« February 2009 | Main | April 2009 »
In case you hadn't noticed, CWLP has pictures of the wind farm that provides Springfield with renewable energy. Here's a scaled down preview of the Hancock Farm from CWLP's pics.
My new banner image is also taken from CWLP's Hancock Farm pics.
Yesterday I voted early at the county election office. Three boards are up for election in my area, one of which is an uncontested race for Lincoln Land Community College Board.
Four people are running for three positions on the Springfield park board. Apparently, they decided not to ask voters if the board should be elected by districts rather than city-wide.
The SJR editorialized that breaking up the park board into districts would make it difficult for the two parties to recruit enough qualified candidates from each district (I can't provide a link because the SJR online search function is useless). First, it's disappointing that they believe only people recruited by either party should run, but the current system guarantees that will always be the case.
When the board had a position open for appointment last year, well over a dozen people applied and many of them were qualified. Obviously, there's interest in serving, but not much interest in running. One reason is that running effectively in a city-wide election is very expensive and labor intensive. It's hard to get media attention for such a small race and there's not much time to talk with voters after the holidays. It discourages good candidates from running and guarantees that the park board will always be controlled by whichever party is better organized that year.
Smaller district races would encourage more candidates, especially ones who don't depend on either party for support. The current system works very well for party organizations that view units of local government primarily as a source of patronage jobs and contracts. The Republicans who currently run the park board know that they have a better chance of maintaining control if they run city-wide rather than by districts, some of which would have to be majority Democratic.
Speaking of using local government as a source of patronage, both parties had a full slate of candidates for Capital Township. Township government is a bigger payoff both for those who serve on the board and in the amount of money they get to hand out to voters.
Two recent articles contrast lobbying efforts over the Illinois Clean Car Act. The Illinois Times talked with students during the environmental citizen lobby day last week. They represent the vast majority of Illinois residents who want manufacturers to modernize by producing more fuel efficient, less polluting cars.
Angela Caputo at Progress Illinois writes about the auto industry spending millions to fight new emissions standards even while they tell legislators they support building more fuel efficient vehicles. Their talk is cheap but the billing hours of lobbyists are not.
Maybe American auto companies would be in better shape today if they spent those millions on research and updating their manufacturing plants, instead of manipulating the political system in their favor and running misleading ad campaigns.
Something big passed the Springfield city council Tuesday without much notice or fanfare. An ordinance approving the Renewable Energy Choice program will allow CWLP customers to purchase renewable energy credits (RECs) through their monthly utility bill. The voluntary program will increase the use of renewable energy beyond the 120MW of wind capacity already being used by CWLP
CWLP is partnering with a company called 3Degrees.
They describe REC's this way:
* Since it’s virtually impossible to request only the “green” electrons be delivered to your home or business by your electricity provider, RECs provide a low-cost mechanism for individuals and businesses to capture the environmental benefits (zero emissions, etc) of the green power and claim it as their own.CWLP agreed to do this program as part of the power plant agreement with the Sierra Club, and it keeps Springfield on the leading edge of communities that support reducing global warming emissions. They're behind the target date originally set for offering it, but that's understandable since the Energy Services Office is doing a large amount of new work in a short period of time.
* Each MWh of clean, renewable electricity reduces the need for one additional MWh of pollution-causing conventional power; therefore a REC represents the environmental benefits of this displacement.
* Green-e Energy Certified RECs are audited to ensure that only one customer claims credit for each MWh of renewable electricityThe sale of RECs generates additional funds that improve renewable energy project economics, making them more competitive with other fossil fuel sources, like coal and natural gas.
One benefit of the CWLP program is that customers will be able to buy RECs at a cheaper rate than normal retail offerings. That makes it a good option for people who want to make a one-time purchase of RECs even if they don't include it on their monthly bill.
.
I'm not sure when they'll do a publicity launch of the program so keep an eye out for it.
Last night's public meeting about the proposed park started out with three park board members and the consultant expressing their desire to listen to the neighborhood. I appreciate their efforts, but my impression is that there needs to be more discussion to figure out what the neighborhood wants.
I like the proposed plan in general. It leaves space for prairie, trees and natural areas that won't be over-manicured, along with bike trails and open play fields. There are two changes I'd like to see discussed.
The only way to reach the park is by going through the Franklin Park subdivision. Apparently, this was done in response to people at the first meeting who think it should be a neighborhood park that doesn't attract people from the rest of the community. I believe it's completely unrealistic to think that making the park more difficult to access is going to keep people from visiting. The park's existence isn't going to be kept a secret. If people have to drive through the subdivision to access it then that's what they'll do.
The plan will likely increase traffic through the subdivision, which is exactly what I heard people say they don't want. I don't think the design will reach the goals of people who want less neighborhood traffic, but the meeting ended before I had the chance to make that point.
Several other people had their hands raised when the meeting ended, but public comments are still being taken. The latest proposal isn't on the website yet, but we're told it will be soon.
On another road issue, there was no discussion about the fact that all three plans block off the possibility of the subdivision extending certain roads to West Lake Shore Drive or 11th Street. Maybe most residents are happy with the congested and dangerous Hazel Dell Rd being the only way in and out of the area, but if we're going to have a park that permanently limits our options for a back way out, then we should at least discuss the issue first.
My other suggestion was in the SJR coverage of the meeting. The proposal calls for a shelter with benches that's surrounded by trees on three sides and borders the parking lot. That's good to have but it limits how the park can be used if that's the only structure. I'd like to see a small, multipurpose pavilion or gazebo added. One person made a similar suggestion and a few others told me they agree after the meeting.
No one in the crowd disagreed with me but it's hard to tell if that's because: a) they like the idea, b) they think it's going nowhere anyway since the planners responded negatively, c) most people in the room don't like to speak in public, or d) they just don't care. There was no discussion of it by residents, along with several ideas presented by others.
That's one of the limitations of this type of meeting format where everyone speaks to an official at the front of the room instead of having a discussion with each other. Unfortunately, this is what 90% of public input meetings by any unit of government in the Springfield area consist of.
Besides the limitations inherent in the meeting format, the public wasn't provided with a summary of input from the previous meetings. I'm left wondering if the plan represents what a majority of the neighborhood wants or what a majority of people who get loud in public meetings want.
Because there's so much interest, I'd like to see the park district encourage people to have house party/coffee discussions with invited neighbors. The consulting firm could provide a guide that allows small groups to consider ideas and have a thoughtful discussion with friends in their home about what they want in a park. Results of the small-group discussions could be compiled, summarized and released to the public. This would take public engagement up a notch for the Springfield area.
This link will download the first flier for the Springfield Earth Week Film Fest. It's a large file.
The next public meeting for the proposed Barker property park near Franklin Park subdivision is tonight (Monday), 6:15-7:30pm, at Hazell Dell Elementary School.
I did a google map search to show the area.
Since I missed the first meeting I'll have some questions about how this impacts the possibility of a future entrance into the subdivision from the South or East. There's only one road in and out of the area and it will become increasingly congested since more commercial development is planned nearby around the new 6th Street Walmart. I suspect my neighbors will have mixed feelings about that.
I'd like the park to serve as a place for neighborhood and family gatherings. It's an excellent opportunity for a neighborhood that currently has no public spaces. I'd be excited to see a pavilion or gazebo that could serve as a stage for small neighborhood concerts or community festivals. It could be situated away from homes and given a natural sound barrier to minimize any potential nuisance to neighbors. That's another idea that would probably get lively debate from my neighbors.
Currently, there's no bike path that connects the neighborhood with the trails around UIS. I'm hoping that the park design will at least leave open the possibility of a future connection to those trails so that cyclists no longer have to risk riding down narrow roads with no shoulder.
Despite the SJR article, I don't believe most people in the neighborhood want to stay inside all day and lock their doors to keep the "outsiders" away. I'm not sure if anyone from the neighborhood actually reads my blog but I'll write again after tonight's meeting.
Wednesday was citizen lobby day for several Illinois environmental groups, so I was surprised to see a few people with signs opposing wind power. The Capitol Police must have asked them to leave but not before I got the chance to have a friendly talk with a few of them.
One woman had reasonable concerns about a wind farm proposed near her property. Some people have problems living very close to wind turbines. She admitted that she wouldn't want to live next to a coal power plant either.
The people I know who lived near a wind farm didn't mind, and personally, I think the steady turning is relaxing. Most farmers benefit from the leasing agreements and still farm around the turbines.
The others in the group I spoke to made a few exaggerated claims and repeated arguments I've heard from nuclear and coal industry advocates. Their strongest arguments were about the unpredictability of wind as a sole power source, but I'm not aware of anyone suggesting we get 100% of our power from wind. I've heard fossil fuel industry engineers set up that straw-man before.
One person was very quick to point out that they weren't backed by any industry group and nearly as quick to say that nuclear, coal and natural gas were the likely solutions to our energy problems. They gave vague answers about who they were and how they got together. I know I'm suspicious about these things but my skepticism usually serves me well.
No power source is without drawbacks so it's a matter of choosing which ones have the lowest negative impact. Living next to a wind farm won't have the negative effects of living near a coal plant, including birth defects, male sterility, higher asthma rates, contaminated fish and so on. Wind farms aren't nearly as destructive to farmland as long-wall mining methods. The known downsides to wind are minimal in comparison to coal pollution and nuclear waste. I didn't hear this anti-wind group propose any better alternatives.
Every time I visit Chicago I see a new office tower or condo high rise nearing completion, and a new one beginning construction that I didn't notice on my last trip downtown. Going around town, I usually see a neighborhood that's improving with new stores and housing.
Then I think about the drumbeat from conservative anti-tax groups who insist that higher taxes are hurting the Illinois economy and drive away businesses. Then I wonder what state those people are living in. Chicago looks like a "business friendly" environment despite having one of the highest local tax rates in the country.
How can someone live near Chicago and still believe that low taxes are a magical cure-all for economic growth and quality of life? It's another case of ideological blockage.
That's what St. Patrick's Day parade goers saw today. The banner said "Tom Dart 2010" without mentioning what office the Cook County Sheriff plans to run for next year. Interesting.
The SJR ran a bizarrely worded and self contradictory AP article about a Congressional report on FutureGen. Huffington Post tells us the real story about the report that you didn't see in central Illinois news outlets.
"In retrospect, FutureGen appears to have been nothing more than a public relations ploy for Bush Administration officials to make it appear to the public and the world that the United States was doing something to address global warming despite its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol."It's the same tactic Bush used to delay action in support of electric cars by touting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles that won't be market ready for at last a decade, if ever. FutureGen is a cruel joke on a region of the state that badly needs real job creation, not a gimmick to subsidize the coal industry.
There's no one in office I like more than Dick Durbin. My first political experience was as an intern in his Congressional office during my freshman year of college. I'm particularly proud that he's the only living member of the Senate who was up for re-election that year and still had the courage to vote against the war in Iraq. That's why it's so disappointing to see him pandering about FutureGen.
Other states are creating jobs by attracting factories to build parts for wind turbines and solar panels. There are better ways to create jobs in Southern and Central Illinois than wasteful subsidies to the coal industry.
Two environmental groups added credibility to this project by lending their name to the list of supporters in the Illinois FutureGen Task Force. I hope that, in light of this report, they'll rethink their stance on similar projects now that everyone realizes they were being used in a delaying tactic that diverted resources away from more realistic energy solutions.
I end up eating out more when the General Assembly is in session.
I went to the new Brickhouse Grill in the west end sprawl of town. When someone opens a new business they should decide if they want it to be a sports bar, dance club or upscale restaurant. Trying to do all three at the same time in the same room doesn't work. It has the acoustics of a high school gymnasium with the music just loud enough that everyone has to shout to the person sitting next to them. The manager describes it as "upscale" in the SJR review but I couldn't tell judging by the 20 TV's on the wall, the neon Coors sign, and the half dozen people at the bar singing along to Journey. The menu is ordinary.
Overall it had all the charm of a suburban chain without the long drive to Naperville. If you recently moved to Springfield from Schaumburg or somewhere in DuPage County and miss having fun nights at Buffalo Wild Wings then this is the place for you. If I had to say something positive I'd compliment the hiring manager on finding so many attractive waitresses. Despite that, I doubt I'll be back to eat soon.
I also recently tried the new Maya buffet, downtown at Jefferson & 2nd. I enjoyed it very much and apparently they're hosting salsa dance nights. The food was good, the staff was nice, and they did a good job redecorating the place. I'll be back soon.
Top Cats has been around on Stevenson Drive for a long time but this week I got lunch there for the first time. It always looked like a little hole in the wall kind of place that I never got around to trying. It turns out that they're a surprisingly large hole in the wall kind of place and they're pretty good. The menu had some interesting items you don't see everywhere else in Springfield and the game room has Ms. Pacman.
Last night was one of the more exciting Community Energy Forums CWLP has hosted. At least two or three announcements deserve their own news headlines. I'll write about a few of the highlights that stuck out for me.
Cool Cities
Mike Schneider, an intern from UIS, presented the results of the community greenhouse gas emissions inventory that calculated Springfield's carbon footprint. The inventory estimates city-wide global warming emissions for today and in 1990 to determine a goal for reducing our carbon footprint to Kyoto Protocol levels. This is an important first step for creating an action plan.
The study showed that half of our goal will already be met by more efficient power plant operations and the wind energy purchase following the Sierra Club/CWLP agreement regarding the new power plant.
The next steps will be planned with help from the Mayor's newly announced Cool Cities Advisory Council. TV20 did a good story on that today.
Wind Power and Renewable Energy Credits
CWLP is now using all 120 MW of wind power capacity called for in the Sierra Club agreement. There were several questions about whether that specific power is physically used in Springfield. The grid works in such a way that we can't even know that power generated by CWLP plants is necessarily used in Springfield. It all goes onto the grid.
The Renewable Choice program begins soon. CWLP will offer renewable energy credits that can be included on your monthly bill. The program allows people to pay a little more to know that all power used for their home or business comes from renewable sources which increases market demand for clean energy.
This will be beyond the approximately 19% of wind energy CWLP is already purchasing to supply its customers. Bill Mills expects an ordinance approving the program to be considered by the city council in a week or two.
Power Plant Progress
The new Dallman 4 power plant is expected to be finished ahead of schedule. They plan to fire the first boiler in April and have it able to sync to the grid in May. Although they're ahead of schedule with the new plant, they appear to be behind schedule with their commitment to reduce polluting emissions from their existing Dallman 1-3 coal units.
Obama's Stimulus Package
For some reason, Mills seemed reluctant to use the vaguely suggestive name for Obama's stimulus package. He outlined money the stimulus package is ready to unload on Springfield and CWLP related to renewable energy and efficiency programs, plus possibilities for additional funds from competitive grants. I've read articles about the massive shot of money the bill dishes out for renewable energy and green infrastructure but the presentation was an eye opener to how many ways it could be used locally.
I came away feeling very good about the fact that CWLP is doing these meetings. The next one is June 11, 6:00pm at the Illinois National Bank conference center, at 4th and Jackson Street in Springfield.
Springfield residents have unique opportunities to confront the problem of climate change because we have a publicly owned utility making major commitments to efficiency programs and renewable energy. The smart energy forums are a way to find out what's new and help shape what comes next.
Here's the city press release of Wednesday's meeting...
CWLP COMMUNITY ENERGY MEETING TO INCLUDE PRESENTATION ON CARBON FOOTPRINTING, COOL CITIES INITIATVECity Water, Light and Power’s Wednesday, March 11 Community Energy Meeting will include a presentation on Cool Cities and the City’s recently calculated greenhouse gas inventory. Also on the agenda, CWLP’s Renewable Choice Program under development and information to date on the recently announced federal stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).
The meeting will be held at the University of Illinois at Springfield at 6 p.m. in the Public Affairs Center, Conference Room G.
The CWLP Community Energy Meetings are designed to provide updates to the public on progress made regarding environmental and energy saving activities and to solicit suggestions and ideas from the community regarding energy programs and related issues. CWLP is using the input received from these meetings to enhance existing programs and develop new energy efficiency and conservation programs.
Public participation is encouraged to help CWLP develop the most effective and practical programs for its customers. CWLP customers wanting more information on this forum may call 789-2070.
The proposed concepts for a park on the Barker property near the Franklin Park subdivision are now online. Since they still aren't on the Park District website I'm putting the proposals sent to me by the consulting firm here on my blog.
You can download the comment form that references these three documents at the Park District website here, along with an aerial view of the property.
Another public meeting will be scheduled within a month to present the master plan.
Added update: A response! Since I wrote this blog post the park district website has now added the three proposals.
Sherman is giving Springfield Parks a lesson in public participation.
According to an SJR article, the Sherman Parks Advisory Committee:
1) Created a Facebook page to encourage public discussion.
2) Asked for public input before designs were drawn and a location was chosen.
3) Invited the public to their monthly meetings to participate.
4) Made an open ended request for ideas rather than limiting discussion to a list of pre-determined possibilities.
This dramatically contrasts with the Springfield Park District's action on the proposed Barker property park near Franklin Park subdivision.
The Springfield Park District:
1) Notified residents they were getting a park several years after the property was acquired.
2) Had a consulting firm draw up design proposals before seeking public input.
3) The article says a plan will be presented next month but mentions no further opportunity for public involvement before then.
I live in the neighborhood but didn't hear about the meeting until I read about it in the paper afterward. I called the park district to get a copy of the presentation and was referred to the consulting firm, Massie & Massie. Kent Massie was very helpful about answering my questions. I was told the park district would have the proposed plans on their website soon, but over two weeks later it still isn't online.
A questionnaire about the park is buried three clicks into the park district website if you know where to look. It refers to concepts A, B, and C, but none of the concepts are available online.
I give Massie & Massie credit for already doing more to engage the public than what I'm used to seeing from some other local bodies like the Sangamon county board. But, the responsibility for public outreach can't be passed off to a consulting firm. If the park board cares about community involvement then they need to step in and make a more sincere effort. What I've seen so far suggests that they're only going through the motions of doing the bare minimum.
I've been thinking about calling a park board member to discuss the project, but since they aren't elected to individual districts I'm not sure which of the at-large members I should call first. I guess I'll pick a name at random.
Some things they should consider.
1) Hold another public meeting before a plan is presented.
2) Have a meeting format that encourages more back and forth discussion rather than one person sounding off at a microphone.
3) Ask for more open-ended suggestions even if they don't fit in with the three existing designs.
4) Provide the responses from surveys to the public along with a summary.
They may already be planning to do some of those things, but since their plans aren't on the park board website, I don't know.
Monday update: Massie & Associates are helpful again by sending an email with the proposals in response to an email I sent Friday. Still no sign of updates to the Park District website.
This is going to be cool. Four new and entertaining environmental films are coming to Springfield during Earth Week.
Flow
Monday, April 20, 6:00pm
Lincoln Library
Followed by a presentation from Citizens for Sensible Water Use.
Free Admission
Food Fight
Wednesday, April 22, 7:00pm
City Nights Theater at Capital City Bar & Grill.
Followed by a program from The Illinois Stewardship Alliance.
Free Admission
Sierra Club Green Jobs Sunday
Greening of Southie
Sunday, April 26, 5:00pm
Hoogland Center Theater, 3rd Floor
Suggested donation of $5 or more.
Featured speaker at 6:30
State Representative Mike Boland of Moline, Sponsor of the Illinois Green Buildings Act.
A brief intermission and raffle drawing will precede the second film.
Battle in Seattle
Sunday, April 26, 7:00pm
Hoogland Center Theater, 3rd Floor
Suggested donation of $5 or more.
Donations on Sunday will be used to offset costs of the film festival, and any additional proceeds will fund local environmental efforts by the Sierra Club Sangamon Valley Group.
The next Liberty Brew & View movie is Body of War, Tuesday, March 17, 7:00pm at City Nights Theater in Capital City Bar & Grill, Springfield.
A lot of documentaries have been made about peace and war in the past few years and I believe this one is the most powerful, personal and relevant. It follows a veteran opposed to the Iraq War and it raises issues that are important to veterans no matter how they feel about the war and no matter what happens in Iraq or Afghanistan.
You can click and print the flier below.
Mayor Davlin was in Washington DC this week with a delegation trying to make sure Springfield makes the most of the stimulus money.
Also in DC last week were over 10,000 young people for the Power Shift 2009 youth climate change summit.
I wonder if they ran into each other.
Pat Quinn should be feeling good about the 5th Congressional district results. Quigley had the advantage of wide name recognition but he didn't have the most declared organizational support. He even carried some wards where the Democratic organization backed someone else.
As far as I can tell from Springfield, Quigley's central message is his record of being a reformer and being a stand out on environmental issues, including mass transit. He has the same appeal as Quinn, the environmentally friendly, populist reformer who the establishment dismisses as a gadfly.
This is an unusual time in Illinois when the anti-establishment outsiders are coming into power.
In the world of political staff and office holders there are those who take a condescending attitude toward the issue-motivated bleeding hearts. Many of the people who worked for Pat Quinn over the years went into the issue oriented non-profit world and now some of them are coming back into state government.
I kind of enjoy seeing the people who always follow the establishment suck up to the same people they dismissively looked down their noses at a year ago. This isn't the year of the insider.
I watched two documentaries this weekend.
Radiant City
Better than I expected. Not too much griping about the suburbs and some experts on city planning who got me thinking.
Bomb it
Predictable defense of graffiti as artwork and social commentary. I still don't see someone illegibly scribbling their name on a wall as any more profound than a cat marking its territory, but they did show a few talented artists.
Former Paul Simon Public Policy Institute director Mike Lawrence has another guest editorial about state finances in the SJR today. Once again he completely ignores the most fair tax solution that's favored by most Illinoisans: a progressive income tax increase on high income earners.
Last October the public policy institute released a poll about the state budget and possible new revenue sources. The SJR article about the poll stated:
Sales and income tax increases were soundly rejected, and expanding gambling and selling or leasing state assets such as the lottery were turned down.What I didn't see him talk about in interviews is the one new funding source that a majority supported.
Lawrence blames that on voters not understanding how big the budget problem is...“There’s no painless way out of this budget situation,” Lawrence said. “We need to have a reality check.”
A proposal to add brackets to the state income tax structure so that higher-income residents pay higher taxes. Do you favor or oppose this?The problem isn't that voters need a reality check or that they don't support new funding sources. They simply don't support the kind of regressive funding sources Lawrence prefers talking about.
Favor 65.9%
Oppose 28.8%
DK/NA 5.2%
The new funding sources Lawrence writes about in today's editorial, such as a tax on services and restoring the sales tax on food and medicine, all have one thing in common. They punish the middle class and working poor more than an income tax increase on the wealthiest earners.
Why does Lawrence consistently ignore the only new funding source that most voters support? My guess is that it's because he's a Republican, and despite all of their anti-tax rhetoric, conservatives usually support tax increases that unfairly place the burden on the middle-class and poor.
It's time for the General Assembly to put a progressive income tax on high earners on the 2010 ballot. It won't solve our budget problems this year, but it will provide a long term answer for state finances while making Illinois' tax system more fair.
Lawrence ends his editorial by alluding to Lincoln, so I'll end my blog post with a reminder that Lincoln did not share Lawrence's fondness for a regressive tax system.