The federal government cannot and will not offer any solutions to the long-term problems facing our nation. From energy conservation to global warming to anti-terrorism measures, we are largely on our own. The inept federal response to Katrina made that abundantly clear on a national scale. Are we seeing as similar dyanamic here on a local level with the severely lacking Federal response to the problems on Plum Island?
From the article:
What struck me while listening to [Maryland Governor and former Baltimore Mayor Martin] O’Malley was the extent to which America’s cities are on their own, taking a leadership role on issues that used to be the job of the federal government. New York City, for example, now has a crack antiterrorism agency within the police department, one that I instinctively trust more than the FBI. And it’s not just in preparation for cataclysmic events like 9/11 or Katrina; cities have stepped up to address issues such as global warming and the decay of our infrastructure.
Last year I interviewed Mayor Gavin Newsom about San Francisco’s ambitious plans for reducing its carbon footprint. He spoke at great length about projects big and small, mentioning a proposal to build “large wave platforms, about a mile off the coast, the size of a football field, that will harness the energy created by the waves.” He talked about “self-contained energy districts,” a setup whereby neighborhoods would collectively generate their own solar power. Some of the strategies he discussed were monumental (and expensive), others were about streamlining the city’s bureaucracy so that alternative -energy projects could move with ease through the permit process.
At one point I interrupted Newsom to ask whether it wasn’t unusual for a mayor—particularly one of a modest-size city—to be taking on global issues, and he told me about the United Nations’ World Environment Day, held in San Francisco in 2005. “When you’re going to get serious about addressing the issues of global climate change, it will be happening, by definition, in urban cores,” he said. “One hundred mayors have now signed up, including the mayor of Tehran. The fact is that we’ve all agreed to these environmental principles—twenty-one core principles on waste reduction. We’re basically following these UN environmental accords and doing it in the absence of leadership from our states and respective federal governments.”
Are we at the same point with Plum Island, the dredging of the river and--I hate to say it--any repairs to the jetty that seem to be the cause of the problems. I'm not sure how we could afford such undertakings, but if we are on our own, it's better we acknowledge this fact sooner rather than later.
7 comments:
Tom,
I think it has more to do with who is running the federal government. Tierney was initially able to get the full funding for the dredging until it was cut by Bush.
All of the dredging funds are going to commercial ports rather than recreational ones.
FEMA was a model federal agency until Bush appointed cronies to run it.
It shouldn't be surprising that there is no funding to reduce the carbon footprint when the current adminstration doesn't believe in global warming. At the recent press club dinner, Cheney joked that we were experiencing a world-wide warming process - called "spring".
Tom,
Well, that estimated $670K that forgiving those water bills would cost the city would go along way towards repairing the jetty or dredging, I would think.
Especially since, as the DN pointed out, "The argument from many is that the budget and revenue expectations are already set, so forgiving bills will have little to no effect."
Unless, of course, the city is desperately seeking a chunk of change for a big project ... that part got left out.
Tom: A minor clarification; the Water Department, like Sewer and the Harbor Commission, are Enterprise Funds. I am pretty sure that monies raised from the collection of back usage could not be used for items outside the department. Most likely, if the City were to collect this money, it would be used for improvements to the system, or to hold down rates, not to fund repairs to the jetty, worthy as that may be.
Perhaps there is a reader more versed in municipal finance than I who can further clarify or correct the above.
James Shanley
The $670K should be used to keep down rates for ratepayers who have been subsidizing these folks to the tune of $800 per ratepayer.
Some of us were stung by the "unreporting" remote readers and forced to pay in past years. Why were our bills not forgiven ???? Am I now entitled to a refund ??? An Angry mob of 40 people is able to pass the cost on to the other 8000 ratepayers ?
James,
I stand corrected. I forgot about the Enterprise Account angle. I believe the city would have to borrow the money from water/sewer, which would be counterproductive in light of the needs at the sewer plant and the needs of the ratepayers. Not that I'm well versed in municipal finance!
Tom,
Just wanted to correct a typo - the $670K is $80 per rate payer. I apologize on behalf of my "fat fingers"....
It's a rather scary thought, but as someone pointed out, it's partially a result of the present administration. Keep in mind, of course, that us Bay Staters have quite a reputation for squandering Federal monies, i.e. The Big Dig. Would the National Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2007, which was voted on in the Senate last year, address the jetty? It does impact the waterway/port access, yes?
Post a Comment