A good read.

With the MPRB considering going off the grid and become self sustaining using clean green energy I thought this article would be of interest to our readers. Reducing greenhouse gassing will require all of us pitching in and working together.

EPA: Greenhouse Gases Are Danger To Human Health
by The Associated Press
December 7, 2009

The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated, signaling that the Obama administration is prepared to contain global warming without congressional action if necessary.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson scheduled a news conference for later Monday to announce the so-called endangerment finding, officials told The Associated Press, speaking privately because the announcement had not been made.

The finding is timed to boost the administration's arguments at an international climate conference beginning this week that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation.

Under a Supreme Court ruling, the so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act.

The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue.

Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the regulatory process of the Clean Air Act. Any such regulations are likely to spawn lawsuits and lengthy legal fights.

The EPA and the White House have said regulations on greenhouse gases will not be imminent even after an endangerment finding, saying that the administration would prefer that Congress act to limit such pollution through an economy-wide cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Nevertheless, the EPA has begun the early stages of developing permit requirements on carbon dioxide pollution from large emitters such as power plants. The administration also has said it will require automobile fuel economy to increase to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2016, another push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The EPA's readiness to tackle climate change is expected to give a boost to U.S. arguments at the climate conference opening in Copenhagen this week that the United States is making broad commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.
While the House has approved climate legislation that would cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and about 80 percent by mid-century, the Senate has yet to take up the measure amid strong Republican opposition and reluctance by some centrist Democrats.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), lead author of the Senate bill, has argued that if Congress doesn't act, the EPA will require greenhouse gas emissions. He has called EPA regulation a "blunt instrument" that would pose a bigger problem for industry than legislation crafted to mitigate some of the costs of shifting away from carbon emitting fossil fuels.

The way was opened for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut climate-changing emissions by the Supreme Court in 2007, when the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Act. But the court said the EPA must determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it can regulate them.

Check this out.

Here is the superintendents 2010 proposed Budget for the Minneapolis park system.
Right click on "Check this out" to go to the link.

Another Power Grab?

Park Watch recently made a post entitled, "Another Power Grab?”

The MPRB is considering public ownership of a small run-of-river hydro facility, formerly proposed by private developer Crown Hydro. The board has stated that reducing their carbon footprint and energy independence are goals. On August 5th, the Planning Committee asked staff to meet with key stakeholders to gather their feedback on public ownership and to develop finance options. On August 19, the board as a whole supported the motion from the planning department and asked staff to evaluate the feasibility of public ownership. At that meeting Commissioners, such as Young, asked staff to present their information in the context of their renewable energy goals, and in comparison to other renewable sources.

At each of those meetings, Commissioners asked staff to present that information at the November 18th meeting. Staff made a partial presentation on the 18th, with feedback from project stakeholders as well as neighbors, and indicated they would present more information on December 2nd.

How Ms. Fried could twist this simple set of facts into a charge of a "power grab" illustrates why we struggle so much as a society to meet our environmental and renewable energy goals, and why we fail to solve many collective problems.

We are facing a Global climate crisis. Coal is the leading man-made source of CO2 (carbon dioxide) the largest human cause of that climate change. Businesses, Government and individuals are all being called upon to get involved in the solution which is the reduction of our carbon footprint. Many, like the MPRB are answering that call.

We should applaud the MPRB for taking a lead in this. We encourage the board to also seek out every possible alternative and implement the plan that best fits with the twin goals of carbon free energy independence and the economic benefits that go along with it.

To those that cannot contribute respectfully and constructively to this dialogue, we suggest you not participate.

Thanks!

One of the hardest things a person can do is run for elective office.

Regardless of whether if we agree or disagree with a candidate, we want to express our admiration for everybody who threw their hat into the ring and ran for a MPRB seat.

We believe every candidate had the best of intentions and ran to make the park system better for everyone.

We now have a new board and they are listed with contact information on the sidebar of this blog. It’s now up to us the voting public, to stay involved and take an active role in helping the new board members keep their campaign promises and volunteer when we can.

Thank you to everyone who ran.

Vreeland the plumber.

If you’re old like me, you may remember that the Nixon white house was obsessed with leaks, so obsessed they hired guys like G. Gordon Liddy to plug the leaks. The name for these guys were “the plumbers”.

It’s come back to us that Scott Vreeland is spending a lot of time and effort trying to track down the person who sent us a copy of his “pulling the plug” e-mail he sent to the Pillsbury United Communities Board of Directors and which we posted on this blog. Several staff members and PUC directors were questioned in a tone that was less than pleasant to say the least.

Vreeland’s demeanor in his investigation has been described to me as angry, accusatory and threatening. In short, he is continuing the same tactics and tone that he exhibited in his public e-mail to the PUC board.

Let me assure Commissioner Vreeland and the many people who continue to send us copies of e-mails and other information that we will not disclose sources but we will verify stories before we post them here. The content of the e-mail was confirmed by several people and its authenticity is not in question.

Transparency in government?

Are the Park Watch Commissioner elects convening private meetings to set the agenda for their upcoming term, and to discuss committee chairmanships and leadership structure?

This is an open letter and warning to those newly elected and sitting Commissioners that Park Watch Watch will be watching very closely to see if the agenda of the upcoming board will be set in public meetings or if they have already developed their plans behind closed doors.

Please be aware that any Commissioner (elected, sitting or just waiting to hear) that does not comply with open meeting laws should be prepared to disclose under oath if they have held private meetings, participated in string emails or phone calls in order to develop a plan or agenda. Any actions by the new Board that appear to have been planned out in advance will trigger Park Watch Watch into action on this vital issue – all business must be discussed and debated in public, not private.

Brad Bourn should forfeit office

Re-posted/excerpted from Steve Jecha’s blog: http://stevejechaforparks.blogspot.com/

(Steve is a candidate for District 6 Park Commissioner. That district had four candidates and Brad Bourn received 48% of first-choice votes. Here is a summary of total (1st, 2nd, and 3rd-choice) votes each candidate received.
Brad Bourn 5,398
Meg Forney 5,387
Steve Jecha 2,624
Geneva Hanvik 1,342
We show this simply to illustrate that it is a close race.)

Brad Bourn sent out a post card in the final few days of the election which declares prominently that he is endorsed by both Senator Dibble and House Rep Hornstein. HE WASN'T.

Chapter 578 of the campaign laws regarding fair practices states:Sec. 2. [211B.02] [FALSE CLAIM OF SUPPORT.] A person or candidate may not knowingly make, directly or indirectly, a false claim stating or implying that a candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of a major political party or party unit or of an organization. A person or candidate may not state in written campaign material that the candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of an individual without first getting written permission from the individual to do so.So, note the second sentence. This does not bode well for candidate Bourn as he admittedly (on his website) has stated his wrongdoing. So, what are the consequences (I am not a law expert...so you have been warned!) of making a "False Claim of Support"? If I read the campaign laws correctly, this is a misdemeanor - with the potential of 90 days in jail or a fine of $1,000. No one wishes this on anyone.

Sec. 17. [211B.17] [FORFEITURE OF NOMINATION OR OFFICE; CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE NOT FORFEITED.] Subdivision 1. [FORFEITURE OF NOMINATION OR OFFICE.] Except as provided in subdivision 2, if a candidate is found guilty of violating this chapter or an offense was committed by another individual with the knowledge, consent, or connivance of the candidate, the court, after entering the adjudication of guilty, shall enter a supplemental judgment declaring that the candidate has forfeited the nomination or office. If the court enters the supplemental judgment, it shall transmit to the filing officer a transcript of the supplemental judgment, the nomination or office becomes vacant, and the vacancy must be filled as provided by law. Bourn's only out is to claim under subdivision 2 that this was a "trivial" error (kind of hard in a high DFL voting area and postcards may have went to all "likely" voters in the 11th hour of the election), or, it was an "accident" (ummm...yeah, the typesetter at the printhouse changed the postcard after we gave final approval to run).

From Brad Bourn’s Facebook page

“Brad Bourn for Minneapolis Park Commissioner District 6: A recent mailer sent out from my campaign included a mistake. Please visit bradbournforparks.org for the correction. Thanks and good luck to us all on Tuesday! Only a few more days!”
November 1 at 4:43 pm

From Brad Bourn’s website (in tiny print at the bottom)

“Important Update: 11-1-09
Many of you may have received or will be receiving a mailer from my campaign. There was a mistake on this mailer that was not noticed before it went to the printer. The mailer listed State Senator Scott Dibble and State Representative Frank Hornstein as endorsing my candidacy. Sen. Dibble and Rep. Hornstein have not officially made an endorsement in this election. I have tremendous respect for Sen. Dibble and Rep. Hornstein and share many of the same values they advocate for at the state level. I accept responsibility for the error in the mailer and apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Our campaign noticed this error and brought it to the immediate attention of Sen. Dibble, Rep. Hornstein, and my opponent. My opponent made a similar mistake a few weeks ago in a screening with the Star Tribune and was quick to clear up her mistake as well.

We are running a very positive, issue focused, campaign. We will continue to advocate for the values so many of us share. I am proud to be your DFL, Labor, and Sierra Club endorsed candidate for our independent Park Board, District 6.

Thank you for your continued support and good luck to us all!”

From Brad Bourn’s website (in normal-size print at the top):

“I'm for transparency and increased citizen input.”

Our advice to Brad Bourn: This is the first test of your ethics. There are only two potential options. Forfeit your office to the next-highest vote getter, or ask for a repeat election with voters knowing the truth.