New biomass rules take effect Friday!

Hey, biomass developers! If you can't meet at least 50% efficiency, then you won't be considered green and renewable, meaning you will not be eligible for subsidies from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Mass. Dept. of Energy has announced.

In the last three years, both pro and anti-biomass activists have spent many hours in hearings and many hours researching and submitting testimony and evidence.  Yes, we would have liked the new rules to be even stronger.  But even as they are, not a single one of the biomass plants currently operating in New England can meet the new standards-- this according to the president of the pro-bio trade group, the Biomass Power Association.

Most biomass plants operate at less than 25% efficiency.  (Can you imagine if only  25% of the gas you put in your car's tank actually took you somewhere?) Burning trees and waste wood is no more "green and renewable" than coal or oil.

Let's be clear: these new rules do not prohibit the construction of biomass plants in Massachusetts; they simply mean those plants won't qualify for Renewable Energy Credits.  The developers of the proposed biomass plant in Springfield, Palmer Renewable Energy, has said it doesn't need the RECs to operate profitably. But I can't imagine they're thrilled with the new rules.

Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, Arise, the Conservation Law Foundation and the Toxics Action Center have accomplished a lot this year to keep PRE from moving forward in Springfield.  The city council revoked the company's special permit that a previous, all at-large version had approved, and when the building commissioner gave PRE a building permit anyway, we and the city council successfully appealed to the zoning board.  We appealed the plant's air permit to the Dept. of Environmental Protection, and the final decision is still pending.  PRE is appealing the building permit revocation to the Massachusetts Land Court, so our fight is not over.  But Springfield residents have had three years (so far!) where our already sick air has not been made sicker by spewing pollutants and greenhouse gases into our air.

Now we get to save our RECs for energy production for those sources that deserve it.

Send in the stenographers: City Council votes to appeal PRE's building permit

It was all over in less than ten minutes....eleven councilors showed up for last night's special meeting, and nine of them voted to appeal Palmer Renewable Energy's building permit to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Thanks, guys! I don't know when the appeal will be heard yet but I do know it'll be important for the community to attend.  I am also appealing, as well as one of  PRE's abutters.

Something interesting did happen last night, though: PRE sent stenographers to record the proceedings.  That in itself is not unusual; they've done it before.  But what I did find interesting is that PRE didn't bother to send stenographers for the first attempt of city council to appeal the permit.  Why didn't they send the stenographers for that meeting?  Because obviously, they knew that no vote would be taken.  And why was no vote taken?  Because Councilor Katari Walsh invoked Rule 20.  My, my, my.. 

Biomass opponents still in the game

We had a good piece of news yesterday and expect another step forward today.

Commissioner Ken Kimmell,  Mass. DEP, rejected his Presiding Officer's recommended decision that a ten citizens' group (that is, those of us in Springfield who are appealing the air permit issued to Palmer Renewable Energy) do not have the standing to appeal, and sent the case back to the officer to be determined on its merits!  Of course, he reserved the right to challenge our standing after the determination is made.  So we're back in the game.

Tonight, at a special meeting, the Springfield City Council will take a vote to appeal the building permit issued to PRE by Building Commissioner Steve Desilets.  The city council revoked PRE's special permit back in May, and thought that would be the end of the matter, only to find out that its vote didn't count for much-- PRE is saying tit never really needed the special permit that it asked for and received in 2008. 

Every day that we hold off this plant is a day that Springfield residents-- and the rest of the Valley-- don't have to breathe air even more polluted than we already have to live with.

Biomass backstabbing-- citizens being sold down the river (but we're still swimming upstream)

To be blunt, this has not been a good week for biomass opponents and the residents of Springfield.   At Monday night's city council meeting, we expected councilors to authorize themselves to appeal the building permits issued to Palmer Renewable Energy for construction of a biomass plant.  Instead,  an obviously choreographed effort   between city solicitor Ed Pikula and Councilors Walsh, Ferrera and Rooke paved the way for Walsh to introduce rule 20, bringing the proceedings to an abrupt halt.   Western Mass. Politics and Insight   has an excellent blow-by-blow description of the evening's farce.

"Don't worry, we'll fix this on Monday," Councilor Mike Fenton told us, and I believe that he and the other nine councilors who also appose this biomass plant will prevail,  but it gives the council less time to file an appeal-- the deadline is December 15.

We've had some members researching campaign contributions from PRE's owners, family members and attorney, but the Valley Advocate summed it up nicely for us before we could finish. From the Callahan family:

• Jimmy Ferrera: $1,400
• Bud Williams: $1,400
• Kateri Walsh: $1,250
• Tim Rooke: $750

 From Callahan's attorney, Frank Fitzgerald:

• Walsh: $500
• Ferrera: $350
• Rooke:  $250
• Williams $250

 Now, do I think a councilor's vote can be bought so cheaply?  Possibly.....but what I actually suspect is that there were far more substantial offers of assistance, financial and otherwise, made to city councilors by PRE this year, which will never appear in a list of campaign contributions.  I suspect that that if city councilors revealed the extent to which they have been lobbied and cajoled, we would be shocked. 

But what I absolutely believe is that no city councilor should accept a financial contribution from any person who has business before the council and who would benefit financially from a council decision.

Second piece of bad news: just today, DEP handed down a "recommended" decision about our air permit appeal, basically saying that citizens have no "standing" to appeal a DEP-issued permit!  On the advice of attorneys, I'm not going to comment on our legal strategies at this point in time (except to say we still have plenty!), especially as the decision is not final until approved by DEP Commissioner Ken Kimmel.  Our press release is below.  

I do, however, want people to think about the ramifications of this decision if it is upheld.  Clearly, DEP would not apply this decision only to PRE opponents, or only to those appealing air permits.   Think about it.  And we'll talk more later.

JOINT STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE
MA DEP’S RECOMMENDED FINAL DECISION
ON THE AIR PERMIT APPEAL REGARDING PALMER RENEWABLE ENERGY
BIOMASS PLANT IN SPRINGFIELD, MA

Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution Says
No One Other than Developer Can Raise Administrative Challenges to
Power Plant Air Permits – Not Even Affected Residents

BOSTON, MA  November 30, 2011 – Conservation Law Foundation, Arise for Social Justice, and Toxics Action Center today issued the following joint statement in response to the Massachusetts DEP’s recommended final decision on the air permit appeal for Palmer Renewable Energy’s proposed biomass-fueled Power Plant in Springfield, MA.

“This decision, if adopted, would change the rules so as to prevent affected members of the public from participating in administrative appeals of air permits. It also would undermine the state’s clean energy agenda. The recommended decision, which does not address the substance of the petitioners’ claims, essentially says that no one other than the developer has the right to raise administrative challenges to power plant air permits – not even people already suffering from severe respiratory illness, nor people suffering from disproportionate air pollution burdens. We look to DEP Commissioner Kimmel to reject the recommended decision and preserve the right of Massachusetts residents to have a voice in decisions that affect their health.”

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) protects New England’s environment for the benefit of all people. Using the law, science and the market, CLF creates solutions that preserve natural resources, build healthy communities, and sustain a vibrant economy region-wide. Founded in1966, CLF is a nonprofit, member-supported organization with offices in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.

# # #

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.

Biomass update - thanks, City Council!

Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield's Jesse Lederman at the rally

Yup, it's true: in spite of Springfield City Council's vote earlier this year to revoke the Special Permit for Palmer Renewable Energy's biomass plant, PRE is attempting an end run around the city council and filing for a building permit to begin construction.

On top of the city council's vote,  we're appealing the  Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection's air permit, so that permit is far from decided.  But apparently PRE has the support of the Sarno Administration on its side, and their confidence appears to be high.

Now, you might think that because Palmer renewable Energy is now suing the Springfield City Councilors that they would be feeling more wary.  But no, they're hanging tough!  Below is a copy of a letter that eight councilors wrote to Building Commissioner Steve Desilets.  Hope our rally on Monday night helped show the councilors who voted against PRE that we've got their back. 

In case you missed it, at the bottom of this post is a September report on our air quality.

 Dear Commissioner Desilets:

          It has come to our attention that Palmer Renewable Energy (hereinafter “PRE”) has filed with your office for a building permit. We further understand that this permit seeks “as-of-right” permission to build a smoke stack necessary for their proposed “biomass” facility.

            Earlier this year, we revoked PRE’s Special Permit for their proposed “biomass” facility. Said revocation was predicated on findings of fact that we made regarding the facility and the changes that were made to plans approved in 2008. This action was taken with the understanding that PRE would be unable to build their facility without a new Special Permit. Such is our interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance.

            M.G.L. ch. 40A, § 7 states that “[the] building commissioner . . .  shall be charged with the enforcement of the zoning ordinance or by-law and shall withhold a permit for the construction, alteration or moving of any building or structure if the building or structure as constructed, altered or moved would be in violation of any zoning ordinance or by-law; and no permit or license shall be granted for a new use of a building.”  As such, we believe it is your obligation to deny this permit.

As the legislative body for the City of Springfield, we respectfully request that you to deny this permit and all future building permits for this site which would circumvent our Zoning Ordinance. Failure to deny said permits will bring unnecessary burden upon the city and its taxpayers.

Please accept this letter as our request for enforcement prescribed in M.G.L. ch. 40A, § 7. The statute reads, “if the officer or board charged with enforcement of zoning ordinances or by-laws is requested in writing to enforce such ordinances or by-laws against any person allegedly in violation of the same and such officer or board declines to act, he shall notify, in writing, the party requesting such enforcement of any action or refusal to act, and the reasons therefor, within fourteen days of receipt of such request.”

In accordance with this statute, please inform us of your decision by November 4, 2011. Once we are in receipt of your response, we will consider our rights for appeal pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 40A, §§ 8, 15, 17.

                        Sincerely,

Jose F. Tosado             John A. Lysak              Timothy C. Allen

Melvin A. Edwards       Michael A. Fenton        Amaad I. Rivera

Zaida Luna                   E Henry Twiggs

cc: Mayor Domenic Sarno

cc: City Solicitor Ed Pikula

Report: Spfld. state's smoggiest area:

wwlp.com

City Council race and bullet voting

Elections are coming up on November 8, and we have ten candidates for five At Large seats on Springfield City Council.  So registered voters will get to vote for up to five candidates.

But just because you can vote for five doesn't mean you should vote for five!  You can bullet vote!

Say there's a person you really want to see win or retain a city council seat, but he or she was not among the top five vote getters in September's preliminary election.  By casting only one (or two) votes, you raise the ranking of your candidate without raising the ranking of candidates about whom you feel less passionately.

Here's a good description of the pros and cons of bullet voting, and when to use or not use the tactic.


Photo from Theresa Thompson's photostream at Flickr.

Occupy/Take Back Springfield

No One Leaves and others start the rally

Too tired to write much text tonight, but Occupy Springfield did happen...about 35 people...more if you count the ones who came and went.  And at the Take Back Springfield rally tonight, Occupy folks joined in and swelled the crowd to about 150 people.  many people were then headed in to a Springfield City Council meeting, and i don't know what happened there, because I had another meeting.  But I'll post when i do know.  Basically, there were three big issues propelling ralliers to the meeting:

• protecting the recently passed  ordinance requiring banks to put money in escrow (most of which they'll get back) whenever they foreclose on a property;
• a non-binding resolution urging the City of Springfield to remove its funds from Bank of America;
• encouraging city councilors to protect their vote revoking Palmer Renewable Energy's special permit to construct a biomass plant by appealing the building permit PRE seems likely to receive!

Jesse Lederman, speaker from Stop toxic Incineration in Spfld

Patti and Bill, Arise/STIS

Arise members: Ellen (recently pepper-sprayed in D.C) & Christina, founder of 2004's Sanctuary City

By the way, at a General Assembly meeting today, Occupiers decided to be back next Monday, Court Sq., from 3 to 6 pm.  Yippee!

Yesterday's preliminary election

City Council Biomass Hearing

Why, when people go out to vote, do they not bring the knowledge that they have about councilors' positions with them into the voting booth?

The vast majority of people in Springfield support ward representation and oppose a biomass plant being built in the city.  But four out of five of the top vote getters in the city council race oppose ward representation and support the biomass incinerator!-- Timothy Rooke, Kateri Walsh, Bud Williams and James Ferrera.

The scary thing about this, of course, is that the message councilors are likely to take from this disconnect of councilors from issues is that they can act with impunity.  Councilors should ponder, however, the first place finish of first term At Large Councilor Tom Ashe, the only at large councilor to vote to revoke the special permit for biomass developer Palmer Renewable Energy.  At 6885 votes, Ashe came in more than 900 votes of second place Tim Rooke, and a whopping 1,800 votes ahead of fifth place Jimmy Ferrera.  I think it's fair to assume that were Jose Tosado still running for city council instead of mayor, Ferrera would not have been among the top five.

While one tends to think that primary results dictate the outcome of the general election, the potential of stay-at-home voters can be tapped.  In 2008, 60% of all registered Springfield voters managed to get themselves out of the house and to the polls to vote their passion. Most candidates for office are not only unable to generate that kind of passion, most of them would prefer the blandest possible persona: lifelong residents, I graduated here, my wife works there, kids go to school here, etc. etc. Smooth, bland, and (until ward representation) colorless.  Don't let voters develop strong opinions about you.  Go along to get along. Be happy to get the votes of the folks who always vote.

I do think there are a couple of candidates this year who haven't shied away from taking strong opinions.  I know who's on my list, who's on yours?

 

Yes-- we're appealing Dept. of Environmental Protection's air permit for PRE.

In today's Republican, Pete Goonan has a story about the next steps in fighting to keep Palmer Renewable Energy's biomass incinerator out of Springfield.  The Conservation Law Foundation and Toxics Action Center have both filed appeals to the Department of Environmental Protection's issuance of an air permit. CLF is filing on behalf of its members, which includes many people from Springfield, and Arise for Social Justice.  I want to say thank you to both CLF and the Toxics Action Center, which have provided us with invaluable support the last two years, for taking up this battle.

Check out the new advertisement from the American Lung Association.  It reminds me of when one of our Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield members used the bulk of her two minutes before the Springfield City Council playing a recording of a child having an asthma attack.  Our city council did the right thing and revoked the local permit, but, not unexpectedly, PRE is now suing the city.  So the battle goes on.

I wrote on Monday about why local control may be the only control we can count on in the short term.  But even local control  is hard-won!  We have a lot of community education and mobilization still to do.  Want to help?  Get in touch.

Standing dead wood, living lungs

The EPA has listed a warning for today's air quality-- poor.  All of the Connecticut River Valley is affected, including Springfield.  Fine particulate matter is expected to exceed 35 micrograms per cubic meter averaged over 24 hours.  Besides reducing outdoor exposure for all people, the EPA suggests "The public can help reduce pollution by taking steps including: using public transportation, car pooling and/or combining trips; avoiding idling of cars and trucks; following EPA Burnwise practices for cleaner indoor wood burning; and avoiding outdoor burning."

I love burning wood.  When I was a kid, I'd sometimes sneak off the the wooded hills behiind my house, make a little fire, and pop popcorn.  Later, homesteading in Maine, I learned to scan for standing dead wood near my shelter so I could haul it home, cut it up, and burn it-- summertime in a natural firepit vented by turning back the canvas roof, wintertime in a little tin stove.  In the Springfield house I lived in for thirty years, we'd have a fire in the fireplace every fall and winter weekend, and in the summer, camping at Nickerson State Park had to include a nightly campfire.  I've breathed a hell of a lot of wood smoke during my life and I never gave it much of a thought.

That's all changed now, of course. Now I know that what you can't see or smell in wood smoke is the most dangerous of all-- fine particulate matter (FPM).  I've learned this in the year and a half community battle to stop Palmer Renewable Energy from building a biomass incinerator in Springfield.

In reviewing Palmer's latest  proposal (which it approved), the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection notes 

"the revised modeling analysis for fine particulate (PM2.5) documents that the cumulative impact of the high background concentration and the incremental emissions from the facility is 29.9 µg/m3 (of which x is attributable to the proposed facility), which is well below the current 24 hour NAAQS limit of 35 µg/m3.  The cumulative impact is, however, very close to 30.0 µg/m3, the limit EPA is considering adopting in its pending revision of the PM.2.5 limit. MassDEP has supported tightening this standard in light of the evidence linking fine particulates to adverse health impacts in sensitive populations."

(Just a note: somehow, even though PRE's new proposal will burn 1,200 tons of wood a day, instead of their proposed 700 tons, PRE projects its emissions will be less than before, thus not pushing the plant's contribution to FPM above the 30 micrograms per cubic meter That may become the new standard next year.)

 

I didn't know it when we started fighting back against PRE's incinerator, But the New England Journal of Medicine had just  published a study of Springfield and 50 other U.S. metropolitan areas in a January 2009,  “Fine-Particulate Air Pollution and Life Expectancy in the United States”.    There was a correlation between higher levels of particulate air pollution and decreases in life expectancy.  The authors concluded “A reduction in exposure to ambient fine-particulate air pollution contributed to significant and measurable improvements in the life expectancy in the United States.”  

 So the truth is known; industry doesn't care; and state governments are still jumping on the biomass bandwagon even though the ride is getting bumpy.

Some small part of me wants to thank Palmer Renewable Energy for giving this community the opportunity to learn about one of the biggest, preventable threats to our well-being-- air pollution.  Yeah, thanks for the opportunity but no thanks to the plant.  Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield is waiting for the 2011 city council to take action and revoke the permit for Palmer Renewable Energy to build in our city.  By now, the councilors have certainly heard the voice of the community.  Will they heed us?

Go here if you want to realtime picture of pollution as to spreads over New England.

Photo from Alan Slimak's photostream at Flickr.

Palmer Renewable Energy tries to bully City Council

So let me get this straight: Palmer Renewable Energy's attorney Frank Fitzgerald says it doesn't matter if Springfield City Council revokes its special permit to construct a biomass incinerator.

BUT if the council does revoke, PRE will sue the City of Springfield for its "arbitrary and capricious" actions.


Why sue over the revocation of a permit that you don't need?


No dollar amount was mentioned in the Springfield Republican article, but I've heard off the record that the amount of damages sought could be $125 million.  I can see why this would make city council swallow hard.  But there's something wrong with this picture.

Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield will be meeting this Tuesday at the Arise office to figure out where we go from here.  But we're not done  pushing Springfield City Council to do the right thing.  We have some volunteer lawyers examining every aspect of the permitting process, zoning regulations, etc. and we will be getting back to City Council soon with the alternate legal opinions.  We have a few other cards to play, also.

The state hasn't protected us and city council seems to think they can't protect us, either.  No revocation vote was taken Monday night and while we were originally assured that that vote would take place in January, that vote is far from assured.

So here's what I'd like the Springfield readers of this blog to do: call your city councilors, both your ward rep and the at large councilors, and ask them: Why is PRE threatening to sue for a permit they claim not to need?

Just one more short note about something we need to think about, both short and long term:  When PRE wanted to burn Construction and Demolition debris,  no figures were available for the already existing levels of pollutants in the area. for much of the pollutants they would emit.  But some of these figures are available now.  They were measured at an air monitoring site in Westover.  We're already in deep trouble.  

• Arsenic: 525% of the Allowable Ambient Limit
• Cadmium: 810%
• Formaldehyde: 2688%
• Benzene: 718%

Many of these pollutants are produced by the simple action of combustion.  Yeah, we need energy-- but why poison ourselves when there are better ways to get it?

City Council and Palmer renewable Energy

Well, this is not going to be the night I write a long post about what happened at City Council last night.

It's really been a lousy day.
A good friend of mine, who has been more in the hospital and long-term care facilities than out for the last year, was readmitted to Baystate.
The pipes burst in the the empty building next door, flooded their cellar, and shorted out Arise's telephone lines.  We were without phone service all day and that will continue through at least part of tomorrow.
And of course I've been brooding about last night's city council meeting.

So a few thoughts:
First, I am incredibly proud of the people of Springfield.  You filled city council chambers last night and many more of you have spoken out against Palmer Renewable Energy's 's biomass incinerator.
Second, I am astounded (and not thoroughly convinced)  by the city council i being told that even if they do revoke PRE's permit, that it will make no difference-- that the council has no power!  If this does turn out to be true, then we'd better create some new laws and policies in Springfield that can prevent harm being done to us by enterprises like PRE.
Third, it's not over.


Photo from Bertiemabootoo's photostream at Flickr.

Jose Tosado: one more councilor opposed to the biomass incinerator

On Monday night, at Springfield City Council, Palmer Renewable Energy proponents will appear before the council to answer questions about whether or not their plant should go forward.  Those of us who've been working so hard to stop this plant from being built and polluting our air have lots of reasons why the plant is bad for Springfield, but Springfield city councilors will only be able to legally challenge PRE's project based on difference between their original permit, granted by the council in 2008, and their new proposal for what developers want to build now.  The council won't be able to take a vote to revoke the original permit on Monday, because PRE did not receive a full 14 days notice of the hearing.  Still, it's a big step in the right direction.  Whether we currently have a two-thirds majority of councilors in opposition is still not clear-- but hey, we're not done trying. 

Yesterday I received an advance copy of the following letter from City Council President Jose Tosado, who has been noncommittal about the plant until this point .  Mark down one more for being on the side of the residents of Springfield.

On Monday December 13 at 8 o'clock in the evenning the Springfield City Council will conduct a special meeting with representatives of  Palmer Renewable Energy.  The meeting will follow a hearings format where proponents and opponents will be allowed a set amount of time to speak.

When I voted for this project over a year ago it was based on the information available at that time which seemed like an environmentally friendly recycleing plant; however as time has passed there is much more information available and we have been provided with a mountain of information from citizens and public health officials about the negative impact that a bio mass plant located in a densely populated neighborhood would have on the health and quality of life for our residents. Springfield residents and our children in particular already live with their fair share of airborn pollutants.  A new biomass plant with ffity five schools within a five mile radius will exacerbate already unacceptable health disparities.

Beyond the public health impacts, research shows that prenatal and early childhood exposure to airborne pollutants has an impact on brain development, student achievement, attendance and other factors that predict the overall success off the next generation of Springfield residents.  Given our current education challenges, can we really afford to further stack the deck against our future generation of students?

I am grateful that our residents, community groups, regional health and environmental organizations as well as our Public Health Commission have mobilized to make sure that we have all the facts.

Over the course of the past several months I have had an opportunity to hear directly from opponents of this plant as well as from officials of Palmer Renewable Energy and based on all the information which I have recieved and reviewed, in good conscious I could not and cannot support this project.

 

Jose F. Tosado, President

Springfield City Council

Photo of Jose Tosado and E. Henry Twiggs, City Council Vice President, from Jose's website. 

The good, the bad, the ugly-- and the shining moments

 I like being busy but I must say that the last two weeks have really been over the top. Just to get caught up with my readers, I'm tossing out a mix of personal and political in this post, then I can be back on track..

First, it is quite likely that some time within the week, I''ll be posting an apology to Springfield Technical Community College for any information that I incorrectly portrayed in my post about their Rosa Parks Day event.  That post is no longer on my blog, but I'll probably be putting it back up so there is some context to my apology.  I am waiting for a response to my request for a meeting before I apologize, so that I can be sure of just what I got wrong.  Meanwhile, one STCCer called me up to yell at me, and I've received emails from two different STCCers, one challenging my political integrity and the other blasting me for my lack of professionalism.  Well, I've never said I don't make mistakes, so I'll keep you updated on this one.

Second, I'm pretty sure the feral cat I've been feeding is dead.  I was on my way out of town on Sunday and saw a gray cat dead by the side of the road only about a block from the abandoned house where it hangs out.  I was telling my older daughter about this, and she took that opportunity to reiterate her belief that it's bad to feed ferals, that instead, I should have captured the cat and taken it to some place where it could be humanely euthanized.  Once again, I could be wrong and she could be right, but that wasn't the choice that I made.

So that's the bad stuff.

Good stuff: we had an Open House/Holiday Party at Arise this evening, and I give it a 9.5 on a scale of 1 to 10.  Lots of folks came, we had plenty of food, Bill brought a guitar and led kids in a sing-a-long, and we had enough prizes from the dollar store to make just about everyone happy.  One sad thing: almost everyone I talked to tonight had recently lost a job or was looking desperately to find one.  There won't be much under the Christmas tree for most of these kids.  But tonight we were family.

More good stuff: while we were getting ready for the party, Springfield City Councilors Mike Fenton, John Lysak and Melvin Edwards  were holding a press conference with representatives from various neighborhood councils, saying that on Monday, they plan to reconsider Palmer Renewable Energy's permit to build a biomass incinerator in Springfield.  Eighteen months of community organizing may be starting to pay off!  You can read Peter Goonan's story on MassLive.  My favorite quote is Ward Two Mike Fenton saying,
“This is an issue second to none on my agenda.”  I don't know yet if the work of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield is finished, but I know we're giving it our all.  If you don't want to live in a city with air even more polluted than it already is, get yourself down to City Council Monday night and help get some of these councilors off the fence.

To add to the opposition, the presidents of Springfield, American International and Western New England Colleges have come out against the plant and have let Mayor Sarno and Council President Jose Tosado know so in a letter!

I've been a community organizer for a long time, and my main interest has always been the rights-- and the empowerment-- of poor people. I suppose being poor myself  hasn't hurt my allegiance to the cause.  But the most successful campaigns Arise has been involved in are those that affect everybody-- poor people most of all, but ultinately all of us.  Ward representation is the best example.  The poorest areas of Springfield were never successful in electing a city councilor under the at large system.  And yet, no neighborhood was represented under the old system.  Only ward representation could change that, and everyone in the city has benefited.  And now, it's the ward councilors who are leading the way in protecting this community's health.  Win or lose, I'm proud of them .

The ugly: Four doors down from Arise's storefront is a Christian coffeehouse called Holy Grounds.  A church bought the entire building about a year and a half ago, and they've done a wonderful job turning the ground floor into a coffee house with a little stage, books on the wall, a serving bar, round tables and some comfortable chairs. I've stopped in a few times because we like to know our neighbors, and the minister has been down to our office once or twice. Our conversations have been innocuous because we haven't appeared to have much in common, but nothing in our exchanges have rung any warning bells, either.

This weekend, WMA Jobs with Justice posted the following information on the AriseAction listserve.  Check out the links.

In the latest edition of Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center reports that Scott Lively lives in Springfield.  Here’s an intro to him:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Lively.  Abiding Truth Ministries is at 455 State St, Springfield MA 01105; PO Box 2373.Springfield MA 01101; (413) 301-0918; and http://www.defendthefamily.com/.

Lively claims Hitler and his inner circle were gay and that homosexuals helped mastermind the Holocaust. He’s also linked to the murderous Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill.  

Background:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/spring/holy-war/making-myths

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/summer/anti-gay-propaganda

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners - which ends:

“In 2008, Lively started the Redemption Gate Mission Society, a church that seeks to ‘re-Christianize’ the city of Springfield, Mass., where he lives.” The specific target is mapped at http://www.redemptiongate.org/images/rzoverhead.jpg.Regarding Redemption Gate Mission Society: http://www.redemptiongate.org/.  Redemption Gate and its Holy Grounds Coffee House are at 455 State Street too, and (413) 250-0984 and info@RedemptionGate.org. 

Take a look at who they have speak: http://www.redemptiongate.org/speakersched.htm. 

Finally, don’t miss this Daily Show segment: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-28-2010/gay-reichs?xrs=share_fb.

Shiny moments: my younger daughter and her husband are less than a month away from having a baby.  I'll be a grandmother for the second time in twenty-two years!  They decided not to know the sex of the baby beforehand-- the way it used to be-- so I'm eagerly waiting to know if I have another granddaughter or my first grandson.

My first granddaughter is from my oldest daughter, and I want to take a moment  to say how proud of her.  She does closed captioning for the hearing-impaired, reads non-stop, and is one of the most well-informed and solidly progressive people I know.  This fall, she's given it her best shot to qualify for the Boston women's roller derby team!  She's always loved to skate and had a childhood dream of being on a team that apparently persisted somewhere in the back of her mind.  So when she heard the team was recruiting, she became "fresh meat" and practiced twice a week with other fresh meat and with the "dames."  She made the first cut but not the second, which is almost OK, because she says she's never been so sore and bruised in her life.  (She got a black eye the first week of practice.)  But she's made lots of new friends and will stay involved with the team.  

Talk about going for your dream!  She's inspired me.

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.

Lost opportunity: City Council fails to act on incinerator

Tonight, Springfield MA City Council had an opportunity to really take a positive step to protect Springfield's environment-- and they didn't.  Well, I shouldn't say they; in the end it came down to Councilor Rooke's refusal to suspend the rules so that the council could vote on asking the state for a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on a biomass incinerator proposed for our city. 


My blood is still boiling, so let me see if I can summarize the sequence of events.

We, members of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield,  know that the plant's proponents have to come back before City Council for approval of their amended permit.  We don't know when that will happen, but figure soon, as they have strong financial incentive to break ground before December 31.  So we signed up for the speak-out at tonight's council meeting, as part of our strategy to win a majority of councilors over to our position.

Coincidentally, tomorrow at 5 pm. is the deadline for commenting on the incinerator's plan to the state, and for requesting  a full EIR.

Meanwhile, some ward councilors-- Mike Fenton, E. Henry Twiggs and Melvin Edwards-- agreed to co-sponsor a resolution asking the City Council to hold a public hearing, in conjunction with the Springfield Public Health Council,  about the health impacts of Palmer Renewable Energy's (PRE) proposed plant.  But Counciklor Fenton let us know that he was unable to meet the deadline for getting the resolution on tonight's agenda.  Well, OK, there's still next month.

Then we got an email from At-Large Councilor Thomas Ashe, saying he intended to propose two resolutions tonight, one of which would call for a full EIR.  Even though it was past the agenda deadline, he could do so by asking for a suspension of the rules to bring the resolution.  However, if challenged by even one councilor, the resolution could not proceed.

A dozen of us spoke at the speak-out that precedes the formal meeting.  The two most difficult councilors to engage, Councilor Rooke and Councilor Kateri Walsh, didn't come in for the speak-out so they missed everything we had to say, including a couple of announcements about the EIR deadline.

Next came a long, frustrating and fascinating council meeting.  Ah, the personalities!  The politics!  Enough said.

Finally, after all council business was finished-- 10 pm.!-- Councilor Ashe stood up and asked for a suspension of the rules for the EIR resolutuion.  Then Councilor Rooke stood up, and said that he was actually co-sponsoring Ashe's resolution, but that he had just, five minutes before the council meeting began, received a copy of a report from City Attorney Ed Pikula.  In that report, it said that PRE was not legally required to have an EIR done.  Therefore, he wanted time to digest the report before he went forward.  the motion was defeated and the council was adjourned.

First I got to Tom Ashe, who said to me, "Don't worry, we'll get it on next month's agenda."

"You can't get it on next month's agenda, not this resolution anyway, because the deadline for comments is tomorrow."  he looked taken aback.  (Of course he can submit a different resolution next month, but, as I say, a lost opportunity.)

Then Jesse Lederman and I got Councilor Rooke's attention.   He tried to explain that he (and other councilors) had just gotten a report on PRE's plan,  (commissioned by the city from some environmental firm and paid for by PRE) and that it said, right there in the report, that PRE wasn't legally required to have an EIR.

Well, of course an EIR is not required; if it was, we wouldn't be asking for one, would we?

"I can't decide on this in five minutes," Councilor Rooke said.

"Well, that didn't stop you the first time PRE came to the council," I said, being pissier than I should, but just SO frustrated.  Of course, Councilor Rooke had missed my presentation at the speak-out, where I mentioned our group had watched a video of the city council meeting where PRE got their first permit from the city.  At that hearing, former Councilor Mazza-Moriarty had tried to slow things down, mentioning that she'd only gotten a copy of a hundred page document 45 minutes before the meeting.  She'd tried to send it to committee, where practically everything goes, but was voted down.

So, what next?  On to the next strategy.  That's what people committed to the community do.  And if I look at the situation objectively, we're probably not in bad shape.

Plusses: We now have ten of thirteen councilors who have expressed some form of opposition to PRE's incinerator.  I didn't say anything irredeemable to Councilor Rooke or any other councilor. And clearly, as we say in community organizing, we have raised the profile of the issue.

Minuses: PRE hasn't made their presentation to the council yet, and they'll certainly downplay the health impacts of the plant while dangling jobs and taxes; councilors could be swayed.  Some councilors are not yet as well-educated as they need to be, not only about the issue but also the approval process.  And we have no idea what's in the city's report and how thorough and objective it is.  (They only had about a week to analyze a 388 page document, and I don't know if the firm had the previous permit application with which to compare the new.) 

OK, that's it, I'm tired, and tomorrow is another day.

Photo from IHeartGreatBeer's photostream at Flickr.

1,000 postcards delivered - will city councilors get the message?

Megan Jenny from Toxics Action Center, me from Arise, Ward 3 City Councilor Melvin Edwards, STIS member Jesse Lederman from the McKnight Neighborhood Youth Council, Betty Agin and her grandson from the Springfield Health Disparities Project.

Springfield resident and STIS member John Miller

Today Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield (STIS) held a rally and press conference on the steps of City Hall and then delivered more than a thousand postcards to Springfield, MA city councilors.  The message?  Hold a public hearing to consider grounds for REVOKING Palmer Penewable Energy's permit for an incinerator in Springfield.

Three days of intensive flyering brought Ward 4 Councilor E. Henry Twiggs and Ward 1 Councilor Zaida Luna firmly into the "opposed" category-- that is, if Palmer's permit was before the council today, they'd vote against it.  We never got a definitive answer from Michael Fenton, James Ferrera, Jose Tosado and Tom Ashe, and, in spite of calls, emails and a special mailing, we never heard back at all from Kateri Walsh and Clodo Concepcion.  Tim Rooke requested that I convey my information to City Council Aide Bob Arieti, and that Bob would convey it to him.  Still, we're inching toward a majority.  I hope Springfield voters remember who is responsive to his/her constituents and who isn't.

Great photos of the event, thanks to Megan Jenny and her crew from the Toxics Action Center.

.

Ferrera's prostitution proposal defeated 12-1

Jesse Lederman just called me to let me know that Councilor Ferrera's proposal to send prostitutes and johns to jail for a mandatory one year sentence was defeated by the Springfield City Council-- twelve to one!

About thirty people came down to the council speak-out tonight to show opposition to Ferrera's proposal.  A half dozen of us had signed up to speak, including Arise members, Out Now members and the members of the Prison Birth Project.  Jimmy Ferrera spent most of his time during the speak-out chatting with Kateri Walsh, listening with only half an ear, if that, as his later remarks showed.

Jesse tells me that at one point during the presentation of his proposal, Ferrera said, "As you can tell from tonight's speak-out, there are some people in this city who actually support prostitution."   Councilors Keith Wright and Melvin Edwards challenged his interpretation, saying that they hadn't heard that from the speakers at all-- that we understood drugs are a problem in our community, that prostitution follows the drugs, not the other way around, that we all have a right to live in a safe  neighborhood..

In fact I hear that Melvin Edwards, councilor from Ward Three, just shot down every one of Jimmy's fallacious arguments in favor of incarceration. He echoed the speakers tonight who said that studies have shown mandatory minimums don't prevent the offenses for which they are designed.  He spoke at least three different times.  Thank you, Councilor Edwards.

  I do believe prostitution should be decriminalized, and I do believe that nine out of ten women, men and youth who are doing street level sex work-- survival sex, as they call it-- would be off the streets in a year if they had access to drug treatment on demand, a network of understanding supporters, and a decent job and housing they can afford.  Let's take the approximately $38,000 cost of incarcerating someone in the county jail system in Massachusetts and use it to help open doors.

Problem is, there's always money to lock more people up, even as jobs and drug treatment-- and so much more!-- are cut from the state budget.  That $38,000 would not come from the city's coffers, but from the pockets of Springfield's residents, whose taxes are the bulk of  the state's revenue.  And someone-- I think from the Prison Birth Project--  pointed out the immense cost of law enforcement, especially sting operations,  in Springfield, and the diversion of needed police resources from serious crimes.

I don't think Councilor Ferrera has given much time to understanding what street level sex work is all about..  I wonder how much money he is willing to propose be added to next year's city budget to attack the root cause of the issue.  How about designating a municipal building as a drug treatment on demand center?  Sure, when pigs fly.

As Arise's Ellen Graves said tonight, no one intends to be a prostitute when she or he grows up.How can we help people reclaim their faith in the future, instead of stomping on their lives?

Photo from luckyfish's photostream at Flickr.