Don't let the 1% pollute our air in Springfield!

"Artist's rendering" which fails to show nearby houses

Please forward this to your friends and coworkers! 

Springfield residents should contact their city councilors to support these resolutions and contact Governor Patrick to urge him to uphold state law.

Springfield, MA - November 17, 2011 - Members of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield (STIS), a volunteer group opposed to the building of the Palmer Renewable Energy (“PRE”) biomass incinerator, are outraged at the issuance of the building permit by Springfield Building Commissioner Desilets that would allow construction to begin on the incinerator.  According to Lee Ann Warner, STIS spokesperson, "This permit flies in the face of the Springfield City Council's 10-2 revocation vote of PRE's special permit.  It sets a very dangerous precedent for Springfield to allow utility-scale incinerator development within the city limits without any special permitting.  This effectively eliminates the public’s voice in decisions that affect our health."

 

Patrick Markey, concerned Springfield citizen and attorney, states, "The city’s issuance of a building permit for the PRE incinerator is contrary to the requirements of the City’s zoning rules.  The facility lacks a necessary special permit."

 

Sue Reid, Director of Conservation Law Foundation – Massachusetts, added "The issuance of a building permit to PRE is directly at odds with the City Council’s revocation of PRE’s Special Permit.  In addition, PRE’s rush to secure an unlawful building permit is baffling:  state law prohibits PRE from beginning any construction because it does not have a final air permit.”

  

On Monday, November 21, at 6:30 pm in City Hall, the Springfield City Council will meet and vote on two resolutions concerning the PRE biomass incinerator.  Michaelann Bewsee notes, "The first resolution would reaffirm City Council’s finding that the PRE Biomass plant is an incinerator that requires a special permit on land zoned Industrial A.  The second resolution calls on the state to enforce its rule of no construction of a polluting facility prior to issuance of a final, non-appealable state air permit.  The people of Springfield spoke loudly and clearly that they do not want – and should not have to tolerate – any more pollution in our already overburdened city.  We commend the city councilors for acting on behalf of the people and support them in passing these resolutions."

Thank you from the volunteers at STIS, www.springfieldincinerator.info.

Environmental justice: so far, just words on paper

Recently I've been thinking about Lois Gibbs. Remember her and Love Canal? In 1978 Lois found out that her child's school-- in fact, her whole neighborhood-- was built on Occidental Petroluem's toxic waste dump. Three solid years of community organizing eventually got then-President Carter to relocate 900 families from her community. That gives me a little hope. We're only a year and a half into our organizing here in Springfield, Massachusetts to stop construction of a biomass incinerator. The tough part is we're doing everything right and so far, it hasn't seemed to make a difference-- maybe that's just the way it goes until we win. We do have quite a few more cards up our sleeve. Nothing, from lawsuits and lobbying to direct action and civil disobedience, is off the table.

On Friday, we got the bad news from the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency (oxymoron) that the agency is not going to require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) of Palmer Renewable Energy's incinerator proposal-- this in spite of more than 450 comments submitted by area residents asking for the full study. You can read the decision here. This could put the proposal on a very fast track-- I think they only need an air permit from the state to start breaking ground-- that and the continued approval of the Springfield City Council.

OK, I'm scared and fighting mad. Our group, Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, isn't against this plant simply because of some intangible though legitimate fear of global warming. We're talking about our quality of life-- indeed our very lives themselves.. One in seven children in Springfield has asthma. Our kids' asthma rate is higher than Worcester and Boston, and 65% higher than the state average. We know that air pollution affects everyone, especially those with heart and lung disease. Hospital admissions climb on bad air days. And a new study from Boston Children's Hospital finds a strong correlation between air pollution and and an increase in Type 2 Diabetes, even when all other factors are accounted for and even when the pollution is within EPA guidelines and acceptable limits..

And herein lies the problem: "Acceptable limits" are not the same as safe limits; what's acceptable to the state doesn't mean people won't get sick in Springfield. I got the bad news about no EIR from David Cash, Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. He kept talking about how the pollution from the plant-- which is undisputed-- was within acceptable threshholds, did not violate regulations, blah blah blah, and besides that, the developer intend to give $2 million to the city, mostly for "mitigation strategies!"

And what is a mitigation strategy, you might ask? That's where the developers get to make your child sick while paying for heath education for somebody else's child. It's supposed to all come out in the wash. But even if it were true that the negative health impacts from this plant could be offset by two million bucks, which I don't believe for a minute, we have no power over which children and adults get sicker and which get better. Hey, we don't live our lives on paper and in statistics, we're real people here.

Cash said I could ask him any questions I liked, but I have emailed him three times with these two questions and so far have had no response:

• Forgetting about allowable limits, regulations, etc., can you say unequivocally that this plant will cause no harm to anyone who lives in the Springfield area? Yes or no.
• If the answer to the first question is no, can you say unequivocally that any negative health impact will be entirely offset by PRE's mitigation strategy? Yes or no.

One issue MEPA clearly doesn't have a handle on is the cumulative effect of pollution. Stopping biomass incinerators isn't just a Springfield fight; residents of Greenfield and Russell have been fighting off plants, too. And it's not just Massachusetts-- tonight we heard from a group in Crawford County, Pennsylvania, which is fighting a plan by the same developers to burn 900 tons of tires a day to produce energy! Check out Crawford Area Residents for the Environment. The woman who contacted us from their group said that looking at our group's website was like looking in the mirror.

So what do we do next? We're looking at some legal strategies, but our big focus for the moment is on the Springfield City Council, which has the power to stop this plant by revoking its original permit. I've heard from several councilors, as well as from Mayor Sarno, that it's all in the state's hands. Well, the state has dropped the ball. I wrote about the last, very disappointing city council meeting, but the next meeting, on December 13, will be significant if not decisive. City Councilor Mike Fenton and several others are sponsoring a resolution calling for a public hearing, but at this point, with PRE now on the fast track, I think we're going to need something a lot stronger, something that actually stops PRE from breaking ground before the end of December.

In June of 2009, maybe fifty people (most in the city administration) knew about PRE's incinerator proposal. Now thousands of people know, and 99.9% oppose it. But now is not the time to oppose the plant just in your head. Call city hall at 787-6000 and ask for the mayor's. Call your ward councilor and all the at-large councilors-- you can get their numbers on the city council's webpage. Call Helen Caulton-Harris, Health and Human Services Director, at 787-6740, and tell her to find a way to stop this. Call Secretary of Environmental and Energy's Ian Bowles' office-- whosae decision it was nmot to require an environmental impact report, at. 617.626.1000. And Call the Governor's office-- 617.725.4005, 888.870.7770 (in state).

Most important, turn up at City Council on Monday, December 13, and let your councilors know it's time to stand up for the people of Springfield. And if you want to come to our planning meetings, let me know. The more of us fighting, the more likely we are to win.

65 years ago today

At 8:13 a.m., the first of two atomic bombs fell on Japan.  A quarter of a million people died within four months, half on the first days of the bombing.

65 years later, 26,000 nuclear warheads stand ready to annihilate the world.

Today, monks and nuns from the Leverett Peace Pagoda and other fellow human beings will arrive in Springfield, MA to promote peace.  In particular, they have hoped that Springfield's Mayor Sarno would join Mayors for Peace, an international association of more than 4,069 cities calling for an end to nuclear weapons by 2020.  For the second year in a row, calls to the mayor's office for a meeting have gone unreturned.  Nineteen Massachusetts cities and towns have already signed on, including West Springfield and Chicopee.  Not Springfield, not yet.  But at around 3:30 today, they will gather on the steps of City Hall to pray for peace, and at 5:30, they will join other community members at Arise for Social Justice, 467 State St. for a short program and a potluck supper.

You are welcome to join us.

Photo of a lotus from the Peace Pagoda from NeilinBoston's photostream at Flickr.
 

Mayor Sarno stumbles with the new city council, the public and the police

When Ward Four City Councilor E. Henry Twiggs put out the call last week that his committee would be discussing proposals for a new Civilian  Police Review Board, I'm sure he had no idea that Mayor Domenic Sarno would release his own proposal by executive order the day before the meeting.  For some strange reason, the city council actually thought it would have some input into the proposal, given that nine police officers in two separate incidents are now under investigation and at least some councilor's phone have been quite busy with calls from constituents.

But the meeting still took place last night in Room 220, and members of the Civil Rights and Race Relations Committee-- E. Henry Twiggs, John Lysak and Keith Wright-- were joined by Melvin Edwards, Katari Walsh, Michael Fenton, Thomas Ashe, Zaida Luna and Timothy Rooke!  With James Ferrera and Tim Allen in the audience, the only city councilors who weren't in attendence were Clodo Concepcion and and Jose Tosado.

On one side of the room sat members of the Springfield Police Department.  On the other side sat about 40 community members.

The first part of the meeting was given over to a presentation by City Solicitor Edward Pikula, who had completed the thankless task of coming up with the civilian police commission plan.  He was closely questioned by council members about some fairly complicated elements that shaped the plan-- Police Commissioner Fitchet's contract, civil service requirements, charter change and the police union's contract.  Councilor Twiggs made it clear he was not happy that council members were not consulted in the drafting of the proposal.  Then the meeting was turned over to speakers.

Police Union President Joseph Gentile spoke first, and said that the union did not support Mayor Sarno's new civilian police commission.  He said he wanted very much to see race relations in between the police and the community improve, and thought that community policing, which we no longer have, would do it.  He reminded us that the original police commission, which was disbanded as a condition of Commissioner Edward Flynn's hire, had the power to seek funding, develop program, hire, fire, commend and discipline as well as other powers.  Gentile's solution was something close to the original commission.)

(I'm going to stop here for a moment to .remember Ed Flynn as one of the most arrogant and incompetent persons I've ever met.  He wanted to be Commissioner, not Chief; he wanted all the powers of the Police Commission, and he left for a job in Milwaukee only 19 months into a five year contract. In trying to his leaving, he said, "I am two things ... and they're both real. I am an idealist about this job, and I am ambitious. The gap between the two gets filled with guilt," said Flynn, a well-traveled, pedigreed executive in blue, whose presence in Springfield has been unwelcome by many among the rank-and-file of the department."  Republican.   Some of the problems we're facing right now belong on his shoulders.)

Most of the people who spoke next talked about their intense disappointment  in being excluded from the process of determining the form pf police oversight; some, such as Arise for Social Justice and Rev. Talbert Swan, had submitted written suggestions. Others spoke about the mistrust in the community and the need to make sure that allegations of police brutality were thoroughly investigated by a commission with real powers, lacking in Sarno's commiission. 

I spoke near the end.  The point I wanted to make is that people who voted for ward representation in Springfield did so with the expectation that their councilors would be able to participate in decisions that affected their neighborhoods.  But first, I mentioned that I had been arrested in that very room about five years before at a city auction of tax title property, and charged with disturbing the peace, which was true, seeing as I was speaking out of turn, and with assault and battery on a police officer, completely untrue, and that the charges had been dropped when the officer failed to appear in court..  At that point I inclined myself toward the police officers, and said, ruefully, "You know, guys, that's the kind of thing-- putting charges on people they don't deserve-- that breeds cynicism and mistrust and that has to stop."

After I sat down, I glanced over to the officers' side of the room. It happened so quickly that at first I wasn't sure what I saw, but what I saw was an officer with his hand in the shape of a gun, held low to his lap, and pointed directly at me.

How the issues of police management and accountability in this city will be resolved, I don't know, but it's clearly not over yet.  Councilor Ferrera will be introducing his own version of a police commission on Monday night, which Councilor Twiggs has already said he doesn't support, but as Ferrera said to me this morning, at least the council will have the opportunity to debate, amend, accept or reject his proposal, an opportunity they were denied with Sarno's executive order.   And although no councilor at the meeting overtly expressed anger at Mayor Sarno (Ed Pikula was the stand-in for that), relations certainly haven't been improved.  It was only this January 20 that City Council President Jose Tosado called the lack of communication between the mayor and city council "institutionalized disfunction."  Ward representation can't be effective if the council continues to be shut out of the government.

Drawing from Shell's Daily Drawing.

5 more Springfield cops under investigation for alleged beating

On the face of it, police officers Jeffrey Asher and Danilo Feliciano couldn't be more different.

Jeffrey Asher has been involved in a number of unsavory incidents, including, most recently, the caught on tape beating of suspect Melvin Jones III.

Officer Feliciano, on the other hand, has helped to stop a woman from jumping out a window, helped save the life of a four year old who'd fallen into a motel swimming pool, and helped save a two year old who had stopped breathing after falling out of his crib.  MassLive.

But Feliciano has now been indicted for assault and battery,  and he and at least four other officers are under criminal and departmental investigation.

Here's what appears to have happened: Feliciano's niece came to the Springfield, MA police station September 24 to file a complaint against her boyfriend, Rolando Rivera, saying he had assaulted her.  She was advised to seek a restraining order and on the next day, officers went to Rivera's apartment to serve the restraining order.  Now, the police department arrest record for Rivera was written by an Officer Pedro Mendez, and he says in his report that Rivera took a swing at him and then a violent struggle ensued, during which he struck Rivera several times with his police radio.  Eventually Rivera was subdued and arrested for assault and battery on a police officer, taken to the station, and then served the restraining order.  Officer Feliciano's name is not mentioned in the report.

On October 4, Rivera filed a complaint against Feliciano and on January 22, the Westfield District Court found probable cause to issue a criminal complaint of assault and battery.  It does not require a very deep reading between the lines of the arrest record and the criminal complaint to get a sense of how the incident unfolded.

Wouldn't it make good sense for an officer with a family member who says she was assaulted NOT to be among the team serving a restraining order to the assaultee?   Mendez says he was unable to call for help on his radio, which he was using in other ways, but he was able to click the radio key open.  Is that why other police showed up?  Or, more likely, were they all there from the beginning?

Meanwhile, Mayor Sarno said last week that he expected to hear back from City Solicitor Ed Pakula with a proposal for a police citizens review with disciplinary powers. I'm reserving judgment,  but I'm already concerned because of the lack of citizen input. Some organizations in this city, including Arise for Social Justice, have been working on the issue of police accountability for a long time.  We never fail to speak up and we are never paid more than lip service.   Will this time be different?

Police officer to head new civilian police commission?

In a seemingly quick response to Thursday's news about another alleged instance of police use of excessive force, Springfield's Mayor Domenic Sarno announced today he intends to create a new civilian police commission-- one with disciplinary powers.  He announced that beginning Sunday, Captain Robert Cheetham will be in charge, not only of the new board, but also the entire Internal Affairs Unit.

I'm sure we'll hear more details tomorrow, but at the moment I have some questions.

First, when did Mayor Sarno actually find out about the November 27th "encounter" between Melvin Jones III and the four police officers, which left Melvin with partial loss of sight in one eye?  We the community found out last Thursday, when the Springfield Republican broke the story, along with accompanying video.  Turns out that city and police officials had had the video for several weeks.  So it seems as if Sarno's quick response was only quick if compared to the date of community outrage.

Second, not too make too long a process out of this, will Sarno be seeking community input into the structure and composition of this new civilian police commission

Third, what is the police union going to have to say about this?  I find it hard to believe the union will willingly allow its members to be disciplined by a structure outside the department.  (Not saying this shouldn't happen, but will it?)

Does anyone remember the April, 2007 report on the right form of community review of the police for the City of Springfield?  The city paid a pretty penny for it and that report shaped the current, toothless system of police oversight, but it did put its finger on one serious problem.  From the report by Jack McDevitt and Amy Farrell:

The single most significant challenge facing the City of Springfield as they establish a new Civilian Review Board is the time constraints that the department is operating under as part of the existing Collective bargaining agreement. The current police contract for the Springfield Police Department requires a disposition of all complaints within 90 days. The current contact specifies:

        All interdepartmental charges against a unit member shall be initiated no later
        than ninety (90) days following the alleged offense or the date the City became
        aware of the alleged offense whichever is later, and a hearing on said charges
        shall be held within six (60) days thereafter, unless a later date is mutually
        agreed upon by the parties (Article 6, Section 4).

This requirement creates a major obstacle to any complaint review process adopted in
Springfield. Thus, the review model chosen for the city most work within the confines of
the existing 90 day disposition requirement. Very few police agencies across the country
face similar constraints when they attempt to establish an external review process.

Last question, but scarcely the least important: what is going to happen to Officer Jeffrey Asher and the other three officers?

Watching the community forum the last few days, I've wondered why the pro-police commenters, who are often the same people who think Melvin Jones III got what was coming to him, don't realize something very basic: that much of our community will not be able to turn to the police as part of the solution to a safe community until we ourselves feel safe intersecting with the police. A few bad cops are allowed to poison the atmosphere, and why other officers and the department in general put up with it, I just don't know.

Closing parks to the homeless - everyone suffers

Joel John Roberts at L.A.'s Homeless Blog has a post on a trend that hurts everybody-- closing parks to the public when homeless people start spending time or sleeping there. He found an article by Kay Ebeling at the L.A. Buzz Examiner which explores the exclusion of homeless people from aspects of life we take for granted-- like going to the park.

Last couple times I’ve tried to go to a park where I live on the near West Side of LA, the few square feet of green was cordoned off with police tape. The response to a growing number of homeless people living in parks all over this city is for the city to shut down the parks. Eight foot high spiked fence keeps people out of Lafayette Park, police patrol cars and yellow crime scene tape keep you away from any greenery in Beverly Hills or strips of respite that used to line Wilshire Boulevard.
Still there are people trying to find a place to just sit for a few hours and rest.

Say, that 'minds me-- whatever happened to the Mayor of Springfield Domenic Sarno's promise to return park benches to the city's central jewel, Court Square? It's been more than three years since the park benches were removed as part of a renovation long since completed. Of course, it's winter, now, so the city has an excuse. Maybe we can finally get some action in the spring.

Making Springfield Green : slower than molasses

Every so often I give Springfield Mayoral Aide Darryl Moss a call to ask if a "Green Point Person" has been identified/hired yet. Just to refresh people's minds, here's what Domenic Sarno said at his inaugural address:

• We will designate a municipal official to coordinate and manage our "green" initiatives.
• We will consider the environmental impact in procuring goods and services.
• We will critically evaluate our use of energy of all types and institute measures to reduce energy consumption.
• We will develop and implement smart growth policies that encourage "green" design and sustainable development.
• And we will look at ways to reduce the city's carbon footprint and to remediate existing environmental issues.

On Friday, Darryl said he thought someone had been hired and he'd call me back with the name, which he did not do. Today when I finally got through to Darryl, he told me that the person I wanted to talk to was Brian Connors, and gave me a number. It turned out to be the Economic Development Office.

"So, I understand you're the new point person for green development."
"No, I'm not," he said.

Turns out that the city has just posted a job opening for a business development position which will include green development.

So let's say the position is advertised for a month. Then another month for interviews and picking a candidate. So now we're talking nine or ten months from the beginning of Sarno's term.

I suppose I shouldn't assume that just because no municipal official has yet been hired or appointed that no progress has been made on the other environmental goals Sarno set. I'm going to try to find out. But then again, who will I ask?

For what it's worth: no free ride for Sarno

I know that many Springfield residents have been feeling downright blackmailed by Governor Patrick's proposal to extend our loan from the state from 5 to 12 years. Why? Because in order to get this extension, we also have to go along with three other, much more distasteful provisions-- creating a new position in Springfield government for a "Chief Financial Officer," increasing the mayor's salary, and extending the mayor's term from two to four years. This binding question will be on our November ballot.

One concern citizens have had is whether the four year term would extend to Mayor Sarno's current term. I am pleased to report that the four year term provision (and, probably, the salary increase) would not take affect until the first election after the question is passed.

Our local Election Office has not yet received the wording of any of the questions which will be on the ballot this fall. This is a perennial problem and it gives them very little time to print and prepare the ballot. To get an answer, I talked to the Election Division of the Secretary of State's Office. Interestingly enough, they were unable to find any info except for the mayor's term question, which makes me wonder: will these provisions really all be in one question-- in other words, take the whole package or get nothing-- or if they will be separate questions after all.

Tomorrow on my lunch break I'll call the Governor's office and see what else I can find out. Or does someone already know the answer?

Rep. Ben Swan's campaign kicks off/ Mayor should hide his head

My sister and I went down to the Keg Room late Thursday afternoon to go to Ben's first fundraiser of the season. I'd call it a successful event-- maybe a hundred people, a minimum of speeches, and enough food to keep people happy.

I ran into Juan Gerena, director of the Puerto Rican Cultural Center, and we chatted for a while. I told him I thought it was a good move to cancel the Puerto Rican Festival this year. He said that if people didn't behave at this year's Puerto Rican parade, it would be the last year for the parade, also.

"We've got too much other important business to spend our time and energy on a festival right now," he said.

Juan asked how come I wasn't at Springfield's legislatively-sponsored hearing about Gov. Patrick's proposed bill for Springfield. (I was in Boston all day for my job.) The bill, which will take the form of a binding referendum on November 4th's election ballot, proposes an extension of our $52 million loan from the state to twelve years from our current five. Unfortunately, that proposal comes with three conditions, which come as close to blackmail as anything I can think of: a raise for the mayor, the establishment of a new position, a Chief Financial Officer, AND an extension of the mayor's term of office from two years to four years. I imagine most of the citizens of this city feels the same sense of disgust at this proposal that I do. Nobody likes being strong-armed.

(Another bizarre aspect of the governor's proposal, that only a few people recognize, is how very different the voter approval path for this referendum is than the one we ward rep advocates had to take. Among other things, this question is going on the ballot in an even numbered year that is usually reserved only for state and federal elections. Juan said Rep. Cheryl Rivera brought this up at the budget hearing.))

I've said I wasn't opposed to the idea of four year terms for mayor in general, but Juan pointed out something that has made me change my mind. Think, he said, of the size of the war chest a four year mayor could build up over that time period-- it would make him pretty damn unbeatable. Oops! Hadn't thought of that one. He's right.

No one seems to be very clear yet on whether this four year term measure, if passed, would automatically extend the current Mayor Sarno's term from two to four years. If it does, I'd say that's the kiss of death for the Governor's proposal.

About an hour into Ben's fundraiser, Domenic Sarno stopped in. He said a few kind words about Ben and then said he was off to a School Committee meeting. I could hardly even look at the guy. Rarely have I seen a new administration get off to such a bumbling and heavy-handed start. The trash fee, of course, is a prime though not sole example. If Sarno had brought the community in on decision-making about the trash fee, he could have won our support. Of course, a lot of people who voted for Sarno did so thinking that they were involved in making a decision about the trash fee, and that decision was to eliminate it.

Liz and I left after about an hour, my tolerance for political people in a bar having come to an end.

I will work on Ben's campaign; just give me a stack of flyers to distribute and I'll go door to door.I'd rather be a foot soldier than a general when it comes to getting a candidate elected-- even one I like.

Meanwhile, the Sarno saga has only just begun.

Four year mayoral term? PLEASE don't make it retroactive.

Gov. Patrick introduced a several part bill into the Massachusetts Legislature today on Springfield's behalf. If passed, two minor portions of the bill would create new financial officer positions for Springfield and set up a study commission to determine if the mayor's salary should be increased from $95,000.

The big news, however, would be the extension of Springfield's $52 million loan from from a five year payback to twelve years, and the extension of the mayor's term of office from two to four year.

The loan extension is good news. We need a balanced budget in Springfield but too many years of austerity in a row are bad for the city's spirit. We need a little wiggle room.

Changing the mayor's term to four years is a good idea, too, but I'm afraid that with the increasing dislike for Springfield's current mayor, Domenic Sarno, people might reject this idea out of hand. I know the law won't be retroactive, just kidding in the post's title, but again, people might subconsciously think of support for the proposal as as a vote of confidence in Sarno. The question would go on this year's ballot if passed by the legislature.

(I must say, how simple a change in charter becomes when the right political support is leveraged. Changing to ward representation took years of citizen effort.)

Think of yourself, starting a new job in top management. Is two years long enough to learn the job's fine point, keep a lot of balls in the air at one time, and achieve major accomplishments and reforms Would you want to be judged after two years-- actually, a year and a half, given someone will be running against you at least six months before your term is finished?

I'm not saying it's impossible to judge if someone is doing an appallingly bad job, but it's not always possible to judge is someone is going to do a good job in just two years. Let's hope Springfield voters can take this on with cool heads.

Sarno and the city's trash fee: doing the right thing in the wrong way..

Domenic Sarno made a number of different promises when he campaigned for mayor of Springfield, MA last fall, but the promise that probably got him the most votes was his promise to eliminate the $90 annual trash fee imposed by Springfield's Control Board.

Well, this year's budget was finally been released, and the $90 trash fee is still a part of the budget-- but Sarno says he intends for the city to move to a "pay as you throw" system.

People are angry, rightly so, but I hope Springfield's residents don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. "Pay as you throw" is a good system, but Sarno has gone about it all wrong. Anger should focus on the process rather than the content of his proposal And we are right to be angry about his broken promises. It's exactly this kind of crap that makes people cynical and and decreases our willingness to engage in civic participation. Here's a link to Sarno's promises at his inaugural address. I think every Springfield resident should read this once a week.

According to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, here are some key steps our mayor could have/should have taken to build support for his idea:

• Sell the Program to Key Decisionmakers. Begin by gaining the support of local officials. Prepare briefing documents that analyze costs and address potential concerns, and develop a number of program options from which decisionmakers can choose. Once support among key decisionmakers has been established, build community awareness and support for the program.
  
  
• Gather Public Input. Community awareness and support is a key to the ultimate success of PAYT programs. Without public support, a PAYT program has less chance of being accepted. After all, the citizens make the program work by following the rules. Comments should be solicited from the public to help identify misperceptions about the program and reasons for opposition, and to inform program planners of current public opinion. Public meetings also are important for providing an additional avenue for residents to voice their concerns and raise issues.
  
  
• Educate the Public. The final step in the process of building local support for unit-based pricing is to address the public's concerns and misperceptions. Provide program specifics and offer information on waste reduction and recycling. If residents believe the pricing structure is arbitrary and are unaware of ways to reduce their costs, the program is likely to fail.

Sarno may have "sold the program to key decisionmakers" but he certainly has not solicited public input or undertaken any public education. Maybe he intends to take these steps after the fact, but we shall see.

If this program doesn't get the public support it deserves, Sarno has so one to blame but himself.

His approach is unfortunately typical of elected officials.

Here's how he could have played it: hold a series of public hearings on our trash dilemma in different neighborhoods across the city, laying out an honest analysis of budget difficulties and soliciting input on possible solutions. I can guarantee you that at every meeting, at least one person would have proposed the "pay as you throw" system. And he could have built public support from there.

Instead, not only did Sarno not solicit public input, he mystified the entire budget process, refusing to allow City Council to even glimpse the budget, let alone have any say.

Some of the benefits of the "pay as you throw" system:

Fairness - each household pays based on its use of solid waste services.

Increased Recycling - residents have incentive to recycle.

Waste Reduction - consumers become more aware that they can purchase recyclable packaging, avoid excessive packaging and consider alternatives to disposable products.

Composting - householders can reduce waste and recycle by practicing home composting, vermicomposting (using worms) and grasscycling (leaving grass clippings on the lawn).

"Pay as you throw" systems are already in place in 117 cities and towns in Massachusetts.

The "Black Community," Majorie Hurst; Unexpected trip to City Council

Sunday night I blogged about Mayor Domenic Sarno's so far unkept promise about moving forward on the environment in Springfield, MA. On Monday, my sister called me to say that Councilor Ferrera intended to introduce a resolution to urge Mayor Sarno to establish a Green Commission at Monday's City Council meeting. So I took myself down to the public speak-out to talk about what could be done right away to improve our city's environment. It was a bit odd. Through the years I've addressed City Council on only two issues: homelessness and ward representation. There are limits to how thin I can spread myself! Well, we have ward representation, now. Homelessness is another story.

While I was in City Hall I picked up a copy of Point of View, the local newspaper published by Frederick and Marjorie Hurst, and read it while I waited for the public speak-out to begin. I could not help but contrast the image of the city's African-American population as represented in the newspaper with the image that many of the city's white people have of African-Americans.

Point of View's stories this month included an article on students at Frederick Harris School talking about peace, the accomplishments of Major Toy R. Frasier, Jr., the Basileus of the Delta Chi Chapter of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity located in Springfield, MA, the The 2nd Annual Hoop City Jazz & Art Festival, a column on Older Americans Month by Ruth Loving, and much more. The paper also included a pretty devastating picture of how an important issue about underperforming eighth graders was cavalierly decided.by by the School Committee. Marjorie is serving her last term as a School Committee member and was one of two dissenting votes. Read this article if you really want to know what went on at the school committee meeting. As Marjorie says,

"No research was conducted or cited. No public discussion was scheduled or held. No written policy was drafted or presented for review. And the adopted policy wasn’t even on the agenda for that night. It was simply brought forward as an oral motion by Christopher Collins, our newest school committee member, during his Curriculum and Programs subcommittee report of a meeting that had been held just prior to the school committee meeting.

And the four other members of the school committee voted in favor of it!!! We don’t know how much it will cost for busing or staffing or who will be in charge of this new program. Neither parents/guardians, students, teachers, nor principals have had any advance warning or opportunity to prepare for the implementation of this policy, which will go into effect next month. By contrast, we just recently spent over a year accumulating and studying data, holding meetings, getting feedback and buy-in and drafting and revising the wording for a school uniform policy, for heavens sake! And we spend all of 30 minutes discussing a policy that possibly will have permanent and irreparable effects on a segment of our students."

Yesterday five hundred people, mostly youth, participated in a vigil mourning the murder of Mario Hornsby, Jr., a high school student who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Two hours after the rally, police arrested a 17 year old man in the murder. Police said the community cooperated with the police with information leading to the suspect's apprehension.

Now contrast the above picture of the African-American community with what posters on Masslive-- anonymous, of course-- have to say about Black people. I have to paraphrase (no direct quoting allowed) but here goes:

• One poster, commenting on the vigil, says that nothing in the Black community will change until the community rejects its own image. (Which image is that, the Point of View image?)
• Another poster says that this (the violence) isn't a community problem, it's a Black problem. (Blacks aren't a part of this city?)
• Another poster, after calling the violence a Black problem, admits he/she has no idea what goes on in the Black community.
• Another poster says it's the fault of so-called Black "leaders."
• Another poster says that summer jobs are just throwing money at "baby thugs."
• Another poster suggests tying them to a tree and beating some sense into them.

As usual, there are a few thoughtful posts.

I wonder what would happen if I started posting comments on Masslive like, "If only the white community would stop glorifying gangsters, we'd have less mob activity," or "White people just wanna lock themselves away in their gated communities and leave the rest of us to sink or swim." Boy, would I get jumped on!

Too many times we white people see only a part of the picture and think it describes the entire Black community. We say, "We're not racist, we're just telling it like it is!" And we ignore any evidence to the contrary.

On my way to work this morning, I saw: Black kids in groups walking to school, Black men in suits waiting for the bus, Black moms waiting at the bus stop with their kids, two Black guys on a corner with documents in their hands gesturing to a local building, a young Black man in a work uniform headed to work at Dunkin Donuts, two Black women dressed the way lawyers dress walking toward the intersection of State and Main.

Yes, communities of color are struggling with drugs, crime, the school drop-out rate-- but most Black kids manage to make it through school without getting addicted to drugs or being murdered or murdering. And these problems are scarcely non-existent among whites.

Here's hoping that someday we can see each other in the full range of our struggles and triumphs, without stereotypes and generalizations, and wishing the best for each other.

Seven actions Mayor Sarno could take RIGHT NOW to improve Springfield's environment

I know a number of Springfield, MA citizens are tracking the commitments Mayor Domenic Sarno made at his Inaugural Address on January 7. He named his five priorities as increasing public safety, improving our schools, creating jobs and expanding our tax base, maintaining and expanding basic services to Springfield residents, and environmental stewardship.

Specifically regarding the environment, Sarno stated:

• We will designate a municipal official to coordinate and manage our "green" initiatives.
• We will consider the environmental impact in procuring goods and services.
• We will critically evaluate our use of energy of all types and institute measures to reduce energy consumption.
• We will develop and implement smart growth policies that encourage "green" design and sustainable development.
• And we will look at ways to reduce the city's carbon footprint and to remediate existing environmental issues.

More than four months into Sarno's term-- more than one-sixth of the period in which he will serve-- and he has yet to implement his very first priority-- designating a municipal official to coordinate and manage green initiatives.
I think we can assume that without that first step, no progress is being made on the rest of his environmental commitments.

In light of the city's fifth murder this year on Friday, I understand that improving our city's environment probably doesn't rank very high on the list for a lot of people. But that doesn't mean that nothing can and should be done to keep this Sarno commitment, just as all his commitments need to be closely monitored..

Here's seven things Mayor Sarno can do right now that will cost little or no money and that will make immediate improvements on our city's environment. Some will even save us money! Not all of them are the most important in the grand scheme of things, but it gives you an idea of what can be done with just a little thought:

1. Appoint a municipal official to oversee green initiatives.
2. Appoint an audit team to assess the current siutation to to recommend improvements in city services including water supply and sanitation and solid waste management.
3. Re-examine all the intersections which do not allow "right turn on red" with the goal of identifying intersections that can safely be added to the list.
4. Monitor and aggressive promote any statewide environmental legislation that would improve our city, and pass local versions if necessary. (I wrote here about school bus anti-idling legislation; there is nothing to prevent a local version from being passed ASAP.)
5. Ban all toxic chemical use in school systems and public buildings and replace them with safe alternatives.
6. Introduce legislation right now that requires that any new construction that uses any public funds to include green design elements.
7. Mandate that all city departments, including all schools, thoroughly sort its trash for recycling.

Talking about the environment, especially on the day you are inaugurated as mayor, certainly sounds good, but actions speak louder than words. If we the citizens don't hold Mayor Sarno accountable to his commitments, who will?

Springfield: does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?

Last week two events of some significance were held in Springfield, MA, a "Developers' Conference" and a seminar on green space development and preservation.

The developers' conference took 110 developers on a tour of Springfield to look at potential sites such as the old York St. Jail site on Columbus Ave and the Smith and Wesson Industrial Park. Given the economic times, Mayor Sarno's plan to proactively recruit developers is a good effort.

The Green Space conference (which cost $35) was a follow-up on Springfield's ranking among the best green cities in the U.S. last year by Country Home magazine. This ranking, by the way, does not mean the city has a top-ranked environmental policy-- only that we are blessed with much green space and waterways and we have managed to preserve them to a high degree-- no small potatoes in this day and age.

That said, no developer was told that their project would receive priority if it included elements of green design.

What makes a building green? California's Integrated Waste Management Board defines it this way:

• A green building, also known as a sustainable building, is a structure that is designed, built, renovated, operated, or reused in an ecological and resource-efficient manner. Green buildings are designed to meet certain objectives such as protecting occupant health; improving employee productivity; using energy, water, and other resources more efficiently; and reducing the overall impact to the environment.

What are a few of the elements of green design?

• Takes advantage of mass transit, protects the existing landscaping and natural features, uses recycled materials.
• Uses natural lighting strategies, uses an energy-efficient heating and cooling system, uses light-colored roofing.
• Uses designs that promote recycling, uses low-flush toilets and designs state-of-the-art irrigation controls.

There's much more, of course, that can be done. But as long as Springfield lacks an integrated approach to development, as long as the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, we will continue to miss important opportunities to become more energy-independent and to make a significant contribution to the quality of our environment.

Photo by Bill Weye

Whose regional homeless plan is it, anyway?

Springfield, Holyoke and Northampton MA mayors will be presenting their "Pioneer Valley Plan to End Homelessness: All Roads Lead Home" on Friday, February 29 at the Holyoke Community College, 9:30 - 12:30 in the Peoples Bank room at the Kittridge Center. "Legislators, State and Local agencies, service and housing providers, community groups, business leaders and the faith community are encouraged to attend," according to an email I got.

No mention of homeless people, of course, but that's par for the course.

Our old friend Phil Mangano, Executive Director of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness will be the keynote speaker-- the same guy who promotes Ten Year Plans without ever mentioning that the man he works for, George Bush, continues to decimate housing opportunities. Will he change his tune now that the Presidential election is approaching, and actually say we need more housing?

I'm trying not to be cynical, here-- communities working together to end homelessness is a brand new phenomenon in this region-- but will we be skating on thin ice or really plumbing the depths of this crisis?

Time for Springfield to eliminate plastic bags

If Mayor Domenic Sarno wants to be known as Springfield's environmental mayor, he could set in motion a plan that would virtually eliminate plastic bags in this city.

First, hold this image in your mind: You're sailing in the North Pacific, on your way home from a sailing race in Hawaii, when you notice you've sailed into as sea of plastic waste suspended just below the surface of the water. You have to sail through an area twice the size of the continental U.S. before you are clear of it. That's what happened to Charles Moore, businessman turned environmental activist, in 1997. Today the plastic soup is estimated at 100 million tons and growing. Independent UK.

Plastic bags are a significant part of this soup. Less than one percent of these bags are recycled and they can cause damage in unexpected ways. In the state of Maharashtra, India, plastic bags clogging sewer drains were blamed for flooding that caused the deaths of more than a thousand people in 2005. Bangladesh has banned plastic bags completely for that reason, as has Sri Lanka.

Not surprisingly, a number of other countries are ahead of the U.S. in dealing with plastic bags, including China, France and Israel. The most successful strategy seems to be on Ireland's model-- charge a substantial tax on each plastic bag consumers use and don't allow stores to pick up the cost for the shoppers. Plastic bag usage has fallen by 90% and the substantial revenues raised are going into environmental projects. before the tax, Ireland's consumers were being given an astounding 1.2 billion bags a year.

Seeing as we lack a national strategy, cities are beginning to take action. Portland OR, Oakland CA and the city and county of San Francisco have all banned plastic bags, as well as 30 cities and towns in Alaska!

Sen. Brian Joyce of Milton has introduced legislation to charge Massachusetts consumers a tax on each plastic bag. Boston has been considering a ban. How about if Springfield takes the lead in Western Mass.?.
Map from Independent Graphics

Fewer homeless counted this year than last year in Springfield

Mayor Sarno and Gerry McCafferty, deputy director of the Office for Housing, had some good news to announce to the press yesterday: there are 37 fewer single people homeless this year than last year.

The Housing First model, which prioritizes housing and services for the city's most entrenched homeless people, seems to be paying off. The strategy is to house those 10% of the homeless who use the most resources, leaving more resources for the other 90%.

There's a lot I think is missing from the Housing First model-- like new housing!-- but what is very different in Springfield now compared to three years ago is that the city has a plan. Homeless people and allies have moved the city from ignoring homelessness to managing it. Too bad homeless people can't be a part of that "management," but how often does that get to happen? Maybe only in tent cities....

George Graham from the Republican called me yesterday for any thoughts I had about this news, but I didn't have a lot to say. My organization, Arise for Social Justice, hasn't been organizing with homeless people since the end of May, when we had to close our headquarters and the Warming Place shelter was forced to close. Arise has never been a smoke and mirrors organization; as old saw as it sounds, our authority comes from the people and we won't have much to say until we're doing the work again. That won't be much longer, I hope. Next week we're painting over the "Coming Soon" above Arise for Social Justice.

Earlier this week I ran into a woman, Ethel, who's known Arise since we were in our first home, 718 State St., twenty years ago. Now we're back on State! I start to tell her about it, and she says, "I know, I go by it every day on the bus. When can I stop in?"
"Soon, very soon," I say.

Optimism about Springfield-- is there any other choice?

I went to Sarno's swearing-in as Mayor yesterday with a few other Arise members to see what I could see. It's the first swearing-in I've ever been to, so I have nothing to compare it with, but Sarno put his priorities out for all to see and of course we'll be keeping a close eye on him.

There's much I could comment about, but the big surprise for me yesterday was Sarno's commitment to move Springfield toward a truly environmentally-friendly city! This is long-overdue in Springfield. Ryan liked to call Springfield "green" because of our wealth of parks and waterways. But as far as I know, he never did anything proactive.

A recent article in the Republican about the new Federal Courthouse mentioned that the General Services Administration required that "art" be integrated into the building. Well, that's fine and good, but not a word about sustainability, energy recapture, solar power, etc. What a lost opportunity!

If I were mayor I'd say that not another building that uses federal, state or local money can be constructed without integrating green principles in the design. (Actually, I'd go farther, but that's another story.)

The Republican didn't mention Sarno's green goals, but it's probably on Bill Dusty's video of yesterday's ceremony.

Ward Representation - will we even have a chance to vote for it?

What a frustrating day yesterday was. I returned a call from Candace Lopes, Sen. Buoniconti's aide, and I knew was bad news even before I called.

No, the Senate had not voted on the home rule legislation for ward representation-- in fact, the House hadn't even finished voting. And even after the legislation is passed, it still has to be signed by the Governor-- all before what I believe to be the deadline for getting a question on the ballot-- next Monday, October 1. Candace said the rumor was that a House member from Western Mass-- no identity known-- was holding the legislation up.

I called Rep. Ben Swan, a longtime ward rep supporter, who said he hoped it would finish being voted on this Thursday, but that it really wasn't up to him, it was up to the House leadership-- that means Speaker of the House Salvatore DiMasi. So I called his office and talked (of course) to an aide.

Then I called the Governor's office to make sure he was going to be in town to sign the legislation, should it pass both houses of the Legislature. Of course that's like trying to talk to God, but I did speak to his legislative director who said that getting the Governor to sign was not that simple-- that it often took 30 days or more while the Governor did "due diligence" on the legislation.

During the day other ward rep supporters called their state representatives. The responses ranged from pretty clueless to informed and ready to vote favorably; everyone denied being "the one" to hold the bill up.

Then I called Mayor Ryan's office, for the fourth time since August, to ask him the same thing-- PLEASE be in touch with the Western Mass. legislators and tell them to move the home rule petition forward. Later in the day I was told by a mayor's aide that Mayor Ryan was, that very day, writing a letter to the reps-- too little, too late for a mayor who is supposed to be a ward rep supporter (as is his mayoral opposition, Domenic Sarno, at least for the last couple years).

Finally I called Mike Plaisance, reporter at the Springfield Republican, to fill him in on what was (not) happening. He called me later and said he'd been told by the city's Election office that the question could go on the Springfield ballot as late as October 19. Now that's not what I was told by the Election office, (and not one of the city councilors, state reps or city lawyers that I've talked to over the last several months have challenged that date-- maybe they just don't know) so my job today is to clarify what the real deadline is.

If it's October 19, terrific. Of course that gives us grassroots folks even less time to campaign among the city's registered voters. However, even that date probably doesn't guarantee that the Legislature will finish doing it's job.

And they wonder why people are cynical about voting and politics.