(Part 2)
12. Steven Nelson, of 616 North 2nd Street, says he just found out about this [meeting] a few hours ago. [Yet here he is...] He claims to have followed the project for some time, and urges the board to [again] "take the wider view.' He is FOR the project. [Is "wider view" code for anti-NIMBY nowadays?]
13. Tyrone Bujold, of 117 Portland, calls upon the board to oppose the project, and to do so tonight. He again points out that Crown Hydro cannot legally operate in that location now. The Park Board must endorse the zoning change at the city. Ten years ago, Park Board policy was set to restrict usage of river water to provide 2,000 cubic feet per second over the falls. Why reduce that number now? Mr. Bujold is OPPOSED to this project. [Here's another guy who is likely to tie the Park Board up in court.]
14. Penny Winton, of 700 South 2nd, remarks that Crown Hydro has a beautiful presentation of their detailed plans [including the marketing pieces set up in the Park Board HQ hallway -- can we put our anti-project literature there, too?], but they have not persuaded her. Crown Hydro has had years to work on this project and to persuade people, but opponents such as herself have only weeks or months to prepare a defense. She is OPPOSED to the project.
15. Jeff H??nds, of 100 2nd St SE, is an advocate of hydro power. He remarks that Xcel has been turned down for being allowed to use more water in their existing hydro plant at the falls. He is opposed to taking more water away from the St. Anthony Falls, but if the board decides to do so, it should be given to Xcel. They can generate the power much more cheaply with that power. He was once a hydro power developer himself. Fifteen years ago he looked at this same location as a possibility, and decided not to pursue it because of the immense difficulty in meeting all the needs of the various stakeholders. He is OPPOSED to the project.
16. Pete Gelser, of 100 2nd St SE, says there are compelling arguments for hydro power, but in another location, not this one. The risks are too high, and too long (100 years), for the benefits involved. He is OPPOSED to the project.
17. Karen Rasmussen, of 600 South 2nd, states that this project provides no incremental renewable energy benefit, over other uses of the money and/or water. She reminds the board and the public that the Park Board as recently as August, 2003 was opposed to reducing the flow over the falls to below 2000 cubic feet per second. She asks the commissioners if they want their legacy to be the destruction of St. Anthony Falls. She is OPPOSED to the project.
18. Bridget Ryan, of 4105 17th Avenue South, says she is a recreational user of the river and the parks. She claims that using water power is part of the history and vibrancy of the city. She "threatens" the Greens in some vague fashion to support this project. She is FOR the project. [Was that a veiled threat at Comm. Young to vote for it?]
19. Josef ???, of 110 Bank Street, formerly of Coon Rapids(?) above the dam there. He is concerned the low water over the falls resulting from hydro power usage will result a strong foul odor coming off the water, as that is what happened above the dam during low water.
The board began their discussion.
Commissioner Young passed out copies of a September Skyway News article with lots of graphics to help with understanding, and compliment Scott Russell for a job well done.
Comm. Erwin talks about the historical usage of water power at this location and how the city and neighborhood has changed. He remarks that few people probably would accept going back to other historical uses of the river, such as driving lumber down the river. He believe the board should focus on developing the lower falls, for which there is another project to build hydro power.
Comm. Erwin MOVES that the board TERMINATE agreement/negotiation on a lease with Crown Hydro.
Comm. Mason seconds, and is in agreement with Erwin.
Comm. Young gives a rather brilliant statement, which drew a spontaneous round of applause. It included the following [perhaps she will share it in its entirety with us here?]: She mentions how Congressman Sabo was able to help the Park Board obtain large amounts of federal dollars to develop the Mill Ruins Park, and how State Rep. John Sarna did likewise for riverfront development from the state. She mentions the March, 2003 Park Board staff Motion to Intervene with FERC which opposed the project in strong words. Young says the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is 10 to 13 years old, and was written when the Crown Hydro project was planning on locating in the Crown Roller Mill, not in the Mill Ruins Park. She questions if the $5.1 million is the best use of those funds for renewable energy. She remarks that if Crown Hydro is not producing power by January, 2005 they stand to lose significant money, and even if the Park Board voted yes to approve the lease tonight, there is no way they could jump through the remaining governmental hurdles, and build the facility and get it working in time to meet that deadline. Young states this spot is no longer the ideal spot for this project, and that the lower falls are a better location for a hydro power project. She points out that the risk of failure for so little money is for so many years and SEVEN generations. [emphasis added] A new neighborhood has developed in this area. It sounds like Young is opposed to this project to many ears, but she does not come right out and say where she stands.
Comm. Berry Graves has many concerns about this project, as well. She is worried about the 50+50 lease, which leaves us with no out if things change, and also refers to the new neighborhood which has been created along the river front in this area. She says there are too many variables and too many unknowns for the board to move ahead. Crown Hydro has had more than 10 years on this project, the Board still cannot get accurate information on the project. She still wants to know what the real motivation is behind it. She says it does not pass the smell test. There's too much unknown to vote yes at this time. Berry Graves also sounds like she is opposed to this project, but does not come right out and say so.
Comm. Fine says he is against the motion [Erwin's motion to terminate lease negotiations], and claims he changed his position in the last six months. Now he is for the project. He says [in his lecturing, peremptory manner] that lots of provisions in the lease provide for historic protection, zoning protection, etc. If something bad happens, the board can terminate the lease. He says the EAW could be put into the lease. He says that "we are really making a statement about renewable energy," not protecting the river, park, bridge and neighborhood. Fine attempts to reframe the whole debate as being either "for renewable energy" or "an evil-polluter against renewable energy." [I wonder if Fine gave a flying fig about renewable energy prior to this project? I doubt it.]
Comm. Kummer, easily the biggest booster of this project on the board, says [and I quote]: "A dam did break, and a flood of misinformation" was let loose. She threatens a backlash if this project is not given the green light. She claims it is "clean, safe, right."
Comm. Dziedzic says that [counsel] Rice says that a 50+50 lease is [legally the] same as a sale. There are 9 members. He learned to add long ago. It looks like there are 4 against, and so the project is "dead in the water." [One must really hear Mr. Dziedzic speak in person to really appreciate his interesting manner of approaching a subject and his verbal locution -- it may help to imagine Peter Falk's TV character Columbo.]
Comm. Dziedzic makes a SUBSTITUTE MOTION to move the vote to May 12 -- is informed by Olson there is no meeting on the 12 but the next meeting is on the 19 -- to move the vote to May 19, take more testimony[interesting choice of words] and then vote.
Comm. Fine quickly seconds the motion.
Discussion of substitute motion:
Comm. Young says if we are going to delay, why not delay until June 2. There is a quick discussion outside the typical meeting order at this point, preventing me from knowing who said what, but the upshot is that it seems 2 commissioners will be absent at the June 2 meeting.
Comm. Erwin asks who will be present at May 19. Answer is all 9.
Comm. Mason says she sees no reason to delay. Votes have been taken in the past with commissioners absent [yes, many of them in Mason's absence for example]. She says that absent Comm. Hauser has already stated publicly that she is opposed. [That seems unlikely to me.]
Comm. Olson remarks that "I'm criticized for speaking for others." [Guess I hit a sore spot there, huh?]
The vote is called.
Mason votes No. Young abstains. Fine, Olson, Kummer, Dziedzic vote Yes to postpone. I'm not sure how Erwin or Berry Graves voted, but the decision is postponed until May 19. Be there.
The meeting was adjourned at about 7:20pm.
I have no doubt that the commissioners opposed or undecided will have their arms twisted mightily between now and May 19. Unlike other issues where "vote swapping" might not be such a bad idea -- I'll vote for your project and you vote for mine -- it would be a travesty to do that on this one. As Annie Young pointed out, the decision will last 7 generations. 50 years from now someone is going to ask what the people were thinking when they made this decision, and they'll still have to live with it another 50 years, no matter what.
This project is starting to stink to high heaven. I imagine that these guys had this great idea for a hydro plant many years ago, pursued their dream until it got away from them, like the broom in the Sorcerer's Apprentice. Now it has taken on an evil life of its own. Investors have dumped too much money into it to back down now. They smell cash, supplied by taxpayers via various subsidies. I refer you to an article by Steve Brandt of the Star Tribune, written December 27, 2001: http://mapnp.geeks.org/pipermail/mpls/2004-March/031386.html
Glen Olsen and Al Smith started the project. Then they brought in Tom Griffin. $350,000 later, they managed to land the $5.1 renewable energy grant from Xcel. Somewhere between 1993 and March 12, 2003, a guy named William Hawks became a shareholder in Crown Hydro LLC, and put up $2,700,000 in cash.
We're talking serious money now, and nobody likes to lose that kind of money. The Canadian company building the turbines (that's right, they're being built -- might even be done -- now before the lease is signed) has already been paid over $1 million, as far as I can tell.
The financial loss they will incur if not operational by January 2005 is the $.015 per kilowatt hour subsidy the state will pay them for 10 years. Since Xcel is only charging us residential customers less than $.07 per kilowatt hour, that's a nice subsidy of a bit over 20%.
It's no longer a question of is this a good renewable energy project, and are the various and sundry risks worth the tiny little bit of electric power we are going to get. Now it's who is paying who, who stands to gain from the hidden financial maneuvering, and so forth. Where is Don Shelby and the I-Team when you need them?
Chris Johnson / Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
