It’s in the bag….

Once again we’re forced to come to grips with the fact that the richest little town in America is finding itself unable to come to grips with its massive municipal obligations.  So, as you might expect, our town Zethers are going to take up appropriate measures at the council meeting next week, as described here:

48. The Town Council will consider setting a public hearing for May 7, 2018, to amend the Town of Brunswick Municipal Code of Ordinances Master Schedule of Revenues, Charges, Fees and Fines to increase the retail cost of the Town trash bags, and will take any appropriate action. (Town Manager Eldridge)

Notes: The Town’s Finance and Recycling & Sustainability Committees have recently reviewed the Town’s Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) program. They discussed the price of bags, and reviewed a survey comparing programs from neighboring communities, where an average retail price for small bags was $1.26, and for large bags, $2.38. The Town’s prices are $.50 for small and $1.00 for large bags, and they are recommending an increase effective July 1, 2018, to $1.00 for small and $2.00 for large bags. The PAYT program provides revenue to help offset landfill closure costs and promotes reduction of waste through recycling. Copies of memos from Finance Director Julia Henze and the Recycling & Sustainability Committee, a redlined copy of the Brunswick Code of Ordinances Chapter 13, a redlined copy of the Master Schedule of Fees – Chapter 13 and a draft public hearing notices are included in your packet.

(Note: we know calling councilors Town Fathers, or Town Mothers,  is entirely inappropriate in this enlightened age.  We could call them our betters, as we have in the past, but that would not be honest.  So we coined “zethers” as a gender neutral substitute for fathers or mothers, in keeping with current pronoun theology.)

As for the survey referred to above, we wonder who performed it, and what the ground-rules were.  We’re reminded how our teenagers (many years ago) always noticed those who had fancier cars or whatever than they did, but never seemed to notice those who had lesser items, or even no such possessions.  It’s a standard human failing.  We always want to “keep up with the Jones,” rather than “keeping down with the Smiths.”

We should remind you that we already pay for trash collection and operation of the landfill as a component of our property taxes.  So don’t fall into the trap of believing that “it’s only fair that we  pay for something that is free.”

 

Twelve  years ago, we delivered a statement on “Fee Per Bag” to the town council; you’ll find it appended to this post below.  It had the same effect and influence on the council that every other statement we’ve made has had.  Still, we found it amusing to reread, and we hope you will get at least one chuckle from it….in retrospect.  If nothing else, you should appreciate that if the RIGHT PEOPLE are in favor of pay per use, it sails through.  While if the same people receive a similar proposal that wrinkles their noses, the originator is a crank and an enemy of fairness.

Since we’re in the mood for oldies but goodies, we’ll also refer you to this collection of posts that invoke the “pay per use” philosophy.  All postdate the introduction of our green bag revolution; we founded this blog in 2009.

http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/search?q=pay+per+bag

We amused ourselves by rereading the items ourselves.  Sometimes we lose sight of just how many posts we’ve published over the years,  And to be petty, just how creative we were in some of our flights of sarcasm.  No wonder we’ve made so much from our publishing efforts.

As a final note, if you’ve fprgptten the noble purpose of PayT, here’s a reminder.  You can cut it out and keep it close to your heart.

And please remember, this is not intended to generate revenue like taxes do.  The price of the bags is instead a disincentive to wasteful living.

Got it?  Now you can start thinking how you’ll cut your contributions to the landfill by another 50%.

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,community,landfill,good behavior

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

Statement on “Fee per bag” April 17, 2006

• I’d like to talk about the proposed new trash collection tax.

• Supporters of tax per bag, which is what it is, claim that this new charge for town services will cause us to generate less trash. I suppose you all have in mind what foods you will no longer buy, and what purchases you will no longer make, once the plan goes into place.

• No more ice cream, for example…those containers are so bulky. And no more eggs; those cartons are such a travesty. And back to cloth diapers, because those disposables clearly add to the bag count. I can even envision that we’ll have trash police one of these days, going through our town approved bags to tell us which items we are no longer allowed to buy.

• As for me, I’m at a loss to understand how paying a new tax for trash collection will cause my household to generate less trash. “Honey, don’t buy cereal this week, it will cost too much to trash the box; I’ll just have coffee for breakfast.”

• In fact, we may actually generate MORE trash, since we’ll now be throwing away town approved bags on a weekly basis.

• If those bags are plastic, which apparently is common, I have to assume our beloved wildlife will appreciate our efforts. Nothing enjoys a plastic bag of trash, nor can decimate it faster, than a hungry crow, and other cherished members of our native population.

• I love the comments on this so far. Some councilors often remind us of how they “listen to their constituents,” when it suits their purpose; but when it doesn’t, they rationalize that they “aren’t elected to do what’s popular.” How convenient a principle.

• A year and a half ago, when I proposed the possibility of some user fees to help plug any revenue gap caused by Palesky, I was castigated as having outrageously undemocratic thoughts. Now, the same councilor who was disgusted by my suggestion finds such fees to be entirely appropriate (see Forecaster article.) Again, how convenient.

• Of course, in addition to the new bags that will be added to the landfill, we’ll all be burning more fossil fuel as we drive wherever we have to go to buy the bags.

• I hope some of the per bag fees will go to the Police Department, and to the new Public Works TSI unit, both of which will be responding to regular reports of unauthorized dumping at the various midnight trash disposal sites around town. No doubt folks in the “Rural Smart Growth Area” will be especially popular when it comes to such “off peak” refuse disposal activities. I expect the Town’s rubber glove budget line to increase significantly. (In case you didn’t get it, TSI stands for Trash Scene Investigation.)

• Come to think of it, there’ll be the expense of producing, storing, and selling the bags. Based on figures I got from John Foster, the town will have to sell something like 10,000 bags or so per week, or about 1500 per day. That should keep somebody somewhere hopping! And we may just need an assistant director of bags; I hope you’ve figured this in to your estimates.

• Now if you accept the premise that increasing the tax levied on trash collection will discourage trash generation, than you also have to accept the premise that raising the tax on purchases will discourage sales, and that raising the property tax will discourage real property construction and purchase. Surely you see the principle here….increasing a tax on a given behavior discourages that behavior. I hope you’ll keep that in mind as you discuss and enact the upcoming budget.

• I’d like to make a clear distinction for purposes of this discussion. There are functions that are core obligations of government; these are critical and essential to public health and safety, and they are legitimate top priorities for public funding. There is no reasonable alternative to these functions; a perfect example is trash disposition. Let me quote from our Solid Waste Ordinance, Section 13-2:

  • Purpose: …to protect the health, safety, and general wellbeing of the citizens…….

• On the other hand, there are functions that are not critical and essential to public health and safety, and that are arguably public amenities, not related to public health and safety. An example would be the public library.

• In the current budget year, this town will spend about $200,000 to collect residential trash, and I’m told the staffing to do this is about four full time equivalent employees.

• In this same budget year, this town is providing $922,000 for the operation of Curtis Library. And the library has a staff of about 22 full time equivalent employees.

• This seems a bit out of whack to me. I can hear the gasps and shocked amazement among those who cherish the library, but they are missing the point.

• Government does not have unlimited resources, because those of us who pay for government do not have unlimited resources. For those who have not yet figured it out, government can only spend that which it first takes from us.

• Accordingly, choices have to be made, and therefore, priorities have to be set. It’s well known that elected officials are deathly afraid of making such choices; they’d rather believe everything is possible, no matter how much it might cost.

• When it comes to priorities, I conclude that trash collection, because it is an essential public health and safety function, ranks well ahead of public libraries, which are at best a public amenity; a luxury, if you will. Said another way, my expectation of having trash safely disposed of trumps your expectation of having someone else pay for your books, magazines, and newspapers.

• Furthermore, EVERY resident of this town, whether they pay property tax directly or indirectly, is a user of the essential trash collection service we pay for in this town. Regardless of the popularity of the library, I am confident that not EVERY resident of this town makes use of this delightful amenity.

• What is my point? Here it is plain and simple. Before you even think about “tax per bag” trash collection, you should enact “tax per library card,” and “tax per book.” Simply because library use, and many other so called services this town provides, are not essential in the way that police, firefighting, emergency medical services, and trash collection are essential.

• There are those gasps again. But if you don’t accept my argument, here’s another way to look at it. Imagine stopping all trash collection for six months. Then imagine stopping library operation for six months. Now tell me which decision had the greater effect on public health and safety, and overall community well-being.

• Until town residents, and you as a governing body, are willing to establish and prioritize legitimate functions of government, this town will always be in crisis mode with budgets, and in dealing with citizen expectations for a government big and rich enough to provide whatever they want.

• Some will say I’ve gored a pretty big ox tonight, and no doubt folks I consider friends will be very upset with me. That saddens me, but I’m not willing to ignore reality in the name of a false sense of tranquility. I don’t mind touching the third rail every now and then. I don’t have ambitions for a political future, and I don’t want to be known as someone who sat around and complained about what is happening, but did nothing about it.

• And besides, my oxen are a lot bigger than the ox I may have gored, and I’m tired of mine being gored. My oxen are called common sense and responsible governing. They haven’t been treated well for years, and I’m going to continue to do what I can to change that.

• Thank you.

• ===========================================

• Pay Per Flush Program

• I’d like to talk about the town’s proposal to institute a Pay per flush program.

• Oops, I’m sorry…wrong statement. This is one I’m getting ready for next year.

Funny smells and loose ends on the Downeaster Noise Workshop; somebody’s got to do the clean-up!

Let’s face it; if there’s anything you can be sure of, it’s that the local media won’t do any clean-up work!

 

OK; here are the details you need:

Meeting Video Replay: http://tv3hd.brunswickme.org/Cablecast/Public/Show.aspx?ChannelID=1&ShowID=3869

Quiet Zone Brochure handed out before the meeting: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0889

FRA Quiet Zone Briefing given at the meeting: https://www.scribd.com/document/364670016/Quiet-Zone-Presentation-Brusnwick-ME-11-14-17

           

Last night, after another full day of reflecting on the Workshop of the night before, it seemed to us that some things didn’t smell right.  So we sent this message to town councilors and the Town Manager:

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

Upon reflection on the meeting itself, and after following up with a railroad professional, the following comments come to mind:

1)  In retrospect, the "no public comment" gag order was even more detrimental than it seemed at the time.  There was no opportunity to challenge answers given by the visitors, to ask follow-up questions, or otherwise dig into the first broad-brush comments given in response to the pre-listed questions.

2)  Patricia Quinn, ED of NNEPRA, was largely silent for the workshop, other than platitudes about working with Amtrak and the TM.  This makes it easy to forget that the State of Maine operates the Downeaster, and that this statutory responsibility and authority is vested in NNEPRA, which she heads.  In this regard, Amtrak and Pan Am are subcontractors to NNEPRA, which buys their services through agreements with each, plus MBTA.  NNEPRA and Ms. Quinn are the direct customer for their services, and she is responsible for oversight of their efforts on NNEPRA's behalf, for seeing that all written obligations are met, and that when issues arise that are not included in the agreements, to see to their resolution and provide assurance to the State, and the host communities, that open deficiencies and complaints are being effectively dispositioned.

3)  NNEPRA has ownership of every aspect of the MLF.  They worked the permitting and approval process from start to finish, with the help of consulting contractors managed by and paid for by the Authority.  NNEPRA was and is the Program Manager and General Contractor for the overall project, including site selection, environmental approval, selection and hiring of subs, design, construction, and acceptance and commissioning.  While Amtrak may staff the MLF, and Pan Am may have tasking associated with the facility, both do so as subcontractors to NNEPRA, with written agreements that should govern these roles and consideration in return.  In other words, "the buck stops at Ms. Quinn's desk" on all matters regarding the MLF and the Downeaster's presence in our community.  She should have been the one summing up by demonstrating the leadership and stewardship to follow up on all Downeaster related tasking that was talked about last night.

4)  I expect that none of the visitors that attended the meeting last night will be at the upcoming Council meeting on November 20th.  So while residents may be permitted to speak in follow-up to last night's meeting, that option will be wholly unsatisfying because other than town officials saying they will pass the concerns and comments along, there will be no meaningful representation of NNEPRA's role in this entire evolution.  So the meeting will of necessity be an anti-climatic, largely symbolic event.

5)  Upon further investigation, it's possible the Pan Am rep sluffed off the east-end operating question with her mention of need to add "interlocks" at the east end.  I contacted a railroad professional to find out what this term means in railroading parlance.  As I understand it, interlocks will add electronics and signaling to the existing switches, but will have nothing to do with the actual placement and physical characteristics of the switches and the related track.  Her comment infers that such interlocks were part of the design and construction for the west end access to the building, but not for the east end.  Which sounds like an obvious management deficiency.  If east end interlocks were included, but not installed before the building was put into service, either Pan Am was not held to their obligations, and/or overall stewardship of the Project was again deficient.  It might be prudent to ask NNEPRA to test east end access geometry by demonstrating entry and exit of a train set from all three east end doors all the way to the Cedar Street wye area. 

6)  Many of the switches used for MLF operations, and other Brunswick train movements, including the Cedar Street wye, require manual switching by Amtrak personnel.  I understand this is a substantial physical task, and switch mechanisms have to be cleared of snow and ice in winter conditions.  Given "more than one way to skin a cat," railroad personnel have historically been known to minimize their "skinning" work by taking the path of least resistance, if you will.  The MLF is a facility ripe for such minimalist operations.  Amtrak staffs the facility, with no regular presence by NNEPRA or Pan Am.  Accordingly, the staff that runs the place is free to do things as they see fit, and if that includes using only one end of the facility for access, who is to challenge them?  In other words, the lack of use of the east end access may not be as the Pan Am rep stated, and no one else at the meeting was likely to challenge that answer.  It's not out of the question to think they may have planned it that way before the meeting.  Again, test runs to demonstrate east end access geometry and mechanicals worthiness seems like a good call.

In conclusion, I believe there is a lot of snow to be plowed on this challenging situation.  I was not encouraged by anything I heard last night, and as I said in a post afterwards,  the bottom line is that Brunswick needs to just "suck it up," and that things are going to get worse instead of better.  More round trips and summer extensions to Rockland that bring the East Side of Brunswick into play ensure that, it would seem.

Respectfully,

Pem Schaeffer

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

                    

There was another odd aroma that came across the room well into the meeting.  We noticed it around the time that “M. William Hollister” of Amtrak got on his soapbox for a few moments, in keeping with the format of his moniker.

He implored us to keep in mind that Amtrak and the Downeaster are all about “economic development,” and that “communities all over the northeast are pleading to have the same benefits as we do,” or words to that effect.

We respectfully take issue with that assertion, M. William, and we refer you to this briefing given to a number of state executives two years ago in the state capital.  Included were the Governor, the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Transportation, Ms. Quinn of NNEPRA, and several other state officials and passenger rail advocates:

             

You can find this presentation here: https://www.scribd.com/document/284589130/PRAC-PDF-Briefing-13-October-15 

We assert that the information and evaluation contained in the briefing is, if anything, more relevant than it was then, as the promises and projections of economic benefits from the Downeaster have continued to fall astoundingly flat on their face.  Or, if you like, their butts.

                                    

M. William also praised the carbon footprint savings of the Downeaster as compared to driving personal vehicles.  We take issue with that claim as well, especially when one considers that the engines pulling the Downeaster are old and creaky, and are grandfathered out of contemporary standards for diesel emissions.  Add to that the fact that in particular, the average train coming into and leaving Brunswick carries no more than a half busload of passengers, and you have an extremely hollow claim.  Today’s motor coaches (Concord, for example) are powered by 325 hp low sulfur diesel engines, while the Amtrak engines are powered by 4,250 hp high sulfur diesel fuel (old style).

Claims that the Downeaster is a net winner on a “per passenger mile” basis, as M. William put it, are readily shown to be wildly inaccurate on any basis, but especially when long idling periods and empty trains are taken into account.

For more informative reading, this document will open your eyes:

     

It was compiled and published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and you can find it here:

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/greentravel_report.pdf

            

So, all in all, it looks like our prediction of a Dog and Pony Show was a pretty good call.  We’ve witnessed hundreds of them over our decades long career and retired life, and we have a “nose” for such things.  And for the bulls that sometimes come along to expand the content.

You should be grateful that Side allows you to escape the sensory delights of such events, and takes it upon himself to do the dirty work for you.  It’s about time you buy us lunch, don’t you think?

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,Bravo Sierra,Downeaster,Amtrak,Economic Development

A “Hot Mop Up” on tonight’s train noise meeting

        

We forgot to bring our rose-colored glasses to the meeting tonight, so you’ll just have to take the unadulterated summary we’re ready to provide.  No two-stepping, no lipstick, no musical background.

Here it is:

Takeaway:  Suck it up Brunswick and find a way to cope.  You’re hosed.

Details:

1) So called quiet zones are a complex undertaking, and would take years to get approved.  The regulations will quickly make your eyes glaze over, and the acronyms and other govnernment speak will leave you gasping for help from lawyers and consultants.

2) Even if the quiet zones were approved, it wouldn’t end all the train noise.  Train horns blow for two general reasons: to meet operating regulations, and at the discretion of the engineer because of safety challenges, like people on the track, deer crossing, or whatever.

3) Quiet zone approval requires that grade crossings be upgraded and or redesigned.  The cost can me modest up to very high, but since this is fundamenatlly a government undertaking, you should go with high, and that’s for EACH crossing.

4) The total cost of any quiet zone upgrades would be borne by the Town of Brunswick.

5) There will always be other train sounds and horn blowing associated with switching of trains around in the yard and daily testing of the horns inside the building.  Again, horns are blown for a lot more than just grade crossing.

6) Things are only going to get worse; once the $10 million Royal Junction siding is complete, instead of 3 R/T’s per day in and out of Brunswick, there will be 5 R/T’s, and all trains will spend the night in the MLF.  So there will be 5 southbound trains, and 5 northbound trains, with proportionate increase in grade crossings and horn sounds.

7) Once the schedule increases to the 5 R/T’s, if we heard correctly, the earliest departure from Brunswick will be in the 4:00 am hour.  The latest arrival will be in the 1:00 am  hour.  Sorry we don’t have the specific minutes, but the point is that operations will be nearly 24 hours a day.

8) If the proposed summer trips to Rockland become part of the operation, there will be additional train movements, grade crossings, and horn soundings.  If quiet zones were wanted for the added crossings, the cost to the town would increase proportionately.

                     

9) One of the Amtrak folks reminded us how much they contribute to economic development, and how residents all over the Norhteast are clamoring to get Downeaster like service.  He should go sell crazy somewhere else; we’ve already got enough of our own.  He also threw in a plug for all the carbon footprint the train is saving compared to other forms of transportation.  We thought he’d leave a case of Kool-Aid for attendees, but we didn’t see it.

10) NNEPRA’s Patsy Quinn was pretty much silent until it came to touting how closely she stays in touch with her Amtrak contact and our TM.  She never mentions that Amtrak is a sub-contractor to NNEPRA, and as such, she has responsibility for their performance.  It’s easy to surmise that the great big scary outfit from Washington does things the way they want.  NNEPRA owns the MLF, but Amtrak operates it.  We don’t get the sense that NNEPRA feels like they “run a railroad.”  Not much leadership was shown by her, or anyone else, frankly.

11) The failure to use east end MLF access was attributed to needing “interlocks” for the switches, a term that was not explained.  The PanAm rep implied they will be installed before the end of the year.  We’ll follow up to see what these are, and what problem they resolve.

Summary Takeaway:  Everybody promised to “do what they could” to tweak various small things, but the fact is that nothing substantial can be done about any of the problems with noise, or anything else, for that matter.  So as we said, SUCK IT UP, folks!

As to general observations, we were very disappointed in the attendance.  Side expected a full chamber, but we’d be surprised if there were 25 attendees total.

We hereby give Side shout-outs to Councilor Jane Millet, who was quite vocal in expressing concerns she has for town residents and the various problems caused for families.  She even went so far as to say “shame on this town” for allowing things to “get where they are” or something to that effect.  Jane also mentioned that complaints have been received from Topsham residents!

Sarah Brayman chimed in on the same notes, but not to the extent that Jane did.  It seems to us that both are feeling like they “got mugged.”

We’ll follow up with a link to the meeting video, and also post the documents that were presented once we get them.

         

Other than that, you better double up on your calisthenics.

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,Amtrak,Downeaster,NNEPRA

Brunswick Town Government to address noise violations at Downeaster layover facility

    

Since the overwhelming majority of town residents don’t read The Ostrich, unless you’re directly effected by the noise issue referred to above,  you probably aren’t aware that a formal complaint has been filed, and that the town council will soon hold a formal workshop on the subject.

The passage below is copied from the official agenda for this Monday’s regular town council meeting:

Town Council workshop with railway officials

Notes: A Council workshop with railway officials has been scheduled for Monday, October 30, 2017 at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. The objective is to identify measures to reduce noise from train operations and establish an implementation plan. In the interest of having adequate time to define specific actions to be taken on train noise, in lieu of public comment, constituent concerns will be summarized and presented by Town Manager Eldridge. Any additional comments or concerns regarding noise received by October 17th will be added to the list presented to Council and the railway officials in advance of the workshop. Comments received later can be introduced by Councilors or the Town Manager at the workshop.

The image above is a snip from the complaint filed in August.  It contains detailed noise data collected adjacent to the layover facility.  You can find the full report here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/361591521/Noise-Complaint-form-8-21-17-1

Here’s an example of the data presented, which will be easier for you to look at and understand if you download the actual document.

     

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,noise complaint,MLF,Downeaster

MLF Sound Update: NNEPRA fails the promise check

Don’t know how many of you are aware of what took place at the Town Council meeting a week ago today, and the news coverage that ensued.  So here you go….a snip of the Forecaster’s article:

You’ll find the complete article here: 

http://www.theforecaster.net/brunswick-train-barn-neighbors-fears-realized/

As it says in the article, Charlie Wallace of Resource Systems Engineering presented Councilors with a data package documenting ‘rail yard’ sound levels since the Downeaster came to Brunswick and the MLF was built, and how they exceed Brunswick zoning regulations for both night-time and day-time noise level limits.

We’ve posted the entire package here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/354311237/RSE-Sound-Comparison-July-17

We think you’ll be able to work your way through the details with a little effort, but here are a few summary visuals that should help you get the main point – that measured data shows sound levels are well in excess of town limits, and frequently and regularly so.  There is no question that Downeaster related activities have caused measurable sound pollution, in excess of what elected employees once considered the “limits.”

Before the Downeaster came to Brunswick and the MLF was built:

After the Downeaster came to town and the MLF was built:

What’s the bottom line?  It’s pretty plain to see.   Noise levels (not to mention pollution levels) are well in excess of town limits. 

And NNEPRA’s promises aren’t worth the spit coughed up when diesel dust descends on the neighborhood.

Unless you’re a foamer, in which case you’re oblivious to reality.

Don’t let that bother you.  Here in Brunswick, facing reality is not a popular activity.

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,MLF construction,NNEPRA,Downeater,noise levels

The Paris Climate Accord: it’s Greek to us!

Cynics that we are, we have no trouble presuming that the Paris Climate Accord, recently exited by President Trump, is supported whole-heartedly, if not whole-mindedly, by the vast majority of Brunswick and Maine residents.  Since there are so many supporters out there, we’re hoping one or more will help us understand what’s involved in the agreement.

A friend passed along this key passage from the document:

The following appears in Article 7, paragraph 5 of a document agreed to by 174 countries:

“Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate.”

We’re struggling a bit with “gender-responsive” terminology appearing in a climate accord document.  Sure, Mrs. Side feels the chill in the house before we do, but we’re hoping they have more in mind than personal sensitivities to thermostat settings.

The rest of it, however leaves us beyond struggling, and trying to count how many enviromental attorneys we’d need to hire to fathom just WTF the rest of the language is really trying to say, how it would legally bind any of the parties to the agreement, and finally, how it would resolve climate problems.  Even if we don’t have any clear understanding of just what those problems are, and unambiguous proof that they need to be remedied.

This calls to mind all the old saws about “committees.”  Just imagine – 174 countries coming to agreement on word salad double speak like this.  And how many languages they must have been writing and negotiating in.

As for us?  We’ll draw upon the old quip that “it’s all Greek to me” to summarize our view.  And shake our heads at the trouble the “Global Community” can stir up when they decide to solve the world’s problems.

So have at the language and let us know what you come up with in plain English, you zealots. 

If the language is too duplicitous and sanctimonious and bureaucratic for you to discern, perhaps you can help decode the agreement from this graphic presentation:

You know the old saying about pictures and words.

Now we can add hand-waving and posturing and jetting all over the world to the list.  Thank goodness we have such capable, pure, and noble souls to lead us in such matters, and impose their wills upon us all, even if we have no idea what their will is, and neither do they.

Technorati Tags: global governance,climate change,bureaucrats

Betke on Brunswick & Freeport Schedules

Our friend George Betke, a railroading professional, had an item published yesterday in The Ostrich.  It dovetails nicely with our item published earlier in the week, about which we posted yesterday.

We thought you’d enjoy this photo, which shows NNEPRA/Downeaster glitterati accompanying Senator King, Angus to the Brunswick celebration of November 21st.  Note how the three: NNEPRA Board Chair Marty Eisenstein; TRNE Chairman S Wayne Davis; and NNEPRA ED Patricia Quinn maintain an appropriate and repectful distance of several paces behind the Senator.

U.S. Sen Angus King, I-Maine, arrives in Brunswick Monday, Nov. 21, to mark the inaugural third daily roundtrip of the Amtrak Downeaster between Brunswick and Boston. He was joined by Marty Eisenstein, chairman of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority; TrainRiders Northeast Chairman Wayne Davis, and Patricia Quinn, NNEPRA executive director. The new late-morning departure and evening arrival were made possible by the recent opening of a new train layover facility in Brunswick. (Keith Spiro / For The Forecaster)

Here is Mr. Betke’s offering in its entirety:

Downeaster schedule shortchanges Freeport, Brunswick

Heavily promoted economic benefits of extending Amtrak Downeaster passenger service north of Portland have taken a step backward. An original impetus for getting the train to Freeport (and leading to further extension of the route to Brunswick) was to enable day-trippers from Boston and intermediate points to enjoy a Maine shopping experience.

The revised schedule recently implemented by the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority lists the first northbound train arrival in Freeport at 4:10 p.m., barely allowing for a convenience-store stop before the last southbound departure at 5:35 p.m. Travelers seeking a same-day train trip to Brunswick are faced with an even more pressing, 55-minute time constraint, 4:25-5:20 p.m. Perhaps NNEPRA marketers had the local overnight lodging establishments in mind.

On the other hand, they clearly were thinking of big-city sporting and entertainment attractions, scheduling late-evening weekend departures from Boston that encourage visiting Mainers to boost the Massachusetts economy. Is there any doubt that the flow of continuing economic benefit from the “Downeaster” is decidedly southward?

What about all the transit-oriented real-estate improvements that supposedly accompany the introduction of rail service? The train actually followed such development in Freeport, and though Brunswick has a nice new station complex, none of its occupants is dependent on rail travelers. Two restaurants simply moved from other locations into new quarters, and the nearby inn reports few guests utilizing the train.

The main purpose of the new schedule appears to be positioning trains for overnight occupancy of Brunswick’s massive new maintenance and layover facility, making the town a regular destination for equipment if not passengers. The obvious irony is that Freeport and Brunswick are being short-changed by this paltry return on a committed investment of more than $70-million. After four years, the transformative economic stimulus envisioned by the “Wouldn’t it be nice to have a train?” crowd can only be described as an expensive hoax.

George C. Betke, Jr.,

Newcastle

And here are the schedules he refers to:

As the All Aboarders like to day, “we’re livin’ the dream, baby!”

Even though others may see it more as a nightmare for taxpayers, and those whose “safe space” has been violated by the microaggression of arriving and departing train whistles.

Technorati Tags: Amtrak,Betke,Downeaster,Brunswick,schedules

Gender concerns invade food science; finally, the wait is over!!

   

As we’ve told you before, Other Side has a small cadre of anonymous, strategically placed correspondents who from time to time give us a tip on a ‘breaking’ news story.

The most recent such tip came yesterday, telling us of a segment on Good Morning America on ABC.  It featured two successful young food entrepreneurs, who in the screen clip above with host Robin Roberts, look for all the world like soul-mates of Mark Zuckerberg.

The one on the right has developed pasta made from garbanzo beans, making it gluten free.  The one on the left has developed a collection of “Fluffbutters,” and other healthy snack items.  Fluffbutter is promoted as a healthy alternative to peanut butter and similar products.

We decided to see what all the buzz is about on our own, and found this on a retail web site:

         

The 10 ounce jar ‘lists’ for $10.99, but is on sale for $8.99.  To put that in perspective, we have a 40 ounce jar of JIF Peanut Butter on hand, which Mrs. Side believes we paid on the order of $4.00 for, perhaps in a dual pack from BJ’s.

So in round numbers, the Fluffbutter sells for ten times the price of the JIF on a per serving basis.  But as you would expect, and we hope demand, you get so much more in your jar of Fluffbutter.  Just gaze at the label info:

         

Do you see that?  The damn stuff is GENDER NEUTRAL!  Where the hell else are you going to find certifiably gender neutral spread to use on your snacks?  It’s also dairy free, gluten free, soy free, and suitable for vegan diets.

What a breakthrough; no doubt commercially available ‘off the shelf’ peanut butters are loaded with dairy products, gluten, and soy.  Both though, do include ‘nuts’.

Why D’s Naturals didn’t mention that the product is catsup free, broken glass free, and corn by-product free we can’t say.

Given societal pre-occupation with matters (or variations, if you prefer) of gender these days, we can only wonder whether trans-gendered Fluffbutter is in the works.  We expect it to have a higher shelf price to cover the cost of the scientific research and genetic modification to the ‘natural ingredients.’  This could be followed by gender-fluid Fluffbutter.  The possibilities are nearly endless if you follow contemporary cultural ‘transitions.’

Just think of the opportunities for revolutionizing our healthy, natural food supply.  And think of the possibilities for new major fields of study at fine institutions like Bowdoin.  Gender and woman’s studies programs are old news these days, but imagine combined emphasis on gender and food sciences.  It might even call for a new building on campus!

In conclusion, anytime you wonder, like we do, if we’re losing our minds, console yourself with the reality that we’ve already traveled a long, longggg way down that slippery road. 

Kind of ironic, we think, that this trip involves ‘nuts.’

Technorati Tags: gender,nuttiness,food science

Some “light reading” for Councilor K. Wilson and the other environmentally sensitive passenger rail lovers in our midst.

You can read the “rest of the story” here: http://www.lungchicago.org/diesel-pollution-trains/  And try to imagine what ‘more than 25 million cars’ looks like.

Interesting, isn’t it, that they’re talking about Chicago, home base of the infamous “Center for Neighborhood Technoloby (CNT)”, about whom we’ve recently posted.  They’re one of NNEPRA’s go to shops for getting the answers they want, wrapped up in tissue paper with the words ‘professional experts’ stamped on it.

One of the reports linked to in the above item contains this passage in it’s Executive Summary:

                                      

This is exactly the circumstances that have been related to the adoring rail foamers for some years here in Brunswick.  It’s comforting, isn’t it, that the Federal Government is adept at exempting itself from the regulations it imposes on everyone else with the power of law.  I guess that’s why ‘we’re from the Government, and we’re here to help you” is such a timeless favorite.

You can read this second item here: http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/5736_SmokestacksOnRails.pdf

Not to mention their steam-rollering over local zoning regulations, which would have prevented them from building the industrial monstrosity now being erected with no basis in any aspect of rational thought.

We hope that Kathy will update her bio on the town web site to remove this passage:

Kathy Wilson was born in Brunswick and raised in the home where she now lives and works.

We’re sure that she, like all the other councilors, is totally committed to honesty and integrity in her relationship to all of us.

And we hope that reading the items referenced above doesn’t make her think about moving again.  Since she’s at large, she can move anywhere within town limits and retain her spot as an up-and-comer in the ruling class.




With a strong, strong devotion to doing what’s right for the environment.  Along Maine’s coast.

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,MLF construction,Downeaster,town council,environmentalism