And then, as reported and circulated by multiple Facebook groups, a Freeport resident received a letter on official letterhead from Assemblywoman Earlene Hooper. The Weekly Freeporter has obtained her permission to reprint the letter, but as a preface - today is Monday, meaning the letter was sent well before Mr. Hardwick's letter to me was received. What follows are scans of those letters - click on them and they will appear full-size.
Now, as the letter is pretty long, I'm not going to provide a cut-and-paste copy. I will, however, highlight a few key notes before I provide an assessment of the proceedings.
One: The letter is un-dated - a rather unprofessional fact! However, it references the BP oil spill, which began on April 20th. Therefore, this letter clearly does not date back before that. A hand-written note at the end offers an apology for a delay in the letter's dispatching, meaning that there is some room for the information within it to be outdated.
Two: The letter is does not speak on behalf of Andrew Hardwick, although the Assemblywoman makes an effort to tell the recipient that they may call the Mayor at will, and that Channel 18 will provide more information on this issue. She also states that Mayor Hardwick "will" take certain steps to make progress on this issue, but more on that...Now:
Three: Most notably, the Assemblywoman does not mention any concrete steps that have been taken to construct an incinerator thusfar, but -does- mention the ones "will be" taking. "The Mayor will be appointing a community advisory team to assist in the plans, ideas, and suggestions as he moves toward a Request for Proposal (RFP) to assure tax-payer input. He will also include the Board of Trustees in any and all decisions pursuant to this matter."
Why is three the most important segment of this letter? Without attempting to psychoanalyze what Mrs. Hooper expects others to do and what she "really" knows is going on, it states the current progress on this issue - there is, still, no proposal for an incinerator. There has not even been a request for one, and Trustee Kennedy made very clear that without a proposal there is only speculation.
More to the point: With the proposal comes technical documents, and with that comes on-the-record specifications about what a plant will and will not do. This information can be analyzed by independent specialists and laymen alike, including the administration itself and administrations from other political entities (Rockville Center, Merrick, etc). Once analyzed, the health and environmental impacts can be determined far more accurately, and a logical judgment about whether or not this project is "safe" can be made. Until there is a proposal, there is no way to know precisely what will be employed - although it is entirely fair to use other, comparable facilities the world over as a general guideline.
Now, The Weekly Freeporter has no objections to virtually any business coming in and making a proposal. If a chemical corporation wishes to propose a facility in the Industrial area, or if a small-business entrepreneur wishes to build an indoor paintball arena (Hint, hint...), that is perfectly fine with this publication. There is no reason not to propose something, because to say an idea is "off limits" is fundamentally unsound. Who decides what is off limits? Why? What -isn't- off limits? All of these questions and more make it impossible for us to state that nobody should make a proposal.
Here's the rub: With residents clearly opposed to even the thought of a waste-to-energy project in Freeport, why would anyone produce the RFP that Assemblywoman Hooper seems to believe the Mayor will? He has not, as of yet; and, based solely on the face-value of his letter to this publication yesterday, he will not be doing so. The simple answer is that Assemblywoman Hooper has failed to do her research - there are entire civic organizations in Freeport (The "Protecting Freeport Coalition" being only one) opposed to this idea. There are more complicated hypothesis floating around, but speculation about this issue is pointless until there is hard evidence to discuss.
In reality, submitting a RFP would be the worst thing the Mayor could do for a number of reasons, each of which builds into the others...
First: Assuming Trustee Kennedy's opinion (stated April 7th) about any company producing such a proposal is followed through upon, he would (paraphrasing) not provide any companies with a dime - they would spend their money on ecologists to study the impact, engineers to produce plans, and even on the Village's efforts to provide technical (road, waterway) data to them. In short - it should cost these companies a great deal of effort and money even to come up with a proposal. It should never be incumbent upon the Village taxpayer.
Second: Mr. Kennedy also outlined a number of governmental agencies that must approve the plan. Residents fear that patronage will push this bill through, however an open proposal that can be judged by the public will leave that notion vitally vulnerable: If even a whiff of corruption seeps from the incinerator plans, residents will almost certainly have the grounds and resources to sue everyone involved to kingdom come: Company, politician, and governing entity alike. This will bog the process down immensely, costing those involved both years of time (Enough time for my next point to kick in...) and a bucketload of cash.
Third, and finally: Lets assume it gets all the way through to the Trustees. At this point, a great deal of cash has been spent on the project, in accordance with Mr. Kennedy's view on how the proposal process should be treated. The Village has helped guide this proposal through multiple agencies, and has either done so with no legal violations or after some extent of lawsuits about it. Finally, its at the Trustees: They will have to decide if its worth risking their careers over. By this point, if the process has been bogged down at all, the proposing company may not be dealing with the same trustees (or Mayor) at all. The process may even have been set back to square one due to this fact. And it all comes down to a majority vote - The Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Trustees. Five votes. First to three wins.
Is a company -really- going to risk all of this time and effort just to be told no? Bearing in mind all of the cost, all of the opposition? Having hopefully done their homework and having read this very blog, and having undoubtedly seen that Mayor Hardwick himself has said it will not happen? Especially in light of BP making clear the need for real "green energy," and not "green paint?" All it takes is the screams of "NO!" to the very concept, roared by the irritated populace of the Village all at once, to answer this question.
No comments:
Post a Comment