Thursday, April 10, 2014

Local Arts Alliance, Downtown Advocates Celebrate Council Rejection of EIS Request Letter

In a scene evoking a communitarian, secular moment of rapture, the Brunswick arts community and downtown advocates gathered for a press availability at the local shrine to St. Amtrak. They organized the event to hail the recent town council vote opposing a letter requesting a full Environmental Impact Statement by the Federal Railroad Authority, before building an MLF at the Brunswick West site.

The event was kicked off with a statement by a former town councilor, who raised a toast of Kool-Aid to the ‘powerful economic engine’ represented by the train just behind her.  Five sitting councilors attended, and joined in the toast, as did NNEPRA officials and TRN members, including those visiting from other planets.  A local attorney who takes their side, aiding the case of the House of Sartoris, with whom she recently co-hosted a high level fund raising soiree for a candidate for Governor, also made an appearance.

                   

Of the five town councilors there (more or less,) two approached us to ask where they are, and why they were here.  Two others were in some kind of silly green costumes reminiscent of a Jack & Jill fairy tale, carrying a bucket, one with a broken arm, one mumbling after, and all the rest.. 

On the backs of their costumes were the words “You can trust us, because we’re from the government.”  They were handing out bumper stickers that said “Everybody out of the vernal pools.”

The “Jack” character had his arm in a sling.  When we asked why, he replied that he accidentally ran his arm into the hand of another councilor, who inadvertently twisted it in a mis-guided gesture of affection.  “Jack” said he deserved it, because he’d forgotten his rightful place on the hill.

The fifth councilor pushed his way to the podium, snatched the microphone from the MC, and shouted ‘do you know who I am?’  We turned on our portable PA device, and made a public service announcement:

“Attention, Ladies and Gentlemen.  We have someone here who doesn’t know who he is.  If you know who he is, please come to the podium with proof and claim him.  We hope you can get him home safely before he forgets again in more dangerous circumstances.”

After the opening niceties, a member of the arts community took the podium.

“We were ecstatic over the statement the Dance of Two Cultures mural made, she gushed, but this is huge.  We’re in aesthetic overload: live Kabuki Theater, and now what could be the largest graffiti exhibition ever.’'

“For too long,” she added, “socio-economic justice based art has been limited to overpasses and other humble venues.” 

“Like a few decaying freight cars parked in front of our blessed station.”

“Finally, we can give full exposure to starving artists, providing the public audience they deserve.”

“To demonstrate out commitment to this mission, we’ve already ordered 100 cases of mixed-color exterior spray paints so we can encourage and nurture the nascent artistic abilities blossoming in the youngest among us.”

Picking up on the theme, the former councilor who opened the event chimed in, pointing out that local home improvement and paint outlets had noticed a significant increase in sales.  “Economic activity is economic activity, and jobs created in the spray paint sector are just as beneficial as other jobs,” she averred.

            

Another member of the arts community than took the podium to gush about the ‘huge, four sided canvas’ the proposed MLF provides.

“Not only that,” she added, “but we get the first ever horizontal canvas – the roof of the MLF – to provide a new and more multi-dimensional canvas for their self-expression.”

“Brunswick will finally be recognizable from the air; we can’t wait to see the photos from the next Shuttle mission, if there ever is one.”

                       

Following the arts advocate, a member of the downtown illuminati rose to the microphone. 

“We’re beside ourselves with the possibilities,” she stated. 

“The Brunswick West location is the ideal space to synergize our art and downtown promotions.”

“It motivates us to think outside the shed,” she said with a feeble laugh.

“And it’s ever so consistent with our downtown master plan, which emphasizes visual quality and neighborhoods.”

The former town councilor who opened the event quickly jumped in to remind attendees that Brunswick Taxi was excited about the growth opportunities Downeaster crew transport offered, bolstering economic benefit ever further.

“If the MLF is built where and as proposed,” she said, “it’s likely a BDC grant will be required to allow Brunswick Taxi to build a taxi and parking lot control tower on the property.”

Moving the ceremonies inside due to the chill in the air,  a representative of the Downeaster holy know arose to remind town folk of other possibilities.  He pointed out that the overhead area in the facility had ideal lighting, humidity, temperature, and air filtration for cultivation of ‘medicinally valuable crops.’

“This could open the doors, so to speak, to blue grass festivals in Brunswick, if you get my drift, Dude.’'

“More economic activity, more psychically unleashed art, and even a new venue for the Meddy-Hempsters to perform.”

“Hemp & rock festivals could be the key to Brunswick’s economic future; and don’t forget, no permitting is required, because Amtrak has pre-emption.”

Residents seemed skeptical to some degree, but when informed that the Bowdoin Arts Department was asking for two walls of the new colossus as a ‘show of town-gown solidarity,’ any lingering skepticism left the room.

Saint Wayne of TRN took the podium again, to announce that they were forming a subsidiary called “Wing and a prayer Riders Northeast,” to be headed by a local retired dentist who is also a private pilot.

                 

Asked to comment, the newly appointed leader said that he believed wing-riding was vital to saving our society, and was the key to transportation infrastructure well into the distant past.

He expressed tepid enthusiasm regarding the potential for unique air shows that would  put Brunswick West ‘on the map,’ and noted again that no permits would be required, and that local officials and residents would be powerless to oppose these events.

Reminding those present that private pilots often have to wave off on attempts to ‘fly through,’ the speaker pointed out that the huge dimensions of the MLF would be a ‘piece of cake’ for even the least experienced pilots.

After everything that took place, we found ourselves swept up in the euphoria, amid elevated moments of consciousness in which we glimpsed the essence of the new Brunswick.

How could we have been so shortsighted as to doubt the wisdom, the glory, and the economic stimulus that the MLF would bring?

Not to mention the Quality of Place.  Shame, shame on us.

House of Sartoris Ambitions Trump Brunswick West Quality of Life Concerns

“Political motivations behind the scenes” that are anti-Tucker may be involved.

                               

Sitting town councilor Steve Walker, representing the House of Sartoris, wrote from a posture of high dudgeon in December of last year just before his swearing in.

He did so in what seems for all the world like a politically motivated Ostrich commentary titled “Brunswick council may have to sue itself.” 

Walker demonstrated his fitness for the Sartoris Dynasty by affirming that he wanted to “help select” his replacement on the Planning Board, thus assuring an uninterrupted line of succession, instead of the service interruptus the council had to suffer.

Clearly upset, Walker referred to the last days of a ‘contentious’ council term, and took shots at departing councilors Ben Tucker and Margo Knight.  Tucker, of course, is a scion of the House of Tucker.  Ironically enough the Patriarch of the House of Tucker, a former councilor and judge, is now competing in the Democrat primary with the Matriarch of the House of Sartoris. 

Oddly enough, they’re competing for the State House of Representatives seat now held by a termed out Priest.

Kings, Priests, Knights, and those who were Governor and would be Governor; where does it all end?  BTW, did you see that your own Senator King, Angus has announced he’ll caucus with Republicans instead of Democrats if the Senate Majority flips in November? 

Political motivations, machinations, expediency and opportunism are never gone for long from Lake Basebegone, are they?

Back to the commentary, in which Walker refers to ‘this raw exercise in political power,’ and says ‘Keeping overt politics off the board serves Brunswick best….’  He lauds the concepts of ‘an impartial hearing’ and proper process.

Considering the foregoing, we find councilor Sartoris’ Walker’s performance at Monday night’s council meeting to deal with the MLF EIS letter all the more inexplicable.  You can view his at bat below, and  you’ll note that given all the foul balls during his 6 minutes in the box, Chair Pols nearly had to signal the bull-pen to send in relief.

            

Unless you consider the possibility of political motivations behind the scenes that are anti-Tucker.  While we would never suggest such a thing, those more politically astute might note that Johnny Protocols (GoJo) is also on the council, and he is in high dudgeon himself over the actions of the Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition and the support they’ve garnered.

                                       

Those same astute observers might even suggest that JP the first might have significant influence in helping JP the second defeat The House of Tucker in the upcoming primary, and that JP the first could use that for leverage in getting councilor Sartoris Walker to change his vote to GoJo’s side in the debate.  We’re not sure how many noms de Side we can keep track of for any one subject, but we’re looking into adding Jongali to JP’s aka list.

                 

Add the triangular Stangali, Sartoris, and JP turbulence of the last year or two, and things get all the more wondrously bizarre.  It’s almost like a “Brunswick Triangle” where strange forces can apparently make things disappear.

We’re told the two JPs were out for a bite recently; not that there’s anything wrong with that.  It’s a good thing our Senator wasn’t ‘feet wet’ in the area.

        

As for us, we’re just a country bumpkin blogster, and what struck us was that in the video above, our protagonist seemed to explain far too much and far too long, as if he was having a guilt trip, and trying to convince himself that his motivations were pure.  We think we heard him claim he reviewed the copious comments to the EA that were submitted to the FRA, but none of those responsible can recall him asking for such materials.  “Let the process play out” indeed.

Some might suggest that his lengthy discourse was prepared ahead of time, and that his use of the words “political motivations behind the scenes that are Anti-train, anti-Amtrak” are eerily reminiscent of language used by councilor Protocols in response to the public hub-bub over the BDC grant to Brunswick Taxi, owned by a member of The House of CoJo King.  Somehow, the councilor seemed oblivious to political motivations right out in view that are anti-neighborhood.

Those same some might also surmise that Walker’s mind was made up before listening to public comments pro and con, and then responding with a view informed by what transpired.  It also seemed to us that his position came as a surprise to at least a few other councilors, who had likely thought they knew where his thinking lied on the matter.  It’s as if Steve wandered from where he’d been, which he admitted.

But sometimes you’ve got to get down and dirty in complex environmental issues, and it looks like he’s learning to wallow down low with the best of them.

                              

In his defense, political leverage and advantage are terrible things to waste, just like minds.  Especially for the House of Sartoris.  The Matriarch is sure to be a humble public servant when she ascends to the Priest seat; you can see the seeds of humility and unselfish public service in this passage from her legal practice web site:

In addition to her long service as a community leader on Brunswick’s town council and numerous other Boards and Committees, Jackie’s background includes consensus-building, law crafting, and negotiation as a former senior planner for the Maine State Planning Office. She won a national award for her role in leading a Maine task force of environmental and development interests to a consensus-based, comprehensive revision of the state’s wetland laws and regulations. Her state and local laws and ordinances are still being used as national models in creatively achieving balance for often competing interests.

We suspect we’ll see a photo something like this on the day after the election, if not sooner, where the House of Sartoris and JP the first show their solidarity.

                                      

Who knows where the donkey path will take them in the future.

As for those in the Brunswick West neighborhood, at least you have the consolation that if the MLF “shed” gets built in your back yard, it will have been in the service of ‘a greater good,’ if you can call it such a thing.  Perhaps one day you’ll get a chance to kiss a ring or something.  It’s not often you get to demonstrate allegiance to royalty these days, is it?  Unless you consider Kings, now that we think of it.

                   

It’s best at the moment that you take comfort in other things that are not as common in our midst.

                   

Is it too late to make a stupid joke about a new hit CD called “Songs in the  key of lies, by Little Stevie Wander?”  Of course it’s not; we own this publication, and we can do whatever we damn well please, thank you.

We got a million of ‘em, and you know, bad jokes are a terrible thing to waste.

As life in Brunswick seems to prove on a regular basis.  Luckily, you have The Other Side to occasionally give you one you can laugh at rather than cry over.

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Let’s follow Washington’s latest “Do as I say, not as I do” edict: ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’

We know everyone of you is devoted to fairness.  And we think most of you are up for a ‘fight.’

Wouldn’t you just know it?  Inspiration to be “fair” and “fight for equal pay for equal work” is literally gushing from the PR machinery in the seat of our nation’s government.  It is election year, after all.

Take a look here as an example: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/08/politics/white-house-fair-pay-disparity/

Who are we to question their fine example?  Even though every office checked so far is rife with unfairness and unequal pay for equal work.  At least if you define it as female v. male workers.

Knowing that all fairness is local, we’ve decided to start ‘a fight for fairness’ right here in our perfect little richest town in America.  So, Agnes, take a memo to the Brunswick School Board, please.  Mark it to the attention of ‘Numbers’ Ellis, who we’re confident is a fairness zealot of the highest order.  How could he not be?

As Ellis knows, the Teacher’s Contract now in effect pays teachers anywhere from about $34,000  to roughly $70,000 this year in salary alone, depending on the level of advanced education, and the number of years on the job.  Stipends, differences in retirement benefits, etc, are separate.

Now, if ‘fairness’ calls for equal pay for equal work, shouldn’t anyone who teaches first grade, for example make the same salary?  Especially since, by central direction, they are to teach to the same curriculum and test to the same tests, etc, etc, et cetera.

Shirley the board and Rich both think all the Brunswick teachers are equally special and equally competent and equally wonderful. 

Even if it the facts say that some are more equal than others.

Because some make half what others make for the same work, while others make twice what some make for ‘equal work!!’  What kind of example is this for the rest of us?  And Oh, the horror, what kind of example does it set for impressionable young children, who are primed for imprinting with the holy writ of fairness?

 

                          

We’re hoping for an answer soon; we can only hold our breath for so long. 

When you stop to think about it, it’s that person in your mirror who is forcing unequal pay for equal work upon these oppressed educators; we elect the School Board members who hire the School Administrators, and together they set the budgets and negotiate the contracts.  We vote on the budget, and then we pay the taxes to fund the department.  Including those grossly unfair and uneven salaries for THE VERY SAME WORK!

Economic injustice, thy name is public (government) schools.

Said injustice is just one example of not paying equally for ‘equal work.’  Far as we can tell, the trash collection trucks come by our place once a week, the same as they do for just about everyone else in town.  We’re similarly pretty sure that our street doesn’t get plowed any more or less in a snow storm than any other street, though we don’t have sidewalks that need separate clearing, or snow accumulation that needs to be loaded and hauled away separately.

We don’t place any more demands on the Town Clerk’s Office or the Finance Department than anyone else; in fact probably less.  And so far, we have a pretty clean record with the Public Safety side of town government.  And don’t forget…..no kids in the local school system….never.

          

So we’d like to know, in this age of social and economic justice, and in the midst of a national campaign of fairness, why we pay more to have our trash removed than others, and others pay more than us?  And the same for all the other services we ‘pay the town’ for.  After all, we don’t pay the same in property taxes, do we?

How can this possibly be fair?  When will this travesty end? When will we get to pay the same for the same work??

Will YOU join the fight for fairness?

If YOU won’t, who will?

                           

Monday, April 7, 2014

Breaking News: Council Meeting Outcome

A quick update:  The motion for the Brunswick Town Council to send a letter to the Federal Railroad Administration, encouraging them to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement for the Amtrak MLF, was defeated 5-4.

Voting in support were councilors Perreault, Pols, Millett, and Brayman.

Voting in opposition were councilors Watson, Walker, Wilson, Favreau, and Richardson.

Surprisingly, the opposition forces we expected to see in attendance were conspicuous by their absence.  Unsurprisingly, certain individuals made a case for residency on other planets.

Some evidence continued belief in the Tooth Fairy of “mass transit,” and how she will leave golden eggs under the pillows of those who swear allegiance to the Downeaster.

While we are not the final authority on this subject, we feel moved to say that common sense was not the most common commodity on display.

The challenge before your correspondent now is one of “news analysis,” which calls for ‘mulling’ of unknown duration, along with collection of breadcrumbs, tidbits, and the chirps of little birds.  New dots keep popping up that need connecting.

So you’ll just have to bide your time.  For now we’re going to enjoy the NCAA Championship game via DVR.

See you in the funny papers.

===============================================================

The testimony we gave at the hearing is this:

  • I pay property taxes in Brunswick, and I have a stake in the conduct of this town's business, and it's future.

  • I don't live in the neighborhood of the proposed MLF facility, though I do hear the trains coming and going, and their whistles at crossings.

  • I do have an interest in responsible, transparent, accountable, and diligent governance.

  • The subject of tonight's meeting, on the face of things, is a request to perform an EIS.

  • But what it's really about is due process, and more accurately, due diligence.

  • Looking back on recent town history, municipal government has not distinguished itself in pursuing due diligence

    • Not that long ago, we purchased the old Times Record building, after we paid a consultant who said it was in pretty good shape, for less than $1.5 million. Shortly after purchase, we “discovered” that the building needed $5 million in renovations to be made fit for use, and mitigate a variety of deficiencies. It wasn't long before the council and Town Manager elected to demolish the building so it would no longer be there to remind us all of an abysmal failure of due diligence. Millions down the rat-hole.

    • Tonight we're sitting in the newly renovated McLellan. Details of the trade with Bowdoin College aside, the beginning estimate for adapting the building was in the range of $100,000, and before too long, was over ten times that. Unknown liabilities are still on the table for exterior renovation of rotting trim and who knows what lying beneath. Mechanical systems, namely heating and ventilation, are ultra-complex and extremely expensive to operate, and may have other problems as well.

    • As it turns out, a number of inspections of the property were conducted before the exchange agreement was completed, and they gave insights into these problems that should have been explored further before committing to the deal. That would have been classic 'due diligence,' but a rush to 'move the town forward' apparently had a higher priority. Reinforcement of community self-esteem in station area development likely had much to do with it.

  • Now the Federal Railroad Authority stands at a due diligence crossroads, and you as a council have an opportunity to endorse the need for it on a project well beyond the scope and material consequence of municipal offices.

  • I'm glad this meeting is recorded, because not only is your legacy as a council at stake, but the legacy of this town and the integrity of our governance.

  • Many here tonight have argued that no further due diligence is called for, and have gone so far as to call for you to oppose it by denying the request.

    • Are they afraid the due diligence of an EIS will discover yet unknown problems? Rotting trim, with underlying site pathologies, to borrow an image from this building?

    • For that matter, what are you afraid of?

  • Is time delay an issue? Portland has been operating for 14 years without an enclosed layover facility. Come to think of it, why hasn't the MLF been built in Portland to begin with?

  • Is cost the issue? Wow...the MLF estimate has grown from $4 million to $12 million plus on it's way to $16 million I have no doubt, and Amtrak can't survive without constant life-giving dollar transfusions.

  • For years, we've heard talk of quality of place, sustainability, and elevating the environment above human interests in these parts. One of you has spent his career working in environmental areas, and others of you have often voiced advocacy in such matters.

    • How is it, then, that you might turn your back on due diligence, especially in the environmental impact area? Is your commitment so easily trumped by petty human and personal considerations?

  • One more thing: conducting a full EIS would buy some time to examine broader economic development implications for the town, the region, and the state. NNEPRA and TRN have no interest in such things; all they want to do is ride and collect fares. Nothing else matters.

  • Does anything else matter to you? Does the domestic tranquility of hundreds of families matter? Does quality of life matter? Does a stable property tax base matter?

  • At least enough to endorse responsible, transparent due diligence before committing to a mammoth industrial facility that will reek irreversible and irreparable harm on the in-town and downtown areas and its residents?

  • If you don't believe it will reek such harm, how do you know? How can you be sure WITHOUT the due process of an EIS?

  • That is the question before you on this momentous evening. Choose your answer wisely. You may never cast a vote where more is at stake – for the town – and for you.

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Breaking News re: NNEPRA Director Confirmation

We just received word that the full Maine Senate has agreed with the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation, and voted unanimously to approve the Governor’s appointment of Bob McEvoy to the NNEPRA Board of Directors.

Congratulations, Bob.

Random Thoughts on Tonight’s Council Meeting

Herewith a collection of thoughts pertaining to tonight’s Brunswick Town Council meeting in which the subject of a letter to the FRA asking for a full EIS will be discussed, debated, and voted upon (backbones willing.)

  • The only issue being discussed tonight is this:

image

  • The FRA process is currently at the decision point below box 6, and has to decide whether to choose box 7 as the next step, or box 8. 
    • Note that choosing box 8 calls for a more thorough environmental review process, with increased public involvement, but that either choice ends up eventually getting to the last box in the chart.
    • The discussion has nothing to do with denying train service.
  • The state officials who run NNEPRA; their ‘why we love trains’ subsidiary TrainRiders Northeast; and various other Downeaster advocates will do their best to turn this into a ‘they just hate the trains’ fest.  Coupled with ‘we’ve bent over backwards to be open and cooperative through this whole process.’
    • How would they take to assertions that they ‘hate Brunswick West neighborhood residents?’
    • Or that NNEPRA should have “known this would happen?”  And why didn’t they deal with the MLF issue BEFORE committing to Downeaster service to Brunswick??
    • This is the same TrainRiders Northeast (TRN) that told the Governor’s Office that THEY choose the candidates for NNEPRA board positions, and then the Governor selects one of their hand-picked options.  Because ‘this is the way it’s always worked.’
    • This is the same TrainRiders Northeast that worked hard to see that the Governor’s nominee would not be approved by the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation, and that has been working overtime to defeat him in the vote of the full Maine Senate.
  • NNEPRA, with the help of TRN, will try to force the discussion to anything but a simple request to the FRA to opt for the EIS choice, ensuring that a thorough, fully vetted environmental review is performed before construction begins.
    • Why is that, do you suppose?  Are they afraid of what the EIS might yield in the way of results?  That troublesome facts might emerge?
    • Are they worried about a delay to the MLF project?  Why?  Portland has been operating for 14 years without an enclosed MLF!
    • Are they worried about the added cost?  Why; the FRA pays for the EIS if that is their decision. 
    • Any expressed concerns about cost are not credible to begin with; MLF cost has grown from $4 million to $12 million and is likely to reach $16 million before you know it.  The entire passenger rail operation is fiscally unsustainable by any measure, and has been living off massive subsidies since inception.  Those who worry about Amtrak cost are a little ‘late to the party.’
  • NNEPRA and their affiliate TRN will do their best to back the town council into a corner, claiming that moving forward with the letter of request will be a clear indication of non-support for the Downeaster.  Soon service will stop, and the Maine Street Station dream will die.  Get out the black crepe paper.
  • NNEPRA and its Downeaster are a single issue, stovepipe operation.  All they care about is revenue and keeping the Downeaster running for the years they committed to.
    • Taking a broader view of train operations overall for greater regional and statewide economic development purposes means nothing at all to them, nor to TrainRiders Northeast.  Just look at their name!

     

  • In all likelihood, no one will mention this glorious scenario happening 12 or even 20 times a day at Stanwood and Union Street crossings once the MLF is built.  (We wonder how this has effected jostling for office location in the new town hall.)
  • In all likelihood, no-one will passionately defend this claim:
    • “the comeback of rail is essential to our country's economy and the wellbeing of its citizens.
  • We doubt that any volunteers at the Station Departure Center will admit stating that:
    • idling trains are bothersome, noisy, smelly, vibrating; pollute the air ‘throughout Brunswick;’ and disturb unfortunate neighborhoods.
    • or admit that running trains are even more so than idling trains.

  • But we do expect some to embrace the view that “they deserve it.”  How lovely and community minded.

                             

Let’s move on to talking about the town council themselves.  Be on the watch for a windsock behind the council table to monitor which way the breeze is blowing in the room.  Or maybe multiple windsocks makes more sense.

                                        

  • We’re glad the meetings are recorded for posterity, because tonight will be a meeting effecting ‘legacy.’ 
    • Will councilors want their legacy to be that they couldn’t stand up for a chance to consider broader possible benefits to the town, the region, and the state?  Will they instead show their support for a rush to judgment that precludes longer range thinking?
    • Will they support a more thorough assessment before the domestic tranquility and health of in-town neighborhoods and residents are sacrificed?
    • Or will they bow to the wishes of those who think such things don’t matter when ‘loving trains’ is all you can think about?
  • What will new councilors do? 
    • Will one whose career involves trumpeting the advantages of living in Brunswick, with its ‘best’ schools, stand up for in town neighborhoods and a stable tax base?
    • What of one who has spent his career in the environmental field; will he decide now is different, that environmental impact is not a priority any longer?  Does he embrace protection of vernal pools, but not see neighborhood health and quality of life as relevant?
    • And since this one is also a member of the House of Sartoris, whose matriarch is running for the Maine Legislature, is he vulnerable to arm-twisting from Councilor Johnny Protocols?  Could a vote against an EIS be the cost of GoJo’s help and endorsement for her run?
  • And what of the others?
    • How many will toss aside ‘quality of place’ for hundreds of families as they bow to other political interests?
    • How many will show courage?
    • And how many will show cowardice, by voting ‘present,’ or abstaining, or recusing themselves, or moving to table the issue so as to kill it in the face of an overflow crowd?

                   

  • How many will see in this situation an eerie similarity to The McLellan fiasco, in which preliminary inspections and reports were essentially ignored, and we ‘moved forward’ because it sounded good, and now we have to come to grips with that less than diligent transaction?  Just like the old Times Record fiasco.
  • How many know what’s really going on?  And will see through the theatricality?

One more time, just for the record, THIS is the subject of tonight’s agenda item.  The basic facts are simple, clear, and eminently understandable.

image

The consequences of tonight’s council action, on the other hand, are huge, long-lasting, and largely irreversible.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Amendment to Side’s Saturday post on Amtrak MLF Site Location

(Note:  This post has been updated at 11:45 am Monday morning April 7th.)

Before we get to the main point of this ‘amuse bouche’ post, we can’t help but think of this beloved quote.  It seems ever so appropriate to tomorrow night’s Brunswick Town Council Meeting:

I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.
             - Milton Friedman

Alright; back to our “amendment:” do you remember this visual in Saturday’s post?

                      

Good; that post had this rather cumbersome title:

Amtrak MLF Site Location: Lessons in selective memory and selective compliance with…..oh well, whatever sounds good at the moment you need it to sound good.

and you can read it here if you didn’t see it the first time:

http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/04/amtrak-mlf-site-location-lessons-in.html

Said post included passages excerpted from:

  • Brunswick Layover Environmental Assessment (EA) September 2013:

http://www.nnepra.com/sites/default/files/Brunswick%20Final%20EA%20-%20%20091213_0.pdf

The passages we need to update you on are these:

June 23, 2011 – NNEPRA Hosted Public Meeting, Brunswick, Maine

NNEPRA provided an overview of the layover facility project, and introduced the consultant team from Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB). The PB project manager discussed the consultant’s scope of work and schedule for the project. Mention was made of NNEPRA’s intention to “stand down” from proceeding with advanced design of the layover facility, and instead provide an opportunity to consider alternative sites and review the basic facility configuration and operating needs with the public and elected officials at a series of meetings. Consultant staff called attention to the fact that because presently there was no federal involvement with the layover facility, a formal environmental assessment under NEPA would not be required. However, the Consultant’s scope of work included preparation of an Environmental Report, which would be performed in a manner akin to a federal environmental document.

The overall operating needs and functions of the layover facility were explained by the consultant team and by the Amtrak General Superintendent, emphasis being made as to the overnight storage and servicing function of the facility, with traditional maintenance, inspection and repair work being performed by Amtrak at established remote locations such as Boston. It was explained at the meeting that PB would be performing an analysis of potential site locations during the next ten weeks, and Brunswick residents were provided an opportunity to ask questions and present their thoughts and opinions about the facility. Many questions addressed the process and schedule, which were responded to by staff with an indication of alternatives analysis lasting through August 2011, with site recommendation and a transition to design occurring in September 2011. Meeting participants were encouraged to contact NNEPRA and PB staff with suggestions for potential sites. A follow-up public meeting was scheduled for July 14, 2011.

July 14, 2011 – Public Meeting, Brunswick, Maine

The PB Team provided an overview of six potential sites for a layover facility within a four mile vicinity of the Brunswick Station. During PB’s presentation, consultant staff outlined the potential footprint of the facility and the land requirements. By virtue of being a railroad yard with its required track work geometry, the layover facility has a long, narrow rectangular configuration and needs to be adjacent to the railroad main line. PB staff noted that they had investigated several potential sites including those identified by real estate representatives of the present owners.
Based on further analysis, four sites were eliminated due to unsuitable configuration of the available/offered property and the resultant need for additional property takings and relocations. It was explained that the three sites remaining after this initial screening; East Brunswick, Brunswick West and the Brunswick Industrial Park; would be evaluated in greater detail and that PB would provide their recommendations to the NNEPRA Board and the public for review and comment.

Public comments and questions centered on the specifics of Amtrak maintenance facility operations and on how non-quantitative issues, such as quality of life, would be addressed in the recommendation process and on the manner in which NNEPRA would act on the recommendations. The materials presented at this meeting were posted on the NNEPRA website for public review.

Since the above citations were contained in the EA, funded by NNEPRA via their consultant Parsons Brinkerhoff, it was reasonable to presume they happened at NNEPRA’s behest, ‘in the public interest.’  Especially since the citations appeared under the heading “Agency and Public Involvement.”  Which included this introductory language:

Correspondence with agencies regarding technical aspects of the proposed project are detailed in relevant sections of this document and are compiled in Appendix A.
The project proponent, NNEPRA, has coordinated with the public and federal, state and local agencies throughout the development of the proposed project. This included NNEPRA Board meetings and three public meetings held in Brunswick to describe the proposals and solicit public feedback. The public meetings were well attended and publicized in the local media (newspaper, cable television). In addition, an advisory group comprised of officials from the Town of Brunswick, the Brunswick Town Council, the MaineDOT, Amtrak, and members of the Brunswick community was convened in December 2011 and has met on three occasions.

A summary of public and agency meetings is presented below.

(emphasis ours)

We presumed the same thing, but we stand corrected.  And we are here to amend yesterday’s post so that your understanding is corrected as well.

Authoritative sources have provided this update:  the June 23, 2011 and July 14, 2011 meetings were “Senatorial Information Meetings” instigated and coordinated by State Senator Stan Gerzofsky.  The meetings were arranged through Mr. Manager Gary Brown and then Council Chair Joanne King to secure use of council chambers.  The meetings were advertised via a story in the Times Record, and notice of the meetings was posted on the town web site and the Cable 3 Community Access Municipal Calendar. 

The Senator invited NNEPRA to attend and participate.  These were not NNEPRA initiated or sponsored meetings, and they were not “hosted” by NNEPRA.  Video of the meetings was recorded and archived.

Late Addition:  Wouldn’t you just know it?  We’ve learned that one more item needs to be added to the list – this one from page 45 of the EA document, under “Agency and Public Involvement.”

December 2, 2011 – Brunswick Building Advisory Group Meeting

At the first Building Advisory Group meeting, PB’s noise engineer Erich Thalheimer provided an in-depth presentation of PB’s noise and vibration analysis and its findings. A brief overview of the layover facility site design and the building’s functions and systems was also provided. Ken Macumber of PB presented design plans for the facility, which were still in development. The group was advised that preparation of the design-build specifications was well underway, with a package of materials being planned for distribution to the group for review in late December.

This group was called the Mitigation Advisory Group by most, but that doesn’t play well in a NNEPRA public document.  Efforts were made to limit participation by the citizenry, but strong objection was voiced by a local state senator, resulting in the addition of another councilor, besides the Council Chair at the time (CoJo), along with three members of the public from the most affected neighborhoods.

Our sources tell us this meeting was closed to the public.  The NNEPRA ED instructed attendees to limit comments to building footprint only and operations inside the building.  No other concerns would be heard, including total project impact; exterior operations; and air pollution controls.

Given these details, couching this meeting as a willing nod to public involvement is disingenuous at best.

       

We have further recent news to report.  Herewith that update:

A meeting was held by NNEPRA in Portland on March 19th to discuss their Service Development Plan, which has been in preparation since 2011, and will supposedly be completed by June of this year.  NNEPRA ED Patricia Quinn responded to suggestions for Downeaster service improvement that an additional train set might be needed to expand service.

The proposed MLF at the Brunswick West site cannot be expanded to handle another train set.  Hence the added train set could be required to layover outside the enclosed facility while waiting for an open bay, leading to many hours of engine idling on tracks near the building.

Large capital improvement projects for transportation systems normally are designed to satisfy longer range developmental plans (15-30 years.)  The proposed MLF is designed to accommodate current service and equipment levels, and cannot provide for additional train sets.

Town and state officials need to take this possibility into account as it relates to pursuing a full Environmental Impact Statement process conducted by the Federal Railroad Authority.  There are simply too many uncertainties and unanswered questions to proceed on the basis of the Environmental Assessment alone.

No matter how much the mercenaries of TrainRiders Northeast and the volunteers at the Station Departure Center object.  Or how many make euphoric claims such as:

I believe the comeback of rail is essential to our country's economy and the wellbeing of its citizens.

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Quality of Place; Downtown Master Plan; and the Amtrak MLF. What a splendid outlook for in-town living.

             

For years and years, the anemic economic vitality and lack of opportunity in Maine have been rationalized by various non-profits and other anti-prosperity groups with the consolation that we have ‘quality of place’ that more than makes up for these shortcomings. 

                       

You should be familiar with their typical rhetoric by now. Here’s a sample:

"Quality of Place" What does it mean?

What brought you to Maine? Why do you stay? What keeps you coming back year after year? That is Quality of Place. The rocky coastline, the old growth forests, the rolling farmlands, the historic downtowns, the loon calls on still lakes, the 3rd generation family that works the fields, the farms and the fisheries. The quintessential Maine that we all have come to love - the thing that makes Maine...Maine - that is Quality of Place.

Try as we might, we couldn’t find the sounds, vibrations, and aromas of diesel electric train engines in the same literature that talks of ‘loon calls on still lakes.’

You know how it works; rocky shore lines and lots of trees compensate for low incomes and lack of opportunity that would keep your children and grandchildren here near family to build their lives, their families, their futures, and oh by the way, to be your comfort and solace in your old age.

All well and good; let’s not debate the terminology.  Instead, we want to talk to you about Brunswick’s Quality of Place, and how those of you who live in the downtown corridor are about to have yours ‘adjusted’ for the greater community good.  We trust you’re prepared to make the necessary sacrifices so that those with a higher purpose can find their fulfillment.

MLF to station run

Those we particularly want to address reside/work in the areas shown in the google earth image above.  You can see a larger view in your browser by going to this link:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.91021,-69.96998,911m/data=!3m1!1e3

Loosely defined, we include the residential/commercial areas on both sides of the existing tracks between Church Road and Stanwood Street, which consists of the Bouchard Drive and adjacent neighborhoods on the south side of the tracks, plus a mix of properties on the north side; the neighborhoods along Hennessy Ave both to the North and South and the Hammond Lumber facility; those along the Cedar Street corridor, including the Midcoast Hunger Prevention Program facility, and any other person and/or property that is within the sound, the smell, and the feel of the Amtrak train. 

This includes the Hannaford area, Brooks Farm Supply, Union Street businesses and residences, Maine Street Station businesses and offices, and even The McLellan – our not so new but new town hall.  We might as well include the Inn at Brunswick, the Noble Street neighborhoods, and Page, Potter, and Weymouth Street areas as well.

Maybe even HBS school and the adjacent playground areas.

Before we get to that, though, we want to refer back to the lovely message that Alison Harris, a volunteer at the Maine Street Station “Departure Center” (as we have renamed it), sent to Jane Millett and the town council on March 12, 2014.  We wrote about it here:

http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/03/amtrak-mlf-are-bouchard-drive-residents.html

and you can find the memo here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/213746651/Alison-Harris-letter-to-town-council-on-March-12-2014

We think these words of Alison’s are particularly germane to our discussion today:

“I’m glad that you have come to recognize the serious imposition on your Cedar Street constituents posed by the Downeaster idling for five hours a day….. as they used to at Brunswick Station until someone shooed them down the line to bother someone else.”

“…eliminating the noise, odor and vibrations endured by your Cedar Street constituents, as well as the airborne pollutants that blow throughout Brunswick while the diesel engines idle.”

“…it just puts the idling engines into some other unfortunate neighborhood’s back yards.”

“…idle out of doors disturbing some neighborhood or another and polluting the environment.”

“Without a layover facility in Brunswick, the Downeaster will be unable to add a third round-trip a day to Boston every day…”

“(When track improvements are made in Yarmouth, I understand that we could have five round-trips every day!)”

Alison makes it abundantly clear that idling trains are bothersome, noisy, smelly, vibrating; pollute the air ‘throughout Brunswick;’ and disturb unfortunate neighborhoods, to paraphrase her words.

18 Quality_of_Place-Dean Meyers-REV.jpg

Now here’s the part that Alison forgot to mention, and where your sacrifice of Quality of Place comes into play.

All those things Alison finds objectionable about those icky-poo idling trains are equally true of running/moving trains as well.  Plus more: the noise, smell, pollution, and vibration levels increase significantly.  Track noise, horns at crossings, ground vibrations as trains roll.  Then there are the at grade street crossings, bringing traffic and pedestrians to a stop.  In the case we’re examining here, these would be Stanwood Street and Union Street.  But no matter; those are quiet, seldom used streets.

We have some exciting news for those of you within this lucky vicinity, and it’s found on pages 14 and 15 of the Amtrak MLF Environmental Assessment we discussed in our prior post, which you can find here:

http://www.nnepra.com/sites/default/files/Brunswick%20Final%20EA%20-%20%20091213_0.pdf

We tried to copy and paste the table on page 14 here, but couldn’t do it.  So we’re pasting the related text.  (Note that ‘Build Alternative’ means building the MLF as proposed along Bouchard Drive.  ‘No Build’ means an MLF would not be constructed (at least in Brunswick.))

(emphasis in the passage below is ours)

In summary, Exhibit 7 compares Amtrak train movements with and without the Build Alternative, while Exhibits 8 and 9 diagram the volume of Amtrak train traffic on segments between Portland and Brunswick Station. Under current service levels, the Build Alternative would not affect total train moves between Portland and Brunswick, though all six trains would operate as scheduled Amtrak Downeaster service for the full length of the Brunswick – Portland – Boston route, maximizing ridership potential. In total, twelve trains would operate over trackage between the Brunswick rail yard and Brunswick Station – a distance of about 0.6 miles – under the Build Alternative. This would include the six Amtrak Downeaster trains and six ancillary train movements. Under the No Build, eight trains would operate over this segment in total.

Be clear on this.  Under current circumstances, you in the cited areas deal with 8 train movements a day through your area, between the proposed MLF site at Brunswick West and the in-town station.  When the MLF is built, that number will increase by 50%, to 12 train movements per day.  That means street crossings and everything else that goes with a train movement.

Under potential future service levels, the total number of train movements between Portland and Brunswick, a distance of 29 miles, would be ten with the Build Alternative, compared to 16 for the No Build, a reduction of six trains daily. The Build Alternative would increase the number of trips between Brunswick Station and the Brunswick rail yard, a distance of 0.6 miles, from four to ten. Hours of operation would be similar under either the No Build or Build Alternative.

And clear on this as well; once scheduled train service increases to 5 round trips per day (!!), the train movements daily through your neighborhoods and at your crossings will increase to 20.  Most of which will take place at all hours of the day, from very early (6 am), to very late (3 am.)

That’s the equivalent of 10 round trips between the Brunswick West site and the in-town station.  Each of those trips has to take place at very low speed.  You have to start the train, open the huge doors of the MLF, pull the train out and head for the station, and then idle there while crew and passengers board and de-board and generally ready themselves for the journey to come. 

After everything is tended to, the train has to move very slowly and cautiously back to the Brunswick  West site, either to continue to Portland, or to wait for shed doors to open so it can enter the facility.

We’re not train operation experts, but what if each round trip, including the stop (idling) at the station, took about 30 minutes?  From the schedule, it appears that the train spends 15-20 minutes at the station alone.  So 30 minutes total doesn’t seem out of line.

30 minutes times 10 is 300 minutes, or 5 hours of running train in the downtown neighborhoods. 

Hmmm; 5 hours.  That number rings a bell; where have we heard that before?  We’ll try to remember.

Well, at least you’ll be able to take solace in the Downtown Master Plan, adopted in January 2011, which in it’s (“our”) Downtown Vision, prioritizes, among other things, “Visual Quality;” “Pedestrian and Vehicular Movement;” and “Neighborhoods.”

(see http://www.brunswickme.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Adopted-Downtown-Master-Plan.pdf)

And when you read the EA for the umpteenth time, remember that those pollution effects, health risks, and the other items discussed all relate to you in the ‘Quality of Place’ areas we alluded to.

Thanks for grinning and bearing it on behalf of the rest of us.  As thanks, we’re thinking of having signs made up for you, like those that say ‘this is a Neighborhood Watch area.’  Only it will say ‘this is a Quality of Place sacrificing area.’

                                    

You may not have been able to articulate “Quality of Place’ before you read this, but we’re guessing you have a much better idea of what it means now.

We only have one more thought before we close.  With the expansion in service, how many more round trips will Brunswick Taxi have to make back and forth to Portland to transport Amtrak crews?  Will the BDC have to give them another grant to buy more vehicles?  Will GoJo have to negotiate a more expansive contract with CTS?  Ka-ching, ka-ching.

Like they say, it’s good to be a King in Brunswick.  Especially if you’re an FU alumni.