State Chamber, CRI (and therefor) the Koch Bros trying to buy Newark Mayoral?
Whenever someone takes money from these shadowy “pro-business” pacs, you have to think that they are getting third hand Koch brother’s money, right?
‘Polly’s Plan’ PAC funded by group supporting data center, documents show
Documents released late Monday afternoon reveal that the political action committee supporting Polly Sierer is funded by Delaware Jobs Now, the group that has been a leader in supporting the proposed data center and power plant project slated for the University of Delaware’s STAR Campus.
The group is the PAC’s sole donor, providing $45,000, which was used in part to create the website ILikePollysPlan.com and distribute fliers in Newark, both by mail and in person.
The pamphlets include a photo of Sierer with former mayor Vance A. Funk III and promote “Polly’s plan,” which the fliers claim will bring thousands of jobs to Newark and “diversify the City’s tax base – like the STAR Campus.”
Sierer has disavowed the group’s actions. The special mayoral election is Tuesday.
A filing with the state election department shows that the PAC’s chairman is Vince D’Anna, a real estate agent from the Evergreen neighborhood of Newark. D’Anna, who also donated $100 to Sierer’s official campaign, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
According to the documents, Delaware Jobs Now is in care of Delawareans for Environmental and Economic Development, which is described on its website as “a unique coalition of Delaware labor and business leaders” that “have in common [a] belief that economic growth and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive.”
The group lists as its contact information a phone number for Richard Heffron, interim president of the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce. Among its founding board members is Andrew Lubin, UD’s real estate director, who is responsible for the development of the STAR Campus.
Delaware Jobs Now and its website, delawarejobsnow.org, voice support for the proposed data center and power plant, and the group has distributed leaflets door-to-door advocating for the project.
Oh, jeez, Vince D’Anna.
I tend to support the STAR proposal, but anything that guy’s involved in is immediately suspect.
Labor funds it, too (see today’s article), so it’s not a right-wing thing as much as a “get people working however you can” thing.
Do you think the article helped or hurt her chances?
To El Som While I should consider the source, a flip, bitter little person with no real accomplishment in his life, I’m just not big enough to ignore it. I was a first team player in Joe Biden’s upset election of Cale Boggs in 1972. I worked with Senator Biden for 20 years playing a principal policy role in both state and national issues including the reaquisition of Cape Henlopen State Park, the acquision of White Clay Creek Park, The keeping the Wilmington railroad repair yards from being moved to Boston, the Three Udag projects – grants that propelled the development of a then stagnant Wilmington by the construction of the Wilmington Trust , Hercules, and Radisson buildings. I played a major role in Senator Biden making a reluctant Corps of Engineers to pay the entire $200 million cost of the St Georges Bridge replacement. I had major policy input in all biden legislative decisions including the rewrite of the federal crime bill, the Violence Against Women Act, and had a major role in staff advisory committee on Supreme Court nominees. One of my most satisfying accomplishments was my involvement (documented in three books) in denying the Judge Bork’s appointment to the Supreme Court. After retiring from the Senate< I was honored by President Clinton to be appointed Federal Commissioner to the Delaware River Basin Commissioner. I've been a democratic committeeman since 1960 Kennedy election. I have run or played a major role in over 50 elections. I 'm presently chairnan of the Council on problem gambling, was chairman of NCC Police Athletic League Del State Board of Realtors Public Advisory Committee, a member of the NCC Planning Board and the NCC Financial Advisory committeee and many other governmental, business and environmental committees. I've served as President of the both Civic Associations in which i own homes. I just recently incorporated a political polling and consulting firm. I'm sure that anyone would understand why I would take great offense to "…….anything this guy 's involved in is immmediately suspect" from a person whose major life accomplishment is a job where his major responsibility was getting Tom Sharp coffee
#stafferfights
“While I should consider the source, a flip, bitter little person with no real accomplishment in his life, I’m just not big enough to ignore it.”
At least he’s not a flip, bitter little person with his nose shoved so far up Biden’s ass he’ll give Joe a hernia if he sneezes.
You are a political hack with no redeeming qualities, but then that’s redundant, isn’t it? Crawl back into Joe’s shorts and leave real people alone.
And if you don’t know who I am, ask around. I’ll be happy to say it to your face.
Needless to say, I could do a similar laundry list. Except without the following:
“I just recently incorporated a political polling and consulting firm.”
Why didn’t you just take over Richard Korn’s previous one? There’d be little to no difference in the level of expertise. Or integrity.
“And if you don’t know who I am, ask around. I’ll be happy to say it to your face.”
or…
– “Say my name. SAY MY NAME.”
– “Heisenberg.”
– “Damn right.”
Just saw via Twitter that Sierer won
Yep, approximately 41% for Sierer to 38% for Roe, with Powers third at 13%.
The changes for building the data center project just went up. I think that that, on balance, is a good thing.
$51K for 115 votes. Sierer has no mandate and the power plant, as those of us who like to think of the 279 MW monstrosity that they want to build in the middle of one of the most densely populated areas of the state call it, is still exactly where it was, which is nowhere. There is going to be one hell of a fight before they put it up, phony jobs and all.
What a bunch of whiny idiots. There were no problems with Chrysler there for decades, but now they want to bitch & moan about a bunch of computers and possible noise from a small power plant? Gimme a break.
“$51K for 115 votes.”
That is intellectual dishonesty. If indeed Sierer and her supporters spent $51 K on the election, then they got 1506 votes for their money. The DIFFERENCE between her and Amy Roe was 115 votes.
I had no dog in this hunt, but let’s not insult each other’s intelligence.
And your point is….? Polly and her PAC’s outspent her closest opponent by 6 to 1. So yeah, it was a very costly win. I think $51K for 115 votes is a very good reflection of just how costly.
And SussexWatcher if you think 279 MW is so small, why don’t you invite them to build the facility next to your neighborhood? Just because there was a pollution producing facility there in the past doesn’t mean that now when we have a chance to do something different we have to replace it with another pollution producing facility. Frankly if that’s the best idea you can come up with, you’re the one with rather challenged mental capacities.
This is not going to be some kind of great job machine as everyone seems to think. You should go check TDC’s math on the jobs spreadsheet they submitted with their DEDO application. Check out how by counting weekend shifts as full-time employment they bumped up their totals. SussexWatcher will probably furrow his brow in a vain attempt to understand, as DEDO apparently did. If they tried to understand at all. Or , as has so commonly been the case with opponents in this thing, are facts intellectually dishonest?
Fact: $51K yielded 1506 votes, not 115 votes. Assuming that the $51K figure is accurate. If you can’t be honest about that, why should we take your word about everything else you claim?
Your implication that somehow this facility will be every bit as ‘polluting’ as Chrysler is not supported by any evidence. No, you didn’t say it, but it bears repeating that this facility would have nowhere near the pollution that the Chryler plant did. Not gonna let lazy analogies just hang out there when they’re patently untrue. And, you know, there’s a great need for jobs in Newark and elsewhere in Delaware.
That’s why John Kowalko, for example, who has vociferously opposed this facility as well as a Wawa, strongly supported restarting the polluter-on-steroids in Delaware City. I understand NIMBY, having once served on CCOBH, but I also now better understand when it gets out of hand. Like here.
Finally, you wrote that ‘we have a chance to do something different’. OK, I’ll bite. What? How many, if any, jobs will that create?
This facility will produce more pollution per acre of space than Chrysler ever did. It will also employ far, far fewer people. Those are simple facts based on simple division using numbers derived from the official air quality permit submitted to DNREC. Or do you deny those numbers? If you want to talk about jobs, I’d be more than happy to break them down for you using the numbers TDC themselves submitted to DEDO and not this BS ‘economic analysis.’ But once again, you’ve got to admit those numbers exist.
Delaware does need jobs. But this is a quick-fix solution. It will employ only a fraction of the claimed construction workers (anecdotal evidence: Calpine’s garrison plant is being built on the same timeline (2-3 years), same tech, slightly more generating capacity and is employing only 250 construction workers and 16 permanent employees, words straight from Levin’s mouth at the groundbreaking) for 2-3 years and then it will be gone. TDC’s employment numbers are premised on fully leasing the facility, something they themselves said is at least 5 years out, and doing really unrealistic things like having a full-time landscaping staff of around 20. Whatever gains it will bring are slow to accumulate and depend on nothing in the technological or economic landscape changing between now and then, which is a sucker bet if ever there was one.
Creating jobs does not require that we build what would be, acreage calculations aside, on of the top ten pollution producing facilities in the state (read the News Journal) in the middle of 30,000 people. There are better solutions, such as been proposed by Delle Donne, that better leverage exiting UD expertise that could go up on this site, pollute less, and employ more if people would use some brains and imagination and not their mouths. On both sides. There is absolutely no way you can convince me though that this is necessary, does anything other than argue for growth that doesn’t adversely impact the surrounding communities, or is, at the very least, being opposed by people who were shut out of the process in contravention to everything a democratic society is supposed to be about. I don’t know why John Kowalko supported Delaware City and not this other than to say it is possible for a reasonable person to learn from their mistakes. And quite frankly, if you want to just slap this thing up on the back of the claim it will pollute less than Chrysler and is therefore better you are neither.
‘…more pollution per acre of space than Chrysler ever did’. In other words, not more pollution, not even close.
‘…only 250 construction workers and 16 permanent employees’. That’s 260-plus damn good jobs that they don’t have now. Not to mention those who will work at the facility once it’s finished.
The Chrysler plant was in the middle of 30,000 people. A lot of those people worked at Chrysler, and a lot more were family members, and/or worked for businesses that depended on Chrysler. Those jobs went away. Hey, maybe the County could turn it into a park…
You claim that there are ‘better solutions’. It’s up to you to convince the powers-that-be that your vision is superior. However, there is currently a ‘something’ there, may be ideal, may not be ideal, but it’s there. There is currently not ‘something better’ there for consideration.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. Just saying that there has to be at least a modicum of reality in the discussion. I do think that the adversarial approach did opponents no good in this case, only served to harden positions and strengthen resentments. Might’ve felt good, but that’s little satisfaction in the end.
I think it’s important to point out that of the six districts, Amy handily won the districts that are closest to the power plant. Polly had 24% of the vote in District 3 and 15% of the vote in District 4. It is clear that those in the city that would have to deal with the air and noise pollution are firmly against the project.
District 3: Roe 485, Sierer 198, Powers 78, Morehead 29, DelCollo 24, Vento 12, Harland 2.
District 4: Roe 188, Powers 63, Sierer 51, Morehead 14, DelCollo 7, Harland 7, Vento 4
No, that’s 250 jobs they will have for 2-3 years and then won’t have. As for the 16 workers left behind who knows? TDC says in their DEDO application that the average non-loaded salary for a full-time worker will be about $46K before taxes or employee contributions. DSHA says the housing wage for a two-bedroom rental in New Castle county is $45K or about $22 an hour. The median base pay hourly wage for full-time workers on the scale established in TDC’s DEDO application is $28 an hour. 225 full-time workers, 76% of those they say they will hire, will be below that median. The average salary for those below the median is about $38K or about $18 an hour before taxes or employee contributions. Again, the information derives from TDC’s DEDO application. Are these good jobs?
You make absolutely zero sense in claiming both that there hasn’t been a “modicum of reality in the discussion” and that the approach could be other than opposition. On the one hand, the argument against has been based on the documents TDC has submitted to various gov’t agencies, documents that almost everyone, including you apparently, seem to ignore or discount the existence of. On the other hand, get yourself a dictionary and look up the definition of adversarial. As soon as you say “I disagree” you are an adversary. If the tone of the fight, your word choice being a good example, got nasty it wasn’t from this side, which has been insisting on their right to be heard contra good buddy Jack Markell and Hair Club for Men models like D’Anna as well as a modicum of reality in the discussion.
This thing is far from over so don’t go thinking otherwise.
Uh, in this economy, $18 an hour is a good wage. $28 an hour is even better. Especially when one considers the alternative.
I’ve made clear that I think D’Anna’s involvement in virtually anything causes me to be suspicious. Didn’t have a dawg in this hunt. Just commenting on the situation as it is.
And, yes, I think what appears to be reflexive opposition to both this and the bleepin’ Wawa causes many reasonable people to wonder exactly what would be acceptable to those in opposition. I consider that adversarial, not constructive. YMMV.
Ezra.
Is there a link to those results broken down by district? Or can you post them somewhere if they are penciled down?
http://delawareada.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Results-Slide.pptx
Thanks…
Ezra – what your comment seems to show is that, unless you were a single issue voter who didn’t want something built in your neighborhood, Polly was the overwhelming choice of voters. Did you work for her? If you did, great job.
Nuttingham, perhaps it is time to stop framing this as a NIMBY issue. Perhaps this is a NIABY (Not in Anyone’s Back Yard) issue. I am sure District 5 and District 1 would have supported a different candidate (or Polly may even feel differently) if the Newark Country Club site was the site for the power plant. Perhaps we should recognize the valid concerns of the affected communities and ensure that power plants are not recognized in residential areas.
I am reassured that NIMBY is alive and well. It was the foundation of our democracy, if not all democracies. If we didn’t care what Britain was doing over here we would have never revolted. We be speaking British now, instead of American. In that spirit….
“Gawdon Scowlbags! In what case let me wish all ov yew ‘ere on Delaware Liberal an’ elsewhere a very ‘appy Thanksgivin’ an’ a most profitable Black Friday…. OK?”
El Somnambulo what do you live on? You may think it is a good wage and it may look like a good wage. But if you are trying to make it work, and with a family no less, not so much. I make slightly more (and I mean slightly) than $18 an hour gross and if my wife didn’t work we’d be hosed. As it is we’re on the knife edge of disaster every month anyway. If you think that kind of perpetual stress is keen, I suggest medical assistance. And where are all these unions demanding that TDC use union labor whe the facility is up and running? What do you think there answer to that would be?
I don’t know how I am supposed to take an opposing viewpoint from yours and not be an advisory. And quite frankly, if you think the opposition is merely reflexive, you haven’t been paying attention and are woefully misinformed. I suggest taking some time to educate yourself with, you know, an open mind rather than pre-judging. Until then you are really just being ignorant if you spout off.
Either you have the jobs or you don’t have the jobs.
If those 250-plus jobs building this facility aren’t there, then the people who would have done those jobs will have to live on a lot less than if they were there.
Because they won’t have the jobs.
Hello, is this mike on?
Fascinating election.
I was a bit surprised Powers did not do better. I thought she was more popular with the “mainstream” Democrats and that Roe would mostly get the vote of the hard lefties, greens, etc.
I know several people in City Council and on various city boards and commissions. A universal theme that I heard from them was that “Amy does not play well with others”. She does project a bit of arrogance, IMHO.
It seems just enough people saw this side of Ms. Roe to cost her the election.
On the whole I think this is a good thing. I don’t think the power plant/data center is going to happen in any event. Just don’t see the Data Centers LLC having the chops/financing/etc. to pull it off.
The mayor elect will be working with the rest of city government for a long time after the power plant/data center has either come or gone. I think with Roe in the mayor’s seat our city government would have approached the level of dysfunction currently observed at the Federal level.
YMMV.
El Somnambulo, an out-of-state firm with 8 employees shows up and asks for state subsidies to build a billion dollar project on land owned by a state institution using a loophole in the local zoning code. None of the employees have experience running the type of business that they’re proposing, and the corporate address is a Mailboxes Etc store down the road from CEOs house (though they claim to have a ‘suite’ in the Mailboxes Etc store). The project has already been rejected once by a community in the paragon of open government and environmental awareness that is New Jersey. They claim to be getting capital from an investment firm that mysteriously hires a former state GOP chair right around the time they begin dealing shopping the project to the state. After two years of behind the negotiations behind closed doors, the project gets brought to light and the governor comes out swinging for it, insulting anyone who questions it. When it comes time to file their air pollution permit, the politically connected environmental engineering firm that the company has hired submits an email from a diesel engine salesman as the authoritative source on their emissions numbers for cancer causing air pollutants. When a non-partisan local election ends up hinging around the issue, supporters of the project form a PAC after what they think is the last campaign finance reporting deadline to funnel more money into the race than all candidates combined. Why do I suspect that if a few more of the players in question were Republicans you might take a more skeptical view of this project?
As for the pollution, this project is really bad. On the cancer causing air pollutant front, it will compete with Delaware City for being the worst in the state. In 2011 Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde emissions from the worst polluter in the state, the Hay Road Power Plant in Wilmington (which is 4 times as large as TDC) were 7 tons. TDCs estimate for these two carcinogens (based on aforementioned diesel engine salesman’s numbers, their draft permit used EPA estimates and was far higher) is 10 tons. The Delaware City Refinery wasn’t included in the 2011 numbers, so its unclear where they would be. But general story is this is a particularly dirty gas fired power plant.
EPAs 2011 emissions
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1IBedZw2qwGkMfwma4K9UIrYx6nO5Vj7D4uvwri4#rows:id=1
and
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1hGFqrlZIOl-LyYrSy8DCapcgNsgz91UegCl5LDI#rows:id=1
TDC permit here:
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Air/Pages/tds.aspx
So you’d rather have no job than half a job? What fucking sense does that make?
The “these jobs aren’t good enough” line is just a secondary argument against the plant from the people who are REALLY saying “Put it anywhere else but near me.” They are only interested in what’s in their back yard. Same deal as with the damn Wawa. Newark is getting a rep as a bunch of pansy pissants whining because businesses actually want to grow. Get over yourselves.
Listen, if you think it is so hot to have “half a job” or any job instead of no job, why don’t you take one of these jobs you’re tugging so hard at for a smile and see how well you can live with it? No? Because it is fine as long as it isn’t you right? Becasue businesses can grow and don’t have to give a shit about the people who work for them or the people who live around them or anything except making a buck. Hey I think I saw some cripples you can steal the crutches from and laugh about over your smug. Small wonder democrats and repuglicans are indistinguishable these days. You guys deserve one another.
Let’s see…$18 an hour times, say, 35 hours a week times 52 weeks a year is more than $32,000. Same math for $28 an hour is around $51,000 annually.
We’re not talking Walmart here. What, exactly, are you saying? That these jobs are worthless? That people don’t want or need them?
Seriously, you’re not making sense.
And for your information, I work for less than that now. So you can quit your phony “Because it is fine as long as it isn’t you right?” You have no clue as to economic realities.
We’re not talking Walmart wages here. And you’re not talking sense.
Those of us who live in Newark are used to the University doing as it wishes. The power plant/data center battle is part of a continuing conflict. I doubt that those of you who live in other communities would approve of a company in your area that could acquire property in your neighborhood build what they want without restrictions and remove it from the tax base.
Maybe we should bring in that Siracha plant instead. It would spice up our economy and their existing neighbors seem ready to close it down.
Tom: Good points. We went through some of that in Brandywine 100. Even when we (CCOBH) got deed restrictions that established limits (see Building, Rollins), those restrictions were often ignored without consequence. So, I get the frustration. I also see in hindsight that we perhaps were a bit too purist and condescending in our approach…and it probably worked to our disadvantage a few times.
I don’t know if anyone has previously made the point that this parcel would be taken off the tax rolls. Is that accurate? If so, that’s something that really needs to be addressed. That’s a special tax break that seems totally unfair to me. I also couldn’t agree with you more about the seeming ability of UD to flout requirements that others must follow. It’s why I’ve pushed and pushed for a requirement that the university open its books to public inspection if it expects to get state funds. Needless to say, that push hasn’t gone far.
My issue has been in this, from Wawa to a data processing center, the ‘we don’t want it’ meme. I think a more reasonable approach from skeptics might provide better understanding and compromise on both side.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and to all our readers and commenters!!
You work for less than what? $32K? Welcome to the club. $51K? Get over yourself. I have more of a clue to economic realities than you. You throw around these numbers like all this cash is going right into these worker’s pockets. But it isn’t. Any job isn’t necessarily a good job. And some jobs wind up costing society more. If you’re so economically realistic then you should be asking what these paychecks are going to look like when it comes time to pay the rent, to buy food and clothes, to put gas in the car , and other such essentials. From that perspective, these aren’t great jobs for majority of those TDC says they will employ. You can go here
http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/
or here
http://livingwage.mit.edu
to find evidence of that, assuming you care about that pesky sort of thing.
So, CR, just what would be a level of compensation for the 250 or so people building this project that YOU would find acceptable?
If that level of compensation passes muster with you, then would you find the project acceptable?
Just asking, b/c you STILL make no sense here.
I dispute the claim that these will be ‘good’ jobs. Arguments for the construction of the facility on this basis are disingenuous because they do not consider if the jobs provide a level of compensation that would ensure an adequate standard of living for the workers who have them. Failure to consider this point is to argue simply for jobs, not ‘good’ ones. This is a remarkably short-sighted stance. Jobs that don’t provide adequate pay have a large social cost Walmart, which you yourself mention, being only one example. These jobs do not, in renumeration or number, present any kind of convincing argument for the construction of this facility on that account. They certainly do not justify the costs, environmental and economic (i.e. homeowners who stand to lose tens of millions of dollars in value because of their proximity to the plant), that the city and county would accrue long-term. They do promise, at the present levels of compensation, to create more competition for scarce affordable housing as well as the potential for further strain on available social services.
Beyond the above, it is deeply troubling how many have utterly failed to verify the accuracy of these numbers while yet repeating them. Did you notice TDC counting all its weekend shifts as full-time jobs? 5000 construction jobs? TDC’s own economic analysis says only about 1600 direct effect jobs in construction over three years with 83% of the total temporary direct effect jobs coming outside construction. How can the claims for ongoing jobs be correct if they haven’t even figured out their own staffing levels properly? Why should I trust what they claim for capital expenditures and subsequent tax revenues if they can’t do simple math? Having Jack Markell tell everyone who lives in the city to shut up and take it doesn’t really do anything to convince otherwise. These numbers passed state muster and got TDC $7.5 million dollars in public money yet no one caught this stuff? How the hell am I supposed to ‘trust the system’ under that cloud? The whole thing reeks to high heaven.
Really, honestly, you’re the one who isn’t making any sense. All you’ve done is make simple assertions in an utterly reactionary mode. Why should I be convinced of anything you’re saying any more than the rest of the shills for this thing?
“homeowners who stand to lose tens of millions of dollars in value because of their proximity to the plant”
The homes in proximity to the plant sell for around $200,000. According to a 2010 study from UCal-Berkeley, homes within two miles of power generating plants lose from 3-7% of their value. If we take the average, that means each homeowner would be out about $10,000. That means a loss of $1 million per 100 homes. That falls many millions short of “tens of millions of dollars.”
Also, too, this power plant is a good deal smaller than is typical, so the odds are the financial impact would be less, not more, than the average.
Link to the study:
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/pp.pdf
So, given your inability to look up something so simple, relying instead on your wildly imaginative exaggerations, why should we listen to a word you say? You clearly are willing to say anything to throw up a roadblock to the project.
Tell ya what, sporto — tell me how many jobs will be created by killing the project? It had better be more than one, or your whole argument sucks ass.
“Smaller than typical”? What’s typical? Also, the money homeowners stand to lose is less than ????. If you’d bothered to find out how many homes are within 2 miles of the power plant maybe you’d have an answer and an argument. Kinda makes your exercise in math pointless. Just guessing but I bet it is greater than 100. Or a 1000. Let’s not forget commercial properties as well.
Also, instead of me trying to prove a negative, why don’t you tell me how many jobs will be created because all I’m seeing from the numbers that have been offered to/by our oh-so-aware public officials and the rest of the shills is laughably inconsistent and/or ignorant of basic math. Maybe you can explain it, your problems with multiplication notwithstanding.
It kills me that Newark residents are trying to kill this. I really couldn’t care less, but WTF? You people put up w/ Chrysler for 60-ish years. Do you really think this “data center” will pollute MORE and/or detract MORE from the quality of life than a fucking AUTO MANUFACTURING plant and auto parts distribution depot did until just a few years ago?
Do you think the data center employees will be sitting in the parking lot of the Kum-On Inn on 273 at 9AM waiting for the bar to open? Lots of 3rd shift Chrysler guys did that. Then they drove home hammered and shared the roads w/ your children on the school bus.
And pollution? Are you fucking kidding me? Someone please do some testing under the building that now houses Timothy’s Newark location at Paper Mill Rd. and Cleveland Ave. AVF/NVF used to dump manufacturing waste (zinc compounds and acids IIRC) UNDER THE BUILDING in the ’50s and ’60s on a regular basis.
LeBay=Post of the Year Nominee.
And now the Roe camp is protesting the election results…
Manlove denies the injunction. Lawsuit pending?
Way to try to reunite a divided community… This bunch is showing the type of behaviour that cost them the election.
@CR: You really should look up the numbers yourself — you’re the one who made the claims without doing any research. But I took a crack at it last night. I couldn’t figure out how to use census tracts, so I estimated by using Google maps. The two-mile radius might include 1,000 single-family homes, so the negative economic impact might reach $10 million — and I emphasize might.
The study I linked to examined construction of power plants of varying types, including coal-powered and nuclear, from the 1990s to early this century. Most were larger than the one proposed for Newark. The study specifically EXCLUDED plants that were built as part of a larger facility, because pre-existing industrial zoning had already depressed surrounding property values. And they are typically built in more rural areas, which is why they measured as far as two miles out.
The study also acknowledges that noise is the No. 1 problem with gas-powered generation. The site is about 1 mile from downtown Newark. Do you really think you will hear that noise on Main Street (the real one) over the sounds of traffic and other business activity? I seriously doubt it.
Next time you make a bunch of wild accusations, why don’t you do a little research to make sure you’re not barking at the moon?
@carpetbagger: I don’t understand the links you included in your pollution comment. They all list much higher emissions than Hay Road, let alone the data center’s power plant.
It really kills me when ignorant people MISS THE POINT ENTIRELY that opposition is to a 279 MW “power plant” and not a data center, which demonstrably does not require said plant to operate. It really kills me when people insist that this is better simply because it pollutes less (though per acre it will pollute more than Chrysler did. But that’s another story). It really kills me when someone compares a business not occupied 24/7 to a RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD in order to make a point that once again displays a studied ignorance of the LESSONS OF THE PAST. It really kills me when people can’t be bothered to LEARN from the mistakes of the past and instead insist that we repeat them at a supposedly lesser order of magnitude as if somehow that makes it better. It really kills me when people want to have it both ways: Timothy’s pollution is bad. Chrysler’s pollution was bad. But this pollution (and it is polluting enough to make it into the top ten around the state) is somehow by the illogic of bad argument, good. It really kills me that people can’t be bothered to have any kind of skeptical approach to a project that cries out with IRREGULARITY because they are too busy being knee-jerk reactionaries. If you all love the damn thing so much, give Gene Kern a call and tell him you’re ready to let him build it next to your damn house. If you build it in Kent or Sussex, people might actually be able to afford having a job there.
@abc What nonsense, the reason the opponents of the power plant lost the election is that the vote was spread among several challengers. Bringing in so much outside money into an election that proponents would have won anyway
has caused greater divisions.
“Knee-jerk reactionaries”?
Pot, meet kettle.
“Demonstrably does not require the power plant to operate.”
Sorry, but that has not been “demonstrated.” It has been averred by opponents, who claim that the grid can handle the load the data center will require. The last time the chief proponent of that claim got involved in the electricity-generation issue we got Bluewater Wind out of it. How’d that work out for ya?
Another thing that has not been demonstrated is the allegation that the data center is a ruse, proposed only to build the power plant. Indeed, no demonstration of it could be possible, because the charge itself is absurd. If power generation alone would produce more profit than the data center, they wouldn’t have proposed a money-losing data center just to get a power plant. If you don’t believe me on this, try taking it to the capital markets and see what they think.
You know what kills me? When people oppose the project by making airy but uninvestigated claims.
If you want to point out that there’s no need to put such a project on an industrial site with rail access — its service can’t be carried by rail — I’m right there with you. If you want to point out that a more rural site will curtail the effects of the permitted emission of pollutants, fine, though I would note that the environmental review is the correct forum for that issue.
But realize that building the plant outside the city limits would mean no tax revenue for the city. Building it outside the school district boundaries would mean no extra revenue for the Christina School District. Those entities are just as interested in seeing those benefits as the developers are in building it.
My own preference would be for the state to find an actual manufacturer to build on the site, but if people are putting up this much fuss over a relatively benign gas-powered generation station, what chance do you think an actual manufacturer would have of getting a project approved?
There’s an old saying in politics: You can’t beat somebody with nobody. Similarly, the options here are the data center/power plant or nothing. Don’t be surprised if the people responsible for running the city prefer something to nothing.
Sorry, but that has not been “demonstrated.”
Sure it has. I’ve provided nonstop links of the data centers being built by Google, Facebook, Apple, etc that are powered from renewable sources only — using the grid for backup power needs mostly. And I’ll say again that if this facility was building facilities using the principles of these companies, they wouldn’t have the push back they’ve got now. What is “innovative” about this facility is the additional revenue stream of the power production. This project has no customers yet — but it does have a revenue stream which probably makes investors slightly happier. Still — Bloom is there — manufacturing — and I don’t think that anyone was screaming about this facility in their backyard.
OK geezer. According to the Newark, DE website (http://www.cityofnewarkde.us/index.aspx?NID=281), there are 9039 total housing units in Newark. Of those, 6,342 are single family dwellings and 1,173 single family rental dwellings for a total of 7,515 single family units. The total area inside a circle with radius of 2 miles is 12.57 square miles (area of a circle = pi time radius squared). The total area of Newark, again according to the the website above is only 9.3 square miles. So we have an area that is a quarter again as large as Newark itself where property values might take a hit meaning we could conceivably include all those houses in our total, assuming again that we leave aside the impact on value of commercial properties and multi-unit buildings. But not all that area is residential so let’s stick with the area of Newark and reduce the number of buildings accordingly. 9.3/12.57 gives us about 74% and 74% of 7515 is 5561. So applying the numbers you use gives us a total of $55,611,000 potential loss.
As to your objections, in the first place you typical is typical only in terms of the population of the study. Secondly, if plants built in pre-existing industrial area are excluded (and I note here that the article does not use the language that you do or make the causal connection you do) it is because location is an unobservable effect for the study as constructed. Still, the very fact that values are already depressed near industrial locations only highlights the impact that these facilities have on values in an area. This is further reinforced by the conclusion (and here I am citing the published version of the article (http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_00119), not the manuscript) that “there is evidence of taste-based sorting, with neighborhoods near plants experiencing statistically significant decreases in mean household income, educational attainment, and the proportion owner-occupied.” Finally, the study also concludes that total impact was “relatively small because plants tended to be opened in locations where the population density is low.” So, this plant is not typically sited within the confines of the study. What will the effect be on plopping one down into a very densely (3627 people per square mile according to city-data.com) populated area? Is there any reason to think that the tendency identified by the study would not hold? No or at least none that is persuasive.
It is interesting to note here that despite the population of the study being built in low density areas, “the proportion of households for which the household head is black or Hispanic in the neighborhoods within 2 miles is higher” consistent with findings in environmental justice research. Also, the study finds “no evidence of employment or tax revenue effects” beyond possible “small” ones, meaning that power plants do not produce a profound or positive effect on the local economies or tax revenue.
Geezer,
Since it appears you read the Davis article on housing prices in great depth, you certainly noticed that the author also estimated that the effect on housing prices did not disappear until 4 miles away from a power plant, meaning all 10,000 households in Newark, can, on average, be expected to see a decline in value, as well as all 5,000 households in Brookside, and parts of Glasgow and Elkton. The author also estimated effect closer than 1 miles was more on the order of a 10% decline in housing values (hint, look at figure 3) which would be around $20,000 per house, and there are hundreds, if not thousands of houses within 1 mile. So yes, at least ten million in expected in property value losses is probably not far off. You also certainly noticed (from table 4) that the construction of power plants was associated with a 10% decline in average household incomes (because middle class families move away), as well as smaller declines in rates of college completion, high school completion, and home ownership.
Or did you not get past the first paragraph?
Also, the 279MW rating is smaller than the average from the Davis study, but it TDC’s plant pollutes a lot more than your average 279MW plant, exceeding the 1100MW Hay Road plant in Wilmington on several key pollutants (e.g. Acetaldehyde, VOCs)
@geezer
For the linked pages (the EPAs emissions inventory for 2011) filter by state to DE, Hay Road then tops the list for both pollutants.
I clearly got past the first page. Did you? Did you notice that the study excluded plants that did not stand alone because the economic effect came with the original industrial construction and was therefore not included in the study. Did you notice that the stand-alone plants were usually in rural locations? Did you notice that the study treated all forms of energy production the same? Did you, in short, understand anything about it that didn’t support your already-arrived-at conclusion?
Thanks for clarifying how to work the pollutant site.
Now, can you tell me if any of those sources emit the substances in concentrations high enough to pose a health threat? Because the total emitted isn’t as important as the concentration. I only made it through about a quarter of the 311-page permit application, so I just searched and found the pollutants. In both cases the permit claims concentrations will be below the federal thresholds. That doesn’t mean they will be, of course, but again, that’s for the DNREC folks to deal with.
“meaning all 10,000 households in Newark, can, on average, be expected to see a decline in value,”
Really? Because of a noise that you probably won’t hear more than a half-mile away? Despite the fact that home values didn’t rise when Chrysler went out of business? Good luck with this line of reasoning. We’ll see if it’s true if, after the plant is built, Newark’s housing values decline while they rise everywhere else. I think you’re wrong, but there’s no way to tell without building it.
In fact, the study’s conclusions already fail to predict housing prices in Delaware. Take a look at Indian River’s generating station. Check the property values within two miles of it over the past 20 years. If you find the prices dropping there while they’re going up all over the rest of eastern Sussex County, I’ll say you have a point. Except they haven’t. In fact, hundreds of extremely pricy homes have been built within that radius over the past 20 years.
My point in linking to the study was that “tens of millions of dollars” is an exaggeration, and the real impact probably won’t top $10 million. Considering what New Castle County paid a few years back to buy out an entire flood-prone development, I don’t see that as an insurmountable problem.
Yeah, it has been. How do you think data centers today run? The claim is that this data center is unique because it is the first to have a power plant located on-site. There is sufficient utility power available to the site, as Dr. Kempton has pointed out, and you can do the math without him to find that out. As to your attempted smear, you’d do better to point the finger at the people who screwed up the financing, which wasn’t his thing.
As for a ruse, I first have to say that if you think the “logic” of the market is such that it wouldn’t throw money at a bad idea you should go and lay down somewhere quiet after first seeking professional assistance. It makes perfect sense for the data center to be a loss leader, especially given that the demand for power will only increase drastically as coal fired facilities are retired. If you’d look into how they are selling this thing to finance capital, you realize that the power plant is precisely the crutch that will allow the data center to limp along to profitability, if ever, this being something of a competitive market area in that respect. It will be producing at capacity long before the data center will. Not to mention that the only real concrete asset they have to build financing on is the PPA and a potential PJM interconnect. The structure of this deal is a perfect way to get around the regulatory hurdles that would confront a typical dedicated merchant power plant. This is also a sweet deal for the university since their electric service agreement with the city gives them the right to have power purchased from a facility located on property they own with a rate structure different from that of the power from other suppliers. They also can have that power supplied to university facilities as well as 1743 Corp ones. They also get the right to unlimited self-generation after the initial term of the agreement is up. So maybe no smoking gun that this is a ruse but hardly an unreasonable assertion. If you are inclined to skepticism, maybe that’s because they aren’t building it in your backyard.
It is fallacious to present this as an either or choice. They could build the data center using the power already available, which would probably be a bigger boost for the area since they’d be pumping money into DEMEC and its member communities. They don’t need this power plant. They want it. And there is a big difference between the two I’m told.
I wouldn’t mind a manufacturer of some sort there. As long as they were polluting less than this, didn’t have the potential to make as much noise, affect my property values negatively, or be an eyesore as the condensate cloud from this one will be. Is that too much to ask? I don’t think so. As for the people “responsible for running the city” the results of the last election should make pretty clear they need to tread carefully about this. They certainly don’t have a mandate to ignore public opinion. Hell, even D’Anna thought is was frightfully close and he’s some hot shot. Or so he sez.
See what I did there?
In short, you want the former Chrysler plant retired as an industrial site and turned into a commercial one instead.
I want a pony. See what I did there?
“I’ve provided nonstop links of the data centers being built by Google, Facebook, Apple, etc that are powered from renewable sources only — using the grid for backup power needs mostly.”
None of which are in the business of guaranteeing nonstop service to outside clients, and so would not be in violation of contracts if power were interrupted.
@geezer, I presume you mean section V paragraph 3 of the Davis article. This does not say that plants sited with other uses were excluded. It said that generators under 100 MW and cogen facilities were excluded because they tend to be associated with other industrial facilities. To be fair, the TDC proposal is a cogen facility, but that misses the broader point of the article. Cogen plants are excluded because they are usually sited with industries that pollute even more, and he’s looking to pick up the effect of the powerplants, not the other industries. For example, the Delaware City Refinery includes a power plant, but no one moves away from Delaware City saying that ‘that power plant really suck!’. The key sentence is “to disentangle the disamenities from power plants, it makes sense to concentrate on these large plants that tend overwhelmingly to be independent facilities.” Disamenity here means negative externality associated with the power plant, not some positive economic spillover effect.
The air permit application does address how carcinogens will interact with the environment in section 8.4.1 of the permit application. They find that the estimated excess cancer cases caused by the TDC plant will be 1/2 the federal threshold. This sounds nice until you consider that the data source for their carcinogen estimates is a somewhat questionable email from their engine salesman (page 180). Their original draft air permit included 3 times the Formaldehyde emissions, and even those were less than what the EPA documents they originally cited would have projected (DNREC sorta called them out on that). It all gives the impression that these pollutant numbers are being finessed to fit under the federal thresholds. So tell me, would you want a decision about whether or not your kids get cancer riding on that salesman’s email?
Once again, geez, you aren’t paying attention to the design of the study. Housing crisis aside (and how do you extract that market effect happening as it did at the same time as Chrysler closing), Indian River has been shutting down the worst of its units since 2010 (http://www.coastalpoint.com/content/nrg_shut_down_power_plants_unit_3) which corresponds to an increase in home values in Dagsboro (http://www.city-data.com/city/Dagsboro-Delaware.html). You wanted math. I gave you math. You doubted there was even a 1000 homes within two miles. You were wrong.
So which is it? We’ll need more power production “because coal plants are going offline” (they have been replaced by natural gas plants at Indian River), but you want to make sure it’s generated somewhere else.
You still don’t seem to get the point: The communities closest to Chrysler have already been priced to reflect their proximity to an industrial site. The same home that sells for $200,000 in the Binns sells for more five miles away. The prices didn’t go up when Chrysler closed.
Also, the Chrysler site was among the largest pollution sources in the state when it was in operation. Customers found that so offensive that over the past decade hundreds of new homes have been built and sold on West Chestnut Hill Road, well within one mile of the site.
No one can guarantee 100% uninterrupted service. That’s like saying a ship can’t sink and we know how that went. A failure of the regional grid, also the only thing that would take the data center down were it using on-site power from DEMEC, would also shut down the pumps providing the gas.
Hey, I’m glad you finally owned up to being a brony. That’s cool man. The first step to living the life you want is admitting you want it.
“You doubted there was even a 1000 homes within two miles. You were wrong.”
No, I wasn’t. Many of the units within that radius are apartments and townhomes, not single-family units.
Your Indian River example proves that coal plants, not gas plants, are the ones that cause the greatest effect on home values.
@CFN: Permits can be requested at any level, the higher the better, in order to avoid incurring penalties when control systems break down. It’s not an accurate indicator of the turbine’s actual emissions.
Hey, I only want the pony so you aren’t my only source of horseshit.
So you acknowledge that your real goal is no industry on this industrial site.
Put it somewhere not in the middle of 3647 people per square mile. Or better yet, make a real effort to invest in and develop renewables on a large scale.
So basically your argument is that home values in the Binns have been beat down by proximity to an industrial plant (and by the way, I’ll remind you again, prices may not have gone up when Chrysler closed because of the housing crisis. No way to tell for sure.) so they should stay beat down. Go on and give the dog another kick. You are awesome dude.
Also, your second paragraph and your third contradict one another producing more nonsense.
Go check the link for Newark I provided. See where it says Single Family dwellings and not rental units? Duh.
I never said no industry. To quote myself, not that reality matter much to you, “I wouldn’t mind a manufacturer of some sort there. As long as they were polluting less than this, didn’t have the potential to make as much noise, affect my property values negatively, or be an eyesore as the condensate cloud from this one will be. Is that too much to ask? I don’t think so.” Does that mean no industry? No, it sure does not because there are lots of them that meet the criteria.
Go on. I’ll leave another straw out for you.
Investing in renewables is not on offer.
And you have no interest whatsoever in a reality-based debate, or else you wouldn’t be reading the study to cherry-pick the elements that suit your argument.
The problem with gas plants is noise. The noise won’t be audible over the ambient noise once you get beyond about a half-mile away.
Don’t be surprised, though, when the people who want this project note that you’re arguing from your own proximity to the plant. You aren’t interested in the truth. You’re interested in getting what you want.
On the other hand, I don’t care whether the project goes forward or not. My interest is in exposing the fraudulent nature of the picture you keep painting.
I think I’ve heard enough. I will now retire to my chambers with a cognac and deliver my verdict on the morrow.
This is the sound of a gavel.
*knock, knock*
Your Newark housing calculation is wrong. “Single-family units” includes attached housing.
Kick you when you’re down? The plant was there since the ’40s. Unless you bought before that, you already benefited from the depressed prices when you bought. What you’re looking for is an artificial price boost from sunsetting an industrial site.
What manufacturing do you envision having an environmental footprint smaller than Chrysler’s, and why would they locate there?
You are out of order! Bailiff, Clear the room!
The plant was there since the ’40s. Unless you bought before that, you already benefited from the depressed prices when you bought. What you’re looking for is an artificial price boost from sunsetting an industrial site.
Bingo.
Really, I find your talk of reality based arguments funny. Five years since the plant closed and you want to talk about sunsetting? Puh-leez! The 40’s? Really next thing you know you’ll be saying you need to go back to the big bang. Aren’t you allowed to make a buck on your house or are you just getting a free ride from the native americans we boosted the land from? You’re sliding down a slippery slope here.
Where do you get your definition of single family from? Where do you find that noise is the only issue with power plants? With gas power plants? How do you know that noise won’t be audible more than half a mile away? What about the people who live less than half a mile? How do you know what the noise level of the power plant will be at all? Why isn’t invest in renewables on offer? Why can’t it be? Who are you to say it can’t be? And I could go on. So before you start talking about fraudulent arguments, you better lay your own bona fides down. And I’m not talking the pork sword you scared off D’Anna with, impressive though it may be.
“Five years since the plant closed and you want to talk about sunsetting? Puh-leez!”
You’re the one who’s asking for the pony. C’mon, pony up — who are all the manufacturers lined up to meet the standard you set? You live next door to a factory, you don’t get to dictate your own property value.
“Where do you get your definition of single family from?”
The real estate industry.
“Where do you find that noise is the only issue with power plants? With gas power plants?”
Didn’t say it was the only, I said it was No. 1. It’s in the Davis study.
“How do you know that noise won’t be audible more than half a mile away?”
Didn’t say it wouldn’t be. The point was about ambient noise. Once you get past Devon and the Binns, Elkton Road — oops, “South Main Street” — is generally louder than the plant will be. I lived for several years in Victoria Mews in the first building off Elkton Road. Where do you live?
“What about the people who live less than half a mile?”
My guess is they are going to hear it.
“How do you know what the noise level of the power plant will be at all?”
I don’t. Nor do you.
“Why isn’t invest in renewables on offer? Why can’t it be?”
It can’t be generated on that site; it’s not big enough.
“Who are you to say it can’t be?”
I didn’t say it can’t be. I will say it won’t be, which you can believe or not.
“And I could go on. So before you start talking about fraudulent arguments, you better lay your own bona fides down.”
Let the arguments stand on their own. I’ll put my attempt to weigh the pros and cons with your dog-in-the-fight position any time.
“And I’m not talking the pork sword you scared off D’Anna with, impressive though it may be.”
You just may have a mouth big enough to suck it.
Really, I find your talk of reality based arguments funny. Five years since the plant closed and you want to talk about sunsetting? Puh-leez! The 40′s?…or are you just getting a free ride from the native americans we boosted the land from? You’re sliding down a slippery slope here.
Odd how you deride one person’s logic in one sentence, then embrace it a few sentences later. Puh-leeze! The native Americans?
We get it. You don’t want the data center. Sadly, your arguments lack the necessary facts to support your position.
And you are a fool if you think a little powerplant will emit more than Chrysler’s manufacturing plant and parts distribution center did. Are you considering the diesel soot and other pollutants emitted from Chrysler’s non-stop heavy truck and rail traffic in your calculations?
@carpetbaggerfromthenorth-
1. Are you Joe Biden? Joe is a legit carpetbagger from the (near) north.
2. Are you trying to tell us that there are 5000 households in Brookside? It’s a big neighborhood, but not that big. Perhaps you’d like to clarify your statement.
@LeBays
1. That’s a bunch of malarky!
2. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/10/1009850.html
Yeah, I was actually there surprised there were that many households in Brookside too. Apparently it has a population of about 14,000, so it’s actually just a bit less than half the size of Newark. Live and learn.
Really. I can’t possibly make any kind of cogent argument simply because I have an interest in the outcome. And you’re going to say you got your definition of a single family home from “the real estate market” and claim to be weighing the pros and cons? Yeah, you are just the perfect picture of authoritatively informed judicial impartiality as much as democratic sensibility. Which is to say zero.
Let me help you out a little here since your memory seems to be slipping: “The problem with gas plants is noise. The noise won’t be audible over the ambient noise once you get beyond about a half-mile away.” You can claim what you want. Your words say those claims are convenient lies.
As to my comments about renewables: Did you know there was talk early on about roofing the facility with solar cells? That the NDA TDC signed with the city specifically mentioned a solar powered facility? That there was even a site plan submitted to the city of Newark that had 88 Bloom Boxes on it? No? Try learning and listening. They help with the pros and cons thing. While you are at it you might want to research a little on land use law and why we have things like master plans, zoning ordinances, etc. You’d be surprised at the things they let property owners, and citizens, do.
Be the best ride of your life honey though I think I’d be a bit bored. You bore me now.
@Lebay—…no, you’re not worth the time.
@Lebay—…no, you’re not worth the time.
Facts interfering w/ your narrative again? DAMN those pesky facts!
@carpetbaggerfromthenorth-
Brookside is a development. A neighborhood. My cousins lived there for more than 30 years. IIRC, one of the regular DL commenters also lives there.
I could not quickly find a geographic map of “Brookside CDP” on the census link you posted, but I’d have to guess that it includes Scotfield and a bunch of other places that are clearly NOT Brookside.
@LeBay
No disrespect for Brookside. Search ‘Brookside DE’ on google maps, and it will pop up the CDP boundaries. Yes, it does include Scotfield and other less pure Brookside impostors.
If you want it from the federal horse’s mouth look here:
http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/
Search for Brookside, and select ‘Place’ (CDP means Census Designated Place) in ‘Geographic Level’ box.
Regardless, when I checked earlier all of Brookside CDP fell within 4 miles of TDC’s power plant, and therefore within the area that will likely see declines in property values.
“Regardless, when I checked earlier all of Brookside CDP fell within 4 miles of TDC’s power plant, and therefore within the area that will likely see declines in property values.”
You realize that Brookside proper & its surrounding neighborhoods have ALREADY taken the property value hit from Chrysler, don’t you? Did property values increase in Brookside proper or Brookside CDP when Chrysler closed? I don’t think so. My cousins are STILL trying to sell their late father’s long-vacant house.
None of those neighborhoods are especially desirable. They are however affordable to working class people. Neither of the above will change whether the data center goes forward or not.
Get over yourself. You remind me of the whiny bitches who moved to Hockessin in the ’70s and ’80s and then complained about the mushroom flies and the stench of mushroom farms.
“Regardless, when I checked earlier all of Brookside CDP fell within 4 miles of TDC’s power plant, and therefore within the area that will likely see declines in property values.”
No, it likely will not. You can’t even process the report properly because you’re against the project no matter what. I laid out the limitations of the study. You not only ignore those limitations, you then cherry-pick facts to make a worst-case-scenario case for your biased position. Ever been on Main Street or Elkton Road? You’re telling me they’re silent? Don’t be a dick. It’s a busy town full of college students. It’s not all that quiet.
What’s wrong with the real estate industry? I’m pretty sure they’d be on your side in this. They won’t want to see property values decline.
So where do you live? I’m up in Hockessin, but I spent eight years in Newark, three of them in Victoria Mews, so I know the area. I have no dog in the fight, but I will take pleasure in your misery once the approval goes through, just because I like it when self-righteous assholes like you suffer.
If you weren’t such a dick, you’d realize that noise can be minimized and depressed property values can be compensated. The pollutants are a problem, but even Willett Kempton acknowledged this is not a dirty plant. But you’re too busy whining to acknowledge the reality of any of that.
So there are two unanswered questions hanging out there: Where do you live in proximity to the plant, and what manufacturers are knocking down our doors to locate on the property? If you’re not going to answer them, I think we’re done here.
“you are just the perfect picture of authoritatively informed judicial impartiality as much as democratic sensibility. Which is to say zero.”
Uh-oh, the “democratic sensibility” card. When they start holding referendums on such issues that might mean something. Until then, you’re just grasping at theoreticals.
People opposing the project have to make a choice: Try to get modifications to the project, or oppose it absolutely. You have chosen the latter. I predict you will lose. Only time will tell.
@ People opposing the project have to make a choice: Try to get modifications to the project, or oppose it absolutely. You have chosen the latter. I predict you will lose.
Even if you are fighting for concessions, why would you weaken your position? The stronger stand you take initially the more power you have in negotiations.
“Even if you are fighting for concessions, why would you weaken your position? The stronger stand you take initially the more power you have in negotiations.”
Because your opponents are going to make a decision: To try to mollify the opponents or to steamroller them flat. If, for example, the opponents could live with a power plant of half the proposed size, that’s what they should push for, because they have the arguments to make headway on that front.
But if the opponents are out to kill the project outright, I predict the powers lined up behind this — which is just about all the major players (unions, chamber of commerce, governor’s office, etc.) — will just stomp the opponents flat.
You can’t beat something with nothing.
If they push for a plant half the size, the new compromise becomes 75% of the size.
“You can’t beat something with nothing.” Geez, you’re pretty much a walking advertisement for beating something with nothing, what with all the facts and authorities you appeal to. Pure pathos.
Here’s a comprehensive study:
Comparison of TDC’s and Chrysler’s NOx emissions shows power plant would be higher
http://www.nonewarkpowerplant.org/2013/12/04/nox-comparison/
There is a lot more serious analysis online at the No Newark Powe Plant website under Resources – > Documents
And Willett Kempton is not saying this is clean power. It is cleaner than coal. He also makes the case that this model isn’t 100% reliable nor is it as reliable as the grid.
Nancy-
NOx emissions are but one pollutant. Yes, NOx are nasty. NOx are one reason why every domestically manufactured gasoline-powered car and light truck produced since 1975 has a catalytic convertor and an EGR valve, among other emissions control devices.
Consider the VOCs spewed from Chrysler’s paint shop alone, even after they switched to waterborne primers and basecoats in the 1980s and ’90s. Consider the truck and rail traffic, both of which are diesel powered & spew HC, CO, CO2 and soot into the air. Hell, Chrysler’s Newark PDC had round the clock truck and rail traffic, and that had NOTHING to do w/ manufacturing. It was strictly parts distribution.
“You can’t beat something with nothing.”
I was referring to your proposal for the site. You have none, and so will be ignored when the decisions are made. Your loss, not mine. Boo hoo for you.
Where do you live again? Cat got your tongue?
Nancy: The link shows that emissions will be higher than they were once Chrysler stopped operating at full capacity. In other words, the neighbors got a 20-year break from what the plant would have emitted had the auto industry stayed healthy during that time, and they want to make it permanent.
That helps them, but it’s a loser for everyone else.
“Willett Kempton is not saying this is clean power. It is cleaner than coal.”
He said it’s a bit worse than average for a gas burner.
“He also makes the case that this model isn’t 100% reliable nor is it as reliable as the grid.”
Which is a reasonable argument. What he leaves out, of course, is that buying from the grid would be a net loss for the project, while generating its own is a net gain. That’s a little bit important to the viability of building anything, don’t you think?
.