What I Said Last Night

Two weeks ago I wrote a post entitled “Protecting A Parking Lot” where Park Watch’s June 17th testimony to the Park Board was duly noted and dismissed as the junk it was. I was going to fisk that junk; but other things got in the way. So, I thought I’d attend last night’s Minneapolis Park Board meeting, and do some fisking there. Here’s what I wanted to say; I gave an abridged version as I thought I’d have three minutes but was only given two:

Mr. President, Ms. Vice President, Commissioners: My name is Tommy Johnson. Most of you know me as TwoPutt Tommy. I am a blogger at MNProgressiveProject. I am here to speak about blogging, ParkWatch, and a little bit about Crown Hydro.

MNProgressiveProject is a group of bloggers that speak for no one but ourselves. We cover issues all over the state of Minnesota. Like all reputable blogs, we try to follow something loosely called the Blogger’s Code of Ethics. There are two basic elements we go by.

First, be honest in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. This means checking facts. One of the tenets of this guideline is to distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
Second, be accountable. We admit our mistakes, and correct our posts.

In the course of my blogging, I covered the issue of Crown Hydro, and became aware of ParkWatch. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is covered extensively by the blog ParkWatch, and they are also activists against certain projects, such as Crown Hydro. On June 17th a blogger from ParkWatch addressed the Park Board and posted said comments on their blog.

I made a brief blog post about this on Friday, June 19th – I brefly touched on Park Watch’s comments, but didn’t get into specifics. Tonight, I’d like to.

On June 17th, a Park Watch member, Arlene Fried, made the following comments:

She said, and I quote: “We know that the public will lose control over St. Anthony Falls to a private developer and the FERC. No one can predict water flows over the next 50 to 100 years, and an EAW will not enlighten you on this topic. The FERC will have the authority to let the Falls run dry in order to produce energy.”

This is completely at odds with what the FERC License says. The FERC license Article 309 requires Crown Hydro to work with the other water users on a flow plan. (1) They did this. (2) There are 4 water users at this elevation, the City, the Army Corps and Xcel Energy. Crown Hydro has last use. First to turn off, last to turn on, and will never run at times of low flow. Article 404 (3) requires them to have a plan to implement this. And finally, the lease terms negotiated by the Park Board indicate the Park Board has control of water diversion when flows are at 1000 cfs or below. (4) This lease term becomes part of the FERC license, in essence, fully enforceable federal law. Some people might call what Ms. Fried said untrue; I’ll simply say the license contradicts what she said.

The second statement she made, and I quote: “We know that a FERC hydropower license will preempt local control of historic preservation issues.”

Again, completely at odds with everything I’ve read. This is local park land, on a federal waterway, in part of a national park. The Minneapolis Heritage Preservation office will work with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to create a Programmatic Agreement that addresses historic preservation issues. Some people might call what Ms. Fried said untrue; I’ll simply say the record contradicts what she said.

I hope the ParkWatch blog accepts these fact corrections and edits their blog accordingly.

***
1 – pages 10 and 17 of FERC License, 19 March 1999
2 – System-Wide Low-Flow Management Plan, Mississippi River above St. Paul, revised 11 March 2004
3 – pages 10 and 20 of FERC License, 19 March 1999
4 – Crown Hydro Proposed Lease Term Sheet

Quite frankly, the Park Watch people don’t source their work and for the most part their work is junk. When people have to make stuff up to make a point, their point isn’t worth making.

Recently, I mocked, ridiculed, and scorned the ParkWatch folk. Shortly thereafter, I recived an e-mail, notifying me of a new blog, Minneapolis Park Watch Watch, which is now mocking, ridiculing, and scorning the Park Watch folk.

FOR THE RECORD: I was not involved in forming the Minneapolis Park Watch Watch blog, I have not been invoved, nor am I now involved. But, I’d like to think that my mocking, ridiculing, and scorning of the Park Watch folk was part of the inspiration to the people that did. And who knows? Down the road, I might just make a post or three or more over there…

(crossposted from MnProgressiveProject)

Mockery, Ridicule, and Scorn

Mockery. Ridicule. Scorn. They’re used all of the time; they’re actually tools of the trade. Matter o’ fact, take them three, add “satire” and some professional writers, and viola! You got a potential “Daily Show”, or “Colbert Report”! Sometimes, mockery, ridicule and scorn are the best ways to make points about folk like Little Miss Hiding In The Bushes, the unthinking unsinkable Bachmann MotorMouth Overdrive. And to make a point about ol’ Smokescreen himself, Norm “If I were Al, I’d concede” Coleman. Not to mention, but I will, George aWol Bush. Of course, there’s his misAdministration – you know, Boy Blunder And The Plunderers? And even though he won’t be around to mock, ridicule, and scorn anymore, who can forget about republiCon Ron Carey, outgoing Chair of Minnesota’s GreedOverPrinciples party? As noted a little over a year ago, by the ol’ TwoPutter:

One reason republiCon Ron still has his job, is he’s good at asking AND he’s good at ducking. It’s the GreedOverPrinciples Party’s Golden Rule: “Do Unto Others But Don’t Let Them Do Unto You.”

I bring this up, because so many of us on the left side o’ the aisle have a tendency to enjoy – if not laugh uproariously – when some brain-dead bootlicker in the “Family Values” party (they’re called the “Family Values” party because they have so many of them; for instance, in the last presidential election the only candidate that had only been married once was the Mormon – go figure) does something incredibly hypocritical – such as David Vitter replacing the disgraced Bob Livingston in Congress, and Vitter later getting caught in figuratively if not literally the exact same (cheney)in’ kind of scandal.

Well, since morckery, ridicule and scorn are heaped upon those on the right for the old-fashioned reason – they’ve EARNED it, it only seems fair to rip those on the left side of the aisle when they’ve done something incredibly hypocritical. It seems that they too should be roasted and toasted with the same types of mockery,ridicule, and scorn. And I was going to do just that, today, to an organization known as Parkwatch – but, I’m tracking down more information on them that’s recently come in — so that’s going to have to wait for another day.

In the meantime, and to whet the whistle o’ the Regular Readers, I’ll end with a couple of thoughts. First, let’s review what it says on the “About Us” page at ParkWatch:

Minneapolis Park Watch is not affiliated with any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Yeah, “right.”

Right there, on ParkWatch homepage, is this:

Posted by Liz Wielinski on Thu, 06/18/2009

Well, I guess technically that might be true, depending on what your definition of “is” is, because they could argue that “ParkWatch isn’t ‘affiliated’ with Park Board Candidate Liz Wielinski; it IS Park Board Candidate Liz Wielinski, along with a bunch of her pals.

And, it also says this on that ParkWatch “About Us” page:

Openness and Accountability

We are advocates for openness and accountability in all of the Park Board’s fiscal and administrative activities.

So, they advocate for openness and accountability of others? Where’s the disclosure and openness from them; the acknowledgement that Liz is a candidate for the very organization their website likes to trash?

This one, on that same page, made me ROFLMAO!

Observing Meetings

As a watch dog organization, members of Park Watch attend Park Board meetings on a regular basis to observe first-hand official Park Board business being conducted. Park Watch also reviews various Park Board documents. (emphasis added)

“…various documents.“??!?

How’ bout dam near EVERY piece of paper that the Park Board generates?

As noted here:

Seems like these days, a lot of people are taking shots at the Park Board. In the course of investigating the Crown Hydro Project, one group that seems to especially get in the Park Board’s face*, is a group called ParkWatch.org, who’s whole schtick seems to be “the Park and Rec Board is filled with incompetents, liars, and thieves and you can’t trust them or believe anything they say – EXCEPT when it comes to Crown Hydro.”

And I couldn’t believe the amount of paperwork ParkWatch.org demands. I asked for information regarding data requests from the Park Board; I simply couldn’t believe what ParkWatch.org wanted. Let’s look!

Well, you can go here and look, but if you don’t want to, I’ll leave it at this: ParkWatch wants copies of so much stuff, that it’s fair to say the Park Board had to add a full-time staffer just to keep up with their demands.

Which is why ParkWatch reminds me of republiCon Ron – it seems the things they accuse others of are the exact same things they do themselves.

Stay tuned!

Oh – and keep those tips coming in!!!

(crossposted from MnProgressiveProject)

Protecting A Parking Lot, or….

“Information? We don’t need no stinkin’ information.”

It’s important to note that after all their “due diligence” – according to them – the Sierra Club decided to oppose the Crown Hydro project on the basis that “a fifty year lease (of a parking lot) isn’t really a ‘lease’ – it’s a ‘sale’.”

Here’s the money quote from the Chapter’s State Director, Maragret Levin:

“After careful consideration, the Sierra Club is opposing the Crown Hydro project due to what amounts to, legally, as a “sale” of public parkland (the proposed 50-year lease, with a right to renew for an additional 50 years). The Sierra Club North Star Chapter has long expressed concern about the sale of public park land to a private enterprise.”

Now, one way to look at that opposition is this: since after all that “careful consideration” the only – ONLY – reason the Sierra Club opposes the project is the length of the lease, it must be a pretty dam(n) good project.

But, what did ParkWatch testify to the Minneapolis Park Board, just the other night? Let’s look!

Protecting Parkland

The following speech in opposition to Crown Hydro’s proposed hydropower project on park land was given at the June 17, 2009 Park Board meeting during Open Time.

June 17, 2009

Commissioners:

First I would like to thank you for your previous decisions not to spend any further time or resources on the Crown Hydro project. Now, Crown is back with a renewed request for environmental review of its proposal. Nothing material has changed, and I urge you reject this project once and for all.

On its face, an EAW may sound appealing. Why not support a fact-finding exercise? Well, there are many reasons, and the main one is that you already have more than enough information to make a decision on this proposal.

1. We know that the Park Board mission is to “permanently preserve, protect, maintain, improve and enhance its natural resources, parkland, and recreational opportunities for current and future generations.”

2. We know that the public will lose control over St. Anthony Falls to a private developer and the FERC. No one can predict water flows over the next 50 to 100 years, and an EAW will not enlighten you on this topic. The FERC will have the authority to let the Falls run dry in order to produce energy.

3. We know that a FERC hydropower license will preempt local control of historic preservation issues.

4. We know from experience that this particular developer is willing to breach agreements when it serves its interests.

While it’s true the DNR concluded that there are two mandatory EAW categories that could apply to this project, the DNR did not conclude that an EAW must be done. If there is no project, then there is no need for an EAW.

I urge you to stand by your earlier decisions and follow your mission: say no to Crown Hydro. Protect the Falls and this parkland for future generations.

Sincerely,

Arlene Fried Co-founder of Park Watch

Posted by Liz Wielinski on Thu, 06/18/2009 – 10:55pm

I can fisk this at great length, and will.

And I’ll do it on Monday; I got stuff to do today, such as attend the send-off ceremony for the Minnesota troops of Alpha Company 452nd Combat Support Hospital – they’re being deployed to Afghanistan.

For those interested, it starts at 10 in Building 505 at Fort Snelling.

Come Monday, though, it’ll be time to rip Parkwatch a new one.

And why will the ol’ TwoPutter rip ’em a new one?

The old-fashioned reason, Ladies and Gents: they’ve EARNED it.

For now, though, consider this, from the extremists at Parkwatch: They’re agitating to save a parking lot, and they claim, above, several times that: “we know….”

No, they DON’T know – and they don’t need no stinkin’ facts that an EAW would determine.

Actually, they don’t WANT facts.

The funniest/saddest thing about that ParkWatch post, on the ParkWatch website?

That “we don’t need no stinkin’ information” is just below this post:

Mprb Unalloted $2.5 Million For 2010 Budget

During the MPRB meeting of June 17th as part of the Superintendent’s budget wrap up for 2008 he discussed the expected LGA ( Local Government Aid) unallotment allocations for the MPRB for 2009 and 2010 based on the current plan proposed by the governor.

Posted by Liz Wielinski on Thu, 06/18/2009 – 11:21pm

For you Minneapolis voters, remember next November that Liz Wielinski is a candidate for Park Board. And perhaps you might want to ask her, why roughly $300,000 per year from Crown Hydro – for rent of a parking lot – is such a “bad thing” when Governor T-Bag is looking to cut the Park Board’s budget by $2,500,000?

Here’s Liz’s website:
http://www.lizforparks.com/Site/Home.html

(crossposted from MnProgressiveProject)