t correctly quoted in the other newspaper. The quote was “taken out of context” he told us.
But — whatever. The notion of eight theme parks at EPCAL — with or without a manmade mountain — is, to my mind, one of the more preposterous things I’ve heard proposed for the site. And that’s no small feat. How are all the people going to get there? The site has no suitable access. You think traffic on surrounding roads is bad now? Just wait. On a recent Sunday afternoon, traffic on Edwards Avenue was bumper to bumper from Route 25 to Calverton Links — nearly to the LIE! And that was just the pumpkin picking crowd.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
They put the silly in the season
It’s time for that biennial migraine suffered by editors of local newspapers everywhere. The home stretch of the local election campaign, every couple of years, brings with it a barrage of political ads making dubious claims and scurrilous attacks. Editors suffer the unhappy consequence of the silly season at its silliest peak: vetting the ads and dealing with politicians and their operatives who fight tooth and nail every attempt to, er, keep ’em honest. Things reach fever pitch right about now, two weeks out.
And it’s been brutal this year. For reasons I can’t quite fathom, this has been a particularly rough year for dealing with political ads in The Suffolk Times newsroom. Each “side” came into the campaign convinced that this newspaper was solidly in the other camp. When the Democrats think you favor the Republicans and the Republicans think you’re carrying water for the Democrats, you must be doing something right, I figure. We’ve been screamed at, threatened with a lawsuit and accused of taking sides — both sides — and that was just in the past week. The person on our staff whose job includes booking political ads is totally stressed out. One horrible encounter with a campaign representative had our managing editor questioning the sanity of anyone involved in politics. And I found myself exchanging harsh words with candidates on the sidewalk outside Poquatuck Hall in Orient Saturday afternoon.
We can’t wait for this to end.
The weird thing is, this is the unlikeliest group of men to be involved in such a down-and-dirty slugfest, if you ask me. Intelligent, well-spoken, and well-bred country gentlemen battling over who’s “most rural,” they’ve proved they can sling mud with the best of city street-fighters. To be fair, not every candidate went down this path. Some stayed above the fray. But the undercurrent has been nasty this campaign.
Much of this has gone down behind the scenes. But the mostly genteel exterior of this year’s campaign was going to be cracked wide open this week, though, with a couple of nasty ads submitted for publication that, in the end, won’t see the light of day — at least not in the pages of The Suffolk Times. We have the League of Women Voters to thank for that, at least indirectly. Here’s why:
A representative of the League is moderating the candidates debate we’re sponsoring tonight at Peconic Landing. (It’s free, open to the public and runs from 7:30 to 9 p.m., so come on down.) She suggested we ask the candidates to sign the League’s “fair campaign pledge.” It’s a straightforward statement by the candidate promising that he’ll conduct his campaign honestly and fairly; that he’ll discuss the issues and not engage in or condone defamatory attacks upon his opponent’s character; that he won’t misrepresent or distort facts about his opponent; and that he’ll publicly repudiate support from any person or group whose activities violate the pledge. When the candidates came to our office on Oct. 12 for endorsement interviews — we get the candidates for each post in the room together to answer questions and discuss the issues — we asked them to review and sign the pledge. They all complied — eventually. Some took a while — like a week or more. I guess it was a lot to mull over, all this honesty and fairness stuff. The ink was barely dry on the signature line when one candidate immediately submitted an ad that, without question, violated his pledge. If he hadn’t finally agreed to pull it in favor of an ad that wasn’t in violation, I’d be outing him right here and now. But he agreed to keep his word, albeit somewhat reluctantly.
The icing on the cake this week was one candidate who submitted an ad asking us to run it only if his opponent ran a negative ad. Whoa. We don’t go there, mister. You decide which ad you want to run, and we don’t ever — and I mean ever — let on about the contents of the adversary’s ad. That situation was worked out after much fussing and lots of e-mails and phone calls. You’d think we were brokering a cease-fire in the Middle East.
So much of this is so petty, so juvenile, so… Well, suffice it to say it’s what puts the “silly” in the season.
And it’s been brutal this year. For reasons I can’t quite fathom, this has been a particularly rough year for dealing with political ads in The Suffolk Times newsroom. Each “side” came into the campaign convinced that this newspaper was solidly in the other camp. When the Democrats think you favor the Republicans and the Republicans think you’re carrying water for the Democrats, you must be doing something right, I figure. We’ve been screamed at, threatened with a lawsuit and accused of taking sides — both sides — and that was just in the past week. The person on our staff whose job includes booking political ads is totally stressed out. One horrible encounter with a campaign representative had our managing editor questioning the sanity of anyone involved in politics. And I found myself exchanging harsh words with candidates on the sidewalk outside Poquatuck Hall in Orient Saturday afternoon.
We can’t wait for this to end.
The weird thing is, this is the unlikeliest group of men to be involved in such a down-and-dirty slugfest, if you ask me. Intelligent, well-spoken, and well-bred country gentlemen battling over who’s “most rural,” they’ve proved they can sling mud with the best of city street-fighters. To be fair, not every candidate went down this path. Some stayed above the fray. But the undercurrent has been nasty this campaign.
Much of this has gone down behind the scenes. But the mostly genteel exterior of this year’s campaign was going to be cracked wide open this week, though, with a couple of nasty ads submitted for publication that, in the end, won’t see the light of day — at least not in the pages of The Suffolk Times. We have the League of Women Voters to thank for that, at least indirectly. Here’s why:
A representative of the League is moderating the candidates debate we’re sponsoring tonight at Peconic Landing. (It’s free, open to the public and runs from 7:30 to 9 p.m., so come on down.) She suggested we ask the candidates to sign the League’s “fair campaign pledge.” It’s a straightforward statement by the candidate promising that he’ll conduct his campaign honestly and fairly; that he’ll discuss the issues and not engage in or condone defamatory attacks upon his opponent’s character; that he won’t misrepresent or distort facts about his opponent; and that he’ll publicly repudiate support from any person or group whose activities violate the pledge. When the candidates came to our office on Oct. 12 for endorsement interviews — we get the candidates for each post in the room together to answer questions and discuss the issues — we asked them to review and sign the pledge. They all complied — eventually. Some took a while — like a week or more. I guess it was a lot to mull over, all this honesty and fairness stuff. The ink was barely dry on the signature line when one candidate immediately submitted an ad that, without question, violated his pledge. If he hadn’t finally agreed to pull it in favor of an ad that wasn’t in violation, I’d be outing him right here and now. But he agreed to keep his word, albeit somewhat reluctantly.
The icing on the cake this week was one candidate who submitted an ad asking us to run it only if his opponent ran a negative ad. Whoa. We don’t go there, mister. You decide which ad you want to run, and we don’t ever — and I mean ever — let on about the contents of the adversary’s ad. That situation was worked out after much fussing and lots of e-mails and phone calls. You’d think we were brokering a cease-fire in the Middle East.
So much of this is so petty, so juvenile, so… Well, suffice it to say it’s what puts the “silly” in the season.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The News-Review Debate
The News-Review is sponsoring a debate tonight at the Vail-Leavitt Music Hall, from 7 to 9 p.m.
The two supervisor candidates, Phil Cardinale and Jim Stark, will face off, on on one.
The four Town Board candidates — George Bartunek, Tim Buckley, Amy Csorny and Jim Wooten — will debate separately.
News-Review editor John Stefans and I will ask the questions. We're taking questions from the audience, too.
If you have any questions you'd like us to ask tonight, post them here today.
Come down to the Vail-Leavitt and watch. It's free!
We're taping it for airing on the public access channel. I will post details about that here when I have them.
PS: The Suffolk Times is hosting a candidates debate for Southold Town supervisor and council candidates next Thursday evening, 7-9 p.m., at Peconic Landing.
The two supervisor candidates, Phil Cardinale and Jim Stark, will face off, on on one.
The four Town Board candidates — George Bartunek, Tim Buckley, Amy Csorny and Jim Wooten — will debate separately.
News-Review editor John Stefans and I will ask the questions. We're taking questions from the audience, too.
If you have any questions you'd like us to ask tonight, post them here today.
Come down to the Vail-Leavitt and watch. It's free!
We're taping it for airing on the public access channel. I will post details about that here when I have them.
PS: The Suffolk Times is hosting a candidates debate for Southold Town supervisor and council candidates next Thursday evening, 7-9 p.m., at Peconic Landing.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Barbara bolts
I was not exactly surprised when Barbara Blass called to say she'd officially left the Republican party. She's been estranged for some time. Supporting Rose Sanders in the 2005 primary was the end of the line for her with many of the committee people. Some of them were gunning for her. One of them told me a few months back that he couldn't wait to "do to Barbara" what they did to Rose. Would Barbara have gotten her committee's support for a third term in 2009? Who knows? But she says she feels "free" now that she's officially split with her party. She'll be able to concentrate on her work on the board, she says. And she's looking forward to it.
Rose made the switch too. They went to the Board of Elections together on Friday. Rose sounds like she's seriously contemplating another run for office. Will there be a Blass-Sanders ticket on the Independence line in 2009? I think that's a real possibility.
Read my news story about Barbara and Rose joining the Independence Party on the riverheadnewsreview.com Web site. Click here.
Rose made the switch too. They went to the Board of Elections together on Friday. Rose sounds like she's seriously contemplating another run for office. Will there be a Blass-Sanders ticket on the Independence line in 2009? I think that's a real possibility.
Read my news story about Barbara and Rose joining the Independence Party on the riverheadnewsreview.com Web site. Click here.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
From every mountainside
Want to discuss the First Amendment freedoms? Please to the Freedom Blog I've set up. Click here. You'll find links to Web sites all about the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, plus a poll and details on the NY Press Association First Amendment Essay Contest for high school juniors and seniors.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Coach Shay is back
It's official. The coach is back. News-Review sports editor Bob Liepa interviewed him at practice yesterday afternoon. We've got a preview on The News-Review Web site. And the full story in tomorrow's edition.
School superintendent Diane Scricca called Coach Shay a man of character. She's right. It takes character to admit you've made a mistake and apologize for it. While covering the cameras may have been a bad example for the kids, owning up to his mistake is a great example for the coach to set. I commend him for it.
In his interview with Bob Liepa, Mr. Shay called the past month the longest month of his life. He missed coaching and teaching so much, and the anxiety of his uncertain position, all made it very difficult.
But it was a big month for him too, in a happy way. I found out yesterday the coach's wife, Christine, gave birth to their second child, a boy, Sept. 24. Congratulations.
And welcome back!
School superintendent Diane Scricca called Coach Shay a man of character. She's right. It takes character to admit you've made a mistake and apologize for it. While covering the cameras may have been a bad example for the kids, owning up to his mistake is a great example for the coach to set. I commend him for it.
In his interview with Bob Liepa, Mr. Shay called the past month the longest month of his life. He missed coaching and teaching so much, and the anxiety of his uncertain position, all made it very difficult.
But it was a big month for him too, in a happy way. I found out yesterday the coach's wife, Christine, gave birth to their second child, a boy, Sept. 24. Congratulations.
And welcome back!
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Coach Shay returned to practices yesterday
Although he wouldn't say when he might be back to work when I interviewed him Sunday (he said that was up to the school board and he hoped they'd take some action this week—the board has a meeting scheduled this evening) Coach Shay was at football practice yesterday morning.
So it seems the district's negotiations with the coach have been concluded.
So it seems the district's negotiations with the coach have been concluded.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Coach Shay issues an apology
From The News-Review Web site
Updated: 10/6/07 - 10:13 AM
Coach Shay issues an apology
Note posted on school district Web site admits "mistake"
Updated: 10/6/07 - 10:13 AM
Coach Shay issues an apology
Note posted on school district Web site admits "mistake"
Riverhead High School football coach Leif Shay has issued an apology to the Riverhead school district and the community, according to a message posted by the district on its Web site.
In the message, Mr. Shay, a physical education teacher at the high school, offers his "sincere apology" for covering up security cameras in the high school gymnasium during a class in the first week of school.
"This is not the direction I would want my students or my own
children to follow. I am certainly brave enough to admit when I have made a mistake," the statement says.
Mr. Shay was "reassigned" by the district pending disciplinary proceedings for his actions. His reassignment meant his removal as head coach of the Riverhead Blue Waves varsity football team, which he led in an undefeated season last year, as well as his removal from regular teaching duties.
The coach's reassignment met with strong reaction from football players, parents and fellow teachers, who attended school board meetings to protest the district's response to the incident. The Riverhead Central Faculty Association organized demonstrations outside the high school before the start of the regular school day over the past month, to voice its support for Mr. Shay. Students circulated petitions demanding his reinstatement.
No announcement accompanied the posting of the statement on the district's Web site, and school board president Nancy Gassert could not be reached for comment on the posting Saturday morning. It is unknown at this time whether Mr. Shay has been or is about to be reinstated as head coach.
Mr. Shay did not return a phone call to his home Saturday morning.
The teachers' union filed a grievance in June over security cameras operating in the gymnasium during classes, which the union says violates its collective bargaining agreement. The grievance came after an incident involving longtime wrestling coach Wade Davey in April, when a diabetic student passed out during a gym class. The incident involving Mr. Davey was captured on a security camera and RCFA president Barbara Barosa said that was the first time teachers realized that the security cameras were running during gym classes.
The district installed the security cameras throughout the high school and the high school grounds in late 2005 at a cost of about $200,000, more than half of which was paid by a federal grant. At the time, Riverhead was one of the first districts on Long Island to have such a system, although other districts have since followed suit.
The teachers' contract contains a provision prohibiting the use of electronic surveillance to monitor and evaluate teachers' performance in classrooms, Ms. Barosa told The News-Review.
The note posted on the school district's Web site reads:
To Riverhead Central School District and its Community,
I would like to take this opportunity to issue a sincere apology for my actions
regarding the security cameras in the High School. I should have let the grievance
procedure take its course. This is not the direction I would want my students or my own
children to follow. I am certainly brave enough to admit when I have made a mistake, and
it is my hope that we can all learn from this and move forward in the development of our
youth.
I look forward to continuing our tradition of excellence here in the Riverhead
Central School District. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Leif Shay
Copyright 2007 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.From every mountainside
What does freedom mean to you?
Yes, you.
Whoever you are, wherever you're reading this, stop for a moment and think about this. What does freedom mean to you?
Freedom is what it's all about, isn't it? Freedom is what the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) were seeking when they crossed the Atlantic in wooden sailing ships to make a new home in a new world. Freedom is what they fought and died for in the revolt against the crown that began with the shot heard round the world at Lexington in 1775. Freedom for all people, regardless of race, is what divided our country in a bitter, bloody battle that nearly destroyed our nation less than a hundred years after its birth. The goal of protecting our freedom sent the doughboys off to war in Europe during "the war to end all wars" and the G.I.s to Europe and Asia a generation later during World Ware II. "If you love your freedom, thank a Vet."
Freedom is something to covet, to protect, to fight for, to die for.
Freedom is what we're all about here in the U.S. of A, isn't it? It's what we've got, what we've always had, what we've always had so much of that we didn't know what to do with it. So we take it for granted. We hardly give it a second thought. Freedom is woven into the fabric of American society. It is the very essence of America. It's what generation after generation of people from all corners of the earth have come to America to pursue. Freedom to live as you please, in peace, without being bothered. Freedom to think what you want. Freedom to speak your mind. Freedom to move about the country. Freedom to associate with whomever you choose. Freedom to work, to make a buck, to pursue opportunity and make something of yourself, no matter how humble your beginnings. Freedom to worship — Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, Satan, the sun, Mother Earth, yourself. Or nothing at all.
Freedom to vote, to choose who will run your government and oversee how they do it. Freedom to know what they're doing, so you can hold them accountable. Freedom to criticize them if they don't do right by you. Freedom to turn them out of office if you see fit. Freedom to ask the government to do what you think is right. Freedom to demonstrate with a group of like-minded people for things you believe in.
Freedom to do nothing. Freedom to sit on your couch every night and watch sitcoms or sports on TV, to never think about freedom. You don't have to. You live in the USA, after all. Your freedom is in the bag. No need to pay attention to what elected officials are doing with your tax dollars. No need to be concerned about government controlling information about how it operates. No need to worry about your rights. You're so certain that all's well, you barely even have to worry about voting. (Fewer than a quarter of eligible voters will participate in next month's general election.)
What's it all about, anyway, this thing called freedom? Does it really matter to us today? Why do some people make such a fuss about these things — especially when we're engaged in a "permanent war" against an "invisible enemy" and some "sacrifice" of individual liberty is "necessary" to secure "freedom" not only for us, but for the rest of the world, to whom we will carry "democracy" (whether they want it or not).
Hey, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about. Right?
I'm going to dedicate this space to freedom in the coming weeks. Because freedom is, in fact, what it's all about. And freedom is, in fact, in danger. Your freedom. Right here, right now. Your children's freedom, today, next year, 10 years from now. Freedom is under assault in the U.S. — by government at all levels. Even your local school board. But first and foremost, your freedom and your children's freedom are in jeopardy because of complacency, apathy, maybe, even, if the truth be told, a little ignorance — your assumption that it will always be there when you need it.
This newspaper, because we cherish freedom, is participating in the N.Y. Press Association's First Amendment Essay Contest. It's open to students in 11th and 12th grades. Go to our Web site for details at www.northshoresun.com. The grand-prize winner in this statewide contest gets $10,000, with cash prizes for local winners chosen from each school district by the Sun and one overall grand-prize winner who will represent the Sun in the state contest.
Encourage your high school age kids to log on and participate. The future of freedom is in their hands.
Ms. Civiletti's e-mail address is denise@timesreview.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
