If you’re among the up-to-date in The Other Side readership sphere, you should recall this post of just over two weeks ago, in which we included these thoughts:
Accordingly, local authorities have reissued the earlier Be On the Look-Out (BOLO) alert for the Brunswick Bobbsey Twins (BBT) of TrainRiders/Northeast (TNE). And they’ve elevated the state of agitation of the twins to Going High Order (GHO).
While the twins are known for their ability to disguise themselves, authorities are concerned that their real identities may now surface under the pressures of reality.
So, fair warning. Watch the news as it unfolds, and make sure you’ve got your own knickers under control.
Cause and effect might present itself here as a topic for discussion, but no matter. Instead, we submit this recently published item:
Letter: State playing games with Brunswick train barn
Monday, September 8, 2014 at 8:30 am
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection waited until the last minute to inform the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority that they had issues with NNEPRA's storm-water permit application for the proposed Brunswick layover facility. Remember this is the same application that NNEPRA filed and MDEP granted last year.
Commissioner Patricia Aho's letter listed 21 items for NNEPRA to address. Many seem irrelevant to the subject of the permit. Take item No. 15, which reiterates what NNEPRA has told DEP is the purpose of the Brunswick layover facility, i.e., general cleaning of the cars, resupplying of the cafe car, and refueling. How does this qualify as a flaw in the storm-water application? Or item No. 16: "Please provide plans for septic pump-out, including frequency and timing, (etc.)" Again, nothing to do with storm water.
Some half-dozen items simply ask NNEPRA to let DEP know if the project design or operations change.
Was there really no other way to handle these details? Do all applicants for environmental permits get to play "Chutes and Ladders" with the DEP, or is the game just for applicants, like NNEPRA, who have somehow displeased the commissioner or her boss?
Freeport and Brunswick want this layover facility built.
Emily Boochever
Brunswick
The Forecaster, in which this letter appeared, allows on-line comments, and surprisingly enough, someone we know responded:
How delightful; Ms. Boochever's letter embodies the highest standards of rhetorical and linguistic silliness.
Where does one begin? In this case, let's begin at the end.
'Freeport' wants this facility built, according to the writer. Define 'Freeport,' please, Emily. In specific terms.
Then tell us why Freeport wanting an industrial facility built in Brunswick should convince the rest of us to applaud the idea.
Similarly, 'Brunswick' wants this facility built in Emily's view.
Define 'Brunswick' please, as you use that term to support your case.
Do you mean everyone in Brunswick? I assure you that is not the case.
Do you mean by a vote of the townspeople? I don't recall that taking place.
Do you mean town government? Even there, it's apparent there is no unanimity on the subject, and besides, government is not 'Brunswick.'
Which leads us to believe that what you mean by 'Brunswick' are those with whom you are acquainted that belong to TrainRiders/Northeast, and with whom you hold fund raisers for sympathizers. This is the McGovern syndrome decades later, adapted to our lovely little town.
So unless you can come up with something credible, your claim that Freeport and Brunswick want this industrial facility built is pure bluster.
Next, it's abundantly clear that you have no understanding of the term 'stormwater' in this context. You apparently think it means only rainfall, when in fact, a simple glimpse at the application documents, the regulations pertaining thereto, and a decent pursuit of knowledge would quickly reveal the term is a catchall for a broad spectrum of issues. For example, refueling has the potential to pollute water runoff from the facility, which could enter the aquifer and/or the sanitary sewer system.
You seem to view DEP engagement in this project as an impediment to construction at the proposed location. Actually, their role is to see to it that NNEPRA is in full compliance with all relevant law and regulations, just as the FRA directed in the FONSI decree as a condition for that determination.
Are you suggesting a lesser standard should apply, and that NNEPRA should be immune from the accepted protocols for health and environmental aspects of such industrial projects?
We’re still waiting for reports from local authorities to let us know whether today’s rain was enough to extinguish local brush fires.
Once we do, we’ll update you. Meanwhile, pay attention to the warning signs that were posted previously.
No comments:
Post a Comment