IWWC 11/20

Just this evening, I heard the last Inland Wetlands public hearing would be happening tonight... so thankfully I got to the meeting (after stopping by my favorite sushi place next to the Herald for a quick bite).

As you could guess, my main concern was doing what Matt Hall suggested Council members do... he suggested that rather than have the Council act as an intervenor (with regard to the elevation of the aqueduct bypass), acting individually each of the nine Council members address our concerns directly with the IWWC and/or PZC... so I did just that... along with David Schrumm... I voiced my concerns over the flooding in the north end. So hopefully the IWWC will do everything they can, regardless of any beaurocracy that may impede them.

Next I'll need to attend the PZC public hearing. I believe that is scheduled for next Monday, November 26. Besides the flooding issue, I'll need to speak out against the proposed sprawl. Why my suggestion to "stop it or stack it" hasn't gone anywhere really makes me wonder... who's in charge? Well... I guess Republicans are now, though I'm pretty sure that neither Maidelis nor McPhee can vote on this part of the project... and Slocum is probably out too, so Kardaris, Marinaro or Maye will probably be voting.

And I'm still wondering whether this development will be self-sufficient with regard to electricity needs... at least their baseline needs, if not their peaking requirements. Does anyone know? I haven't been able to keep on top of all of this... and this, IMO, is a big question... remember... much of America's electricity is derived from fossil fuels (either natural gas or oil). So if you're concerned about America's dependence on foreign oil, then you should be concerned about this project... because poor planning here will add to that problem, if we don't tackle the issue head on.

Tim White