Category Archives: Environment

Republicans Recycle Rovian Rhetoric in Attack Ad on Obama

Posted on July 8th, 2008 | Comments Off on Republicans Recycle Rovian Rhetoric in Attack Ad on Obama

The Republican Party is out to try to fool the American public again. Remember compassionate conservatism? With John McCain -the Republican Party is trying to sell us more snake oil in the form of an attack ad on Obama that touts McCain’s “balanced” energy plan and accuses Obama of “no new solutions”. In reality MCCain is the one with no new solutions.

According to the first major ad by the Republican National Committee supposedly done independently of the McCain Campaign, McCain’s going to solve our energy problems now with a “balanced” plan that pushes “more production at home”. This translates to opening up our beaches and coastline for off shore oil drilling and more nuclear power plants for which there still is no long term solution to dealing with the nuclear waste.

And he’s still touting his pandering proposal to suspend the Federal gas tax this summer, which unfortunately would remove money for repairing decaying roads and bridges. Of course such an approach would encourage people to drive more, not less, which is counter to his professed concern about “a climate in crisis” Drilling for more oil and suspending needed gas taxes are retro proposals from the Bush Era that are not real solutions to our energy and climate problems.

Of course the Republican ad campaign slips in the words “alternative energy and conservation” sort of like politicians slip in the words “God bless America” when ever they can but let’s look at the record. McCain has offered no new solutions to the energy problem – just a recycling of old Republican campaign tactics of mouthing vague generalities that may have some resonance with the public but which lack specifics to really evaluate.

For example the Detroit Free Press recently reported on McCain”s plan for fuel efficiency for cars and trucks. They noted that “the Republican’s proposals lacked key details” and that his “comments lead to confusion”.

“McCain said that to boost development of hybrids and electric vehicles, he would launch a $300-million award for a battery pack “that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.”

The senator offered no other details, leaving some observers confused about his intent. There are no commercially available plug-in hybrid vehicles today, and the few electric vehicles on the market range from low-power minicars using traditional batteries to the Tesla Roadster, a $100,000 two-seater that uses lithium-ion cells found in computers and other devices.

The McCain campaign said the point of his proposals was to spur change, and that the method for meeting whatever goals he would set for the industry was less important.

“John McCain is not interested in knowing the details of the fuels that go in” to vehicles “and the technologies that process them,” said adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin. “What matters is: Do you get effective transportation with low carbon emissions coming out the tailpipe? Let the best technologies, the smartest invention, win.”

Sounds like John McCain supports the free market approach – no surprise here, but that’s what got us into the mess we’re in now. Change just for the sake of change is not what we need. One prime example is that we are now coming to realize that increased ethanol production can come with a lot of other problems, like increased costs for food. We need to understand the consequences of what we do so that we can make better choices. We need a President and Administration that understands that.

The free market approach, like John McCain espouses, works to optimize profits for corporations. Unfortunately corporate interests often conflict with national interests like conservation of fuels and resources for sustainability, reduced dependence on foreign oil and shifting to a carbon free economy that reduces global warming impacts. We need a President that works to promote the interests and well being of all the the citizens of our country, not just the profits of big corporations.

Just as John McCain is no economist he is also not an engineer or a scientist. John McCain’s voting record on energy and environmental issues is dismal. While most Democrats assume decisive action needs to be taken to deal with global warming , John McCain is getting a special break with the Press and Media because he is a Republican exposing some of these views.

Yet McCain’s voting record really belies this supposed message of someone looking for solutions. John McCain’s lifetime voting record with the League of Conservation Voters is just 26%. By contrast Ron Paul’s lifetime average is 30%.

Barack Obama’s League of Conservation Voter record is 96%. Hillary Clinton’s lifetime average was 90%. Dennis Kucinich’s was 92%.

You can also view a comparison of Obama’s and McCains positions on energy done by Bob Deans of the Cox News Service at the Dayton Daily News. While John McCain proposes reducing carbon emissions by 60% by 2050, Barack Obama proposes reducing them by 80%. While Barack Obama proposes a target of 25% of our electricity needs being met by renewable energy by 2025, John McCain would rather we commit to building 45 nuclear power plants by 2030.

Another way of viewing McCain and Obama’s commitment to energy and environmental issues is to view how they responded to votes in Congress, including missed votes while they were campaigning. As the Center for American Progress’s Action Fund notes, John McCain has a poor record on Energy and Global Warming issues. They note that on numerous occasions McCain voted for legislation supporting big oil companies and against renewable energy and increased efficiency standards.

McCain for example had an opportunity to cast a decisive vote in 2007 for renewable energy legislation but sided with Big Oil. As the Center for American Progress notes:

In 2007, McCain was the only senator who failed to vote on a motion to invoke
cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Energy Independence and Security Act. This
vote was about whether to close $13 billion in tax breaks for major oil and gas
companies to invest in new clean energy technologies such as wind and solar, and
efficiency. Sixty votes were required for passage. The motion was rejected
59-40. [CQ.com; HR 6, Vote #425

One needs only to look at the record to realize McCain’s spoken word of wanting energy security and energy independence and conservation and on and on is only hot air and lacks substance. His actual voting record and missed opportunities to make a difference speak louder than anything else. McCain is at heart a Republican and Republicans as a whole are beholden to big corporations and big oil.

The only change McCain is doing is running away from previous positions like opposing off shore oil drilling which gave him some independence from most other conservative Republicans. To win the election he believes he has to cater to traditional Republican conservative voters. As such he is giving up his name brand maverick positions.

McCain is becoming just another conservative, knee jerk reacting to the problems facing America and uttering platitudes. We need fresh ideas and a new vision and leadership to solve our energy problems and respond to global warming. McCain unfortunately will take us back to the past when it is the future we need to deal with.

Comments Off on Republicans Recycle Rovian Rhetoric in Attack Ad on Obama

Posted in Democrats, Elections, Energy, Environment, Obama

Tagged , , ,

Seattle City Council Passes Tree Grove Protection Resolution

Posted on July 1st, 2008 | Comments Off on Seattle City Council Passes Tree Grove Protection Resolution

The full Seattle City Council on Monday , June 30, 2008 unanimously passed Resolution 31065 to help protect the remaining tree groves in the city of Seattle from being cut down. The resolution is an attempt to clarify the city’s current tree protection policies which are very weak and have only emphasized protection of exceptional individual trees.

The city has continued to lose tree cover . Between 1973 and now the city’s tree canopy has gone from 40% to 18%. The Council is trying to reverse this situation by protecting existing trees and planting new trees. Two recent proposed projects have pointed out the weakness and flaw in the past city tree policies.

A Seattle School District renovation proposal at Ingraham High School in North Seattle to add new classrooms to replace portables threatens some 62 Douglas fir, western red cedar and madrone trees that are over 75 years old. The School District without public input decided to build the new addition in the grove of trees rather than around the corner on the North side of the school where an open lawn exists.

In the Maple Leaf community in North Seattle neighbors are fighting cutting down most of a grove of old trees at the former site of the Waldo Hospital. The old hospital is being razed and a block of houses is being put on the site.

Below is the Resolution passed by the Seattle City Council.

A RESOLUTION requesting the Director of the Department of Planning and Development to submit legislation to extend the City’s tree protection efforts to include groves or groups of trees or other vegetation that are determined to have substantial ecological, educational, or economic value and to update existing Director’s Rules in support of these efforts.

WHEREAS, Section 25.05.675(N) of the Seattle Municipal Code allows for preservation of trees as mitigation when a project would reduce or damage rare, uncommon, unique or exceptional plant or wildlife habitat, wildlife travelways, or habitat diversity for species of substantial aesthetic, education, ecological or economic value; and

WHEREAS, Director’s Rule 06-2001 focuses on individual trees and how the SEPA policy interacts with SMC chapter 25.11, the Tree Protection Ordinance, which also focuses on individual trees; and

WHEREAS, the language of Section 25.05.675(N) is not restricted to preserving single trees nor does it suggest restricting mitigation to a single tree; and

WHEREAS, the policy intent of the Council, as stated in SMC 25.05.675(N)(1)(a), is to have decision makers mitigate impacts resulting from the loss of plant or wildlife habitat, wildlife travelways, or habitat diversity for species of substantial aesthetic, educational, ecological, or economic value; and

WHEREAS, development impacts in the City have significantly contributed to a reduction of our urban tree canopy from 40% in 1972 to 18% today, as documented in the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) completed by the Office of Sustainability and Environment in 2007; and

WHEREAS, the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) identifies an urban tree canopy goal of 30% for the City of Seattle to be achieved by 2037 and in Seattle’s most recent Comprehensive Plan amendments (Ordinance 122610), the Council adopted a goal of a 1% per year increase in urban tree canopy coverage up to 40% , and this goal is consistent with the urban tree canopy goal recommended by American Forests, the nation’s oldest non-profit citizen’s conservation organization; and

WHEREAS, the Council adopted a new Comprehensive Plan policy in Ordinance 122610 stating the City’s objective to strive to achieve no net-loss of tree canopy starting in 2008; and WHEREAS, mitigating the cumulative impact of the loss of Seattle’s urban tree cover by planting new trees will take decades; and

WHEREAS, climate change, effects of runoff to our streams, lakes, rivers, and Puget Sound, and air quality are issues of immediate importance; and WHEREAS, an environmentally and fiscally superior way to reach Seattle’s urban tree cover goal of 40% is to make every reasonable effort to prevent the loss of trees;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, THAT: Section 1. The City Council requests that the Director of the Department of Planning and Development promulgate or amend department rules to identify, consider, recognize and protect groves or groups of trees that provide rare, uncommon, unique or exceptional plant or wildlife habitat, or wildlife travelways, or habitat diversity for plant species of substantial aesthetic, educational, ecological or economic value, for the purpose of evaluating and mitigating development proposals; and Section 2. The Council requests that the Director of Planning and Development submit legislation to extend the City’s tree protection to include groves or groups of trees that are ecologically interdependent, including groups that may contain exceptional trees as defined in SMC chapter 25.11.

Adopted by the City Council the 30th day of June, 2008, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its adoption this 30th day of June, 2008.
Richard Conlin
President of the City Council

Comments Off on Seattle City Council Passes Tree Grove Protection Resolution

Posted in Environment, Urban Forests

Tagged , , , ,

Seattle School District Works Overtime to Silence Critics

Posted on June 24th, 2008 | 1 comment

 

 

Threatened NW Tree Grove at Ingraham High School

Opponents to the Seattle School District’s clearcutting of half a grove of old evergreen trees at Ingraham High School got slapped with two motions over the weekend to silence their criticism.

Both seem petty and ill advised from a public relations sense yet the Seattle School District seems impervious to listening to the public.

One motion was to try to silence a quiet mannered public citizen who seems to have devoted most of his breathing time in recent years to trying to make Seattle Schools better. He is present at most of the school district’s meetings regarding all manner of things and presents thoughtful researched input into the public process that seems to have few Seattle citizens participating.

His name is Chris Jackins and he represents a broad base of Seattle citizens concerned about school issues under his Seattle Committee to Save Schools. Our family is a member of his group as are other neighbors. Yet the Seattle School District has filed a motion to dismiss him and his committee from the appeal tomorrow on the School District’s Determination of Nonsignificance for the Ingraham High School renovation project.

The motion was filed by G. Richard Hill a special attorney paid for by our tax dollars to try to push through the Seattle School District’s opinion that cutting down up to 90 old Douglas fir, western red cedar and madrone trees that have existed on the Ingraham High School campus even before the school was build in 1959 is not significant. The trees are over 75 years old and 100 feet or more tall.

According to Mr Hill, Chris Jackins is not an aggrieved person and as such can not file an appeal. By definition all of Seattle residents are aggrieved persons because they are taxpayers who are paying to clearcut trees at Ingraham if the Seattle School District continues with its ill advised anti- environmental stance that cutting down 90 old evergreen trees in a park like setting on the west side of Ingraham High School is not significant.

Hill says that ” a person is aggrieved only when the following conditions are present (a) the interest that the person is seeking to protect is within the zone of interests that are protected or regulated by SEPA; and(b) the person has alleged “injury in fact” ie, that he or she will be specifically and perceptibly harmed” by the proposed action.”

Chris Jackins and his committee are aggrieved by the proposed actions of the School Board as are most other Seattle residents and should be commended for taking the time to be involved as a citizen activist, not told to put a muzzle on.

Ingraham High School is a International Baccalaureate school that is trying to attract students from all over the city. As such families across the city have an interest in what happens at Ingraham. And if Ingraham diminishes the urban forest habitat by its actions it affects all Seattle residents. Ingraham is not an island unto itself.

The Seattle School District does not need to cut down any large trees to build the addition at Ingraham High School. The North side of Ingraham High School has an open grassy lawn that the school district has actually identified as a future building site in their master plan for Ingraham High School. Considering the magnitude of the impact on the current site that clear cuts 2/3 of a magnificent grove of trees, most reasonable persons would scratch their heads and ask, “Why don’t you build the proposed addition there and save the trees?”

The problem is that the Seattle School District and the Ingraham School Design Team made their decision as to where to build in private without public involvement. And that is one of the reasons they have filed their second motion – which is to quash any discussion of their secret process and lack of consideration of alternatives to the present site. They gave lip service to public involvement but unless you were personally selected by Ingraham High School’s Principal Martin Floe to come to the unpublicized Ingraham School Design Team meetings you had no way of participating.

The second motion is to dismiss appellants claims regarding alternatives. They argue that since they have “mitigated ” their determination of nonsignificance that we can not discuss the fact that other potential building sites like the North side of the school do not require any old trees to be cut down. Yet they make a number of references in the Environmental checklist as to why specific alternative sites won’t work as well discuss them in the latest letter of determination of nonsignificance. But the Seattle School District is now trying to say that while it was OK for them to discuss them, we can not do the same.

The Seattle School District is trying to say that its proposal is not environmentally significant because it is going to plant more trees than it takes out. The problem with this argument is that they can not replace old large coniferous trees with small deciduous street trees and claim they are making up for the irreversible loss of a park like grove of 75 year old by planting a bunch of 1 or 2 year old deciduous street trees and some small conifers elsewhere on the campus. This is like telling season ticket holders of the Seahawks that the team has been replaced with two teams of junior high school football players and if we wait long enough they will be able to play against the New England Patriots or the NY Giants. Just have patience.

Seattle School students can certainly get a good lesson in how democracy and the law really works by watching the attempts of the District to silence its critics. Repeated requests to get specific information on alternative designs and budgets from the School District and information on the basis on which it decided to make its decision that the trees were not significant have met with minimal response. This lack of timely and specific response to these public information requests for records leads me to the conclusion that the Seattle School District is a closed bureaucracy that does not feel it needs to involve the public in its decision making It would prefer to do it business behind closed doors out of the public limelight and doesn’t feel it needs to be accoutable for its actions.

The hearing on the appeal of the SEPA determination of nonsignificance for the Ingraham High School renovation that will result in clearcutting trees on the site will start tomorrow at 9 AM at Ingraham High School in North Seattle in the school library. The hearing is open to the public and media.

1 Comment

Posted in Environment, Urban Forests

Tagged , , , , ,

Seattle City Council to Act on Saving Tree Groves

Posted on June 23rd, 2008 | 2 comments

Threatened NW Tree Grove at Ingraham High School

 

This Tuesday afternoon at 2 PM, the Seattle City Council ‘s Environment, Emergency Management and Utilities will be discussing and considering passing a resolution on clarifying the existing rules on protecting trees in Seattle “to include groves or groups of trees or other vegetation that are determined to have substantial ecological, educational or economic value”

Resolution 31065 is sponsored by Council President Richard Conlin and Sally Clark. You can read their press release here. They expect the Committee to vote on the issue June 24 and the full council to vote on June 30, 2008.

It does not appear that the public will get much chance to comment on the resolution because the Committee is only allowing 10 minutes of public comment for a jam packed meeting that also includes discussion of a 20 cent per bag green fee on disposable shopping bags and another discussion on prohibiting polystyrene containers for food and shifting to compostable and recyclable alternatives.

The best bet for those that want to help protect existing groves of trees from being destroyed in Seattle is to call or e-mail Seattle City Council members urging their support for added strengthening tree protection. Certainly come to the meeting to show your support as well. The Seattle City Council members can be contacted by going to the Seattle City Council website.

The two current battles over threatened destruction of trees includes a grove of 130 old Douglas fir and western red cedar and madrone trees at Ingraham High School in north Seattle and another grove of mostly Douglas fir in the Maple Leaf area in Seattle called the Waldo Woods.

Recent articles on the proposed tree ordinance:

“Seattle council members want groves of trees protected” Seattle Times 3/29/2008

“Call to Protect grove of trees is sent to Nickels” Seattle PI 3/29/2008

“Seattle Treescape: A bigger canopy” Seattle PI editorial 6/11, 2008

“Neighbors Urge Seattle School Board to Redesign Ingraham HS Project”, MajorityRulesBlog 4/15/2008

A growing contradiction at Ingraham high, Seattle PI 3/28/2008

“Maple Leaf appeals decision on letting developer cut down trees” Seattle Times 5/28/2008

2 Comments

Posted in Environment, Urban Forests

Tagged , , , , ,

Seattle School Board Wants to Honor Renowned Mountaineer by Cutting Down Old Trees

Posted on June 7th, 2008 | Comments Off on Seattle School Board Wants to Honor Renowned Mountaineer by Cutting Down Old Trees

Threatened NW Tree Grove at Ingraham High School

 

The Seattle School Board is both out of touch with the environment and with history. They are pursing a pig headed approach to renovating Ingraham High School in North Seattle, refusing to consider any alternative designs. Their one and only design clear cuts half of a grove of 75 year old 100 foot tall evergreen trees.

The disconnect here is that besides being contrary to the current goals of Seattle to preserve existing trees and to plant new trees to increase our tree cover in Seattle, they are doing this clearcut at a school named to honor a renowned outdoorsman and mountaineer. The school was named after Major Edward Sturgis Ingraham – the first Superintendent of Seattle Public Schools.

As noted on Wikipedia, Ingraham was “a noted mountaineer who climbed Mt Rainier 13 times and a leader in the effort to establish Mt Rainier National Park.” The Ingraham Glacier on Mt Rainier is named after him. He also was involved in some of the first ascents of Mt Baker in the 1890’s. He was appointed to be a member of the first State Board of Education.

So much for having a school named after you by the Seattle School District. Its sort of like the US Navy naming a battleship the USS Gandhi. Ingraham is probably rolling over in his grave, seeing the lack of respect for what he stood for regarding the environment and the horrible lesson this teaches our children entrusted to the Seattle School District.

The voters approved the funds for the renovation of the school but the Seattle School District never told the voters that their intent was to cut down some 66 Douglas fir, western red cedar and madrone trees on the west side of the school to build the addition. If they had told the voters, the funds never would have been approved.

And all during the planing for the addition through the rendering of architectural drawings, neighbors and other members of the community were kept in the dark as to the Seattle School District’s true intent. Internal minutes of a Seattle School Design Committee were first released some 6 months after the meetings started and after the first opportunity for the public to comment on the Environmental Checklist for the project.

The committee noted last year that some neighbors may object to the trees being cut. But at their second meeting they already stated that building where the trees were was their preferred choice. This was despite the fact that a large open area exists on the north side of the school where they can build the addition without cutting down any trees. And they had already in their long range master plan picked this site for a future classroom addition.

The Seattle School District only seriously considered the site where the trees were. A request for release of public information on any alternative designs and associated budget figures produced only a brief one page line sketch of a building on the north side. No alternative budgets supposibly exist.

The Seattle School Board has taken a blind eye to the whole thing – refusing to look at building on the north side and saving the trees. They have issued a notice of determination on non-significance for their SEPA environmental checklist. This is so they do not have to do an environmental impact statement.

The problem is that the Seattle School District is the one issuing the so called notice of determination of non-significance. There is not a review by a separate agency or entity which seems like a significant conflict of interest. It’s like asking a coal burning energy plant to determine whether its emmisions are impacting the environment and taking their word for it without any independent agency or entity reviewing the information and making the determination.

Contact the Seattle School Board and urge them to save the trees by building the addition on the north side of the school. No money has been committed or spent for construction yet. The Seattle School District is acting like it is still 1959 and they can build whatever they want where ever they want without taking into account the concerns and goals of the larger community they live in. They are being bad neighbors when they don’t need to be bad neighbors. They need to hear that the public opposes their clearcutting plan for Ingraham High School.

You can email the Seattle School Board members at – Sherry Carr, District II; Harium Martin-Morris, District III; Peter Maier, District I; Cheryl Chow, District VII Steve Sundquist, District VI; Mary Bass, District V; Michael DeBell, District IV

Send them all your email since 4 of the 7 board members need to vote to build the addition on the north side of the school. Also send a copy of your e mail to the Superintendent of Seattle Public Schools – Maria L Goodloe-Johnson at superintendent@seattleschools.org .

Comments Off on Seattle School Board Wants to Honor Renowned Mountaineer by Cutting Down Old Trees

Posted in Environment, Urban Forests

Tagged , , , ,

Just Where is Rossi on Global Warming?

Posted on May 29th, 2008 | 1 comment

Listening to Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi’s answer to a question on where he is on global warming leaves one wondering just where he is. It seems he really is nowhere. He says “There’s still a lot of debate going on on this” and that “there’s going to be a big debate the next 2 to 3 years” and that he “doesn’t think anyone should panic”

Seem’s he hasn’t even talked with John McCain who says “the facts of global warming demand our urgent attention.”

You can see an interesting contrast on McCain and Rossi ‘s take on global warming on a YouTube clip posted by the Washington State Democratic Party.

See it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6uJQoUIGqk

Rossi’s position on climate change really hasn’t changed since he was in the Legislature. As Craig Engelhardt, Sierra Club lobbyist noted in the last gubernatorial race:

“Rossi voted against efforts to fight global warming: Rossi voted against a bill to create a privately funded Washington climate center that would research simple and innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Washington. The center would have also helped identify what types of impacts climate change could have on Washington and what we can do about it. (SB 5674, 2001)”

David Postman in his blog yesterday has a misleading headline saying “Rossi warms to climate change” but then presents Rossi’s doubletalk saying it’s important to have clean air but his spokesperson says that he would have vetoed one of the bill’s the Legislature passed earlier this year to try to reduce global warming. As Postman reports:

Rossi opposed “this year’s major legislative action on global warming. House Bill 2815 set up goals for carbon reduction, but does not fund those efforts. Gregoire signed the bill and has called it a major accomplishment.

Rossi, according to spokeswoman Jill Strait, would not have signed the bill. Strait said Rossi believes “we should focus on rewarding people, not punishing them.”

“The bill she just signed aims to use the power of the government to force people to cut vehicle miles traveled down to the level of 1980 in just ten years, and that is only the first step. Dino’s vision is based on personal freedom and engaging Washington’s creative economy. His plan provides incentives for people to use new, clean technology. “

The only problem is we’ve seen the free market approach that Rossi proposes. It does not respond to issues like global warming unless there is a personal cost attached to it. The cost of global warming is being passed on to the commons. The oil industry and coal industry and auto industry are extracting profits from their business interests but do not currently pay for the true costs of their industries. Besides pollution itself and dirty air affecting health we now have increased global warming which will affect everyone but which the producers who profit from their sales of coal and oil pay very little or nothing to mittigate.

The industries are operately in a profit motivated system that is passing the cost of their pollution onto the commons. The costs for pollution cleanup and global warming consequences are not being borne by industry but by the general public. The profit motivated free market system obviously does not adequately addreess the true costs to society of global warming and pollution.

This is where it is necessary for government to step in and change the rules because the consequencces are no longer just local or insignificant. A tax on carbon is one way to add the costs into the equation to address the true system costs of burning fossil fuels for energy. Investing this money in alternative renewable non-carbon energy systems is one way to correct the injustices and flaws in a free market system that puts individual profit above the common good.

It is obvious that Dino Rossi is not going to change the system to address global warming. The free market system has failed but Rossi continues to support the myth that individual consumers freely making choices will somehow do the right thing.

The free market system gave Americans SUV’s and minivans to the exclusion of small cars and public transit. The free market mantra gave corporations the incentive to make mistakes as they attempted to maximize profits making large cars. They were wrong and now people are buying Honda and Toyota hybrids and companies like Ford are money losers.

We’ve had 8 years of Bush denying global warming on the national level and it would be a big mistake to put someone in as Governor who really doesn’t see the problem and seems to be willing to say what he thinks the public wants to hear in a last minute election year conversion. The best gauge of what Rossi will do is to look at what he has or hasn’t done regarding global warming to date. The record suggests that it would be a mistake to think he’s going to do anything. Election year conversions are just another slick ad campaign gimmick.

1 Comment

Posted in Democrats, Elections, Energy, Environment, Republicans

Tagged , , , , ,

Speak Up for Parks and Green Spaces in Seattle!

Posted on May 14th, 2008 | Comments Off on Speak Up for Parks and Green Spaces in Seattle!

The Seattle City Council is soliciting public input into a new Parks and Green Spaces Levy for this November’s Ballot. The first of three public “open house” meetings was held Monday at City Hall. Another one will be held tonight, May 14, 200 from 6:30 to 9:30 PM at the Northgate Community Center at 105010 5th Ave NE.

A third open house will be held Thursday, May 15, 2008 from 6 to 10 PM at the Rainier Community Center – Multi-Purpose Room at 4600 38th Ave So.

As the Seattle Great City Initiative notes:

The Seattle City Council has empaneled a Parks and Green Spaces Committee to assemble a levy package for this November’s ballot, which will continue to fund investments in Seattle’s green infrastructure. Critical to the success of this effort will be significant public turnout and input into the shape of the levy at the three public open houses that are listed below.

Whether it is shorelines or streambeds, tree canopy or playgrounds, please join us at one or all of these events to show that there is broad public support for this kind of continued investment in the ecological, community and economic benefits that green space funding brings to our Emerald City. If you would like to send comments email parksandgreenspaceslevy@seattle.gov

The Seattle Times printed a commentary yesterday entitled “Satisfying Seattle’s Passion for Parks”. It was written by Tom Rasmussen, who Chairs the Seattle City Council’s Parks and Seattle Center Committee and Richard Conlin who is the Seattle City Council President. They note that:

After eight years, the current Pro Parks Levy will expire in December. The levy has been a great success: It enabled the city to acquire 42 acres of open space, including 15 new neighborhood parks, and funded 70 park-development projects, including habitat restoration, athletic-field improvements and city trails. …

On April 21, we established the Parks and Green Spaces Levy Citizens’ Advisory Committee to develop a list of potential park, recreation and open-space projects to be funded by a continuation of the levy.

As the City Council considers a new parks levy, quality of life will also be at the forefront of our minds. By design, Seattle is working for more housing within the city limits in order to protect Puget Sound’s forests, farms and wildlife. In return, we must offer residents more green space and better facilities for recreation, contemplation and getting outdoors.

Rasmussen and Conlin note that a recent poll the Seattle City Council commissioned showed strong public support for continuing the ProParks , with 65% of the polled respondents saying they would support an extension of the levy to “fund improvements to existing parks and the acquisition of new neighborhood parks, green spaces, play fields and trails.”

Angela Galloway of the Seattle PI last month posted the poll questions and detailed responses on the PI’s Strange Bedfellows blog.

The continued fight over trying to save some 80 large Douglas fir, western red cedar and madrone trees at Ingraham High School in North Seattle this week found 8 of the 9 Seattle City Council members, including Rasmussen and Conlin urging the Seattle School District to pursue an alternative design for their classroom addition that would save the 50 year old evergreen trees from being destroyed.

Obviously if funds were available one alternative would be for the City of Seattle to buy the development rights to the west grove of trees and preserve it as a green area for the school and neighborhood. There is also an east grove of trees at the school that has been seriously looked to be cut down for additional unneeded parking and possibly as a building site. This area also needs to be looked at for either purchasing development rights or out right purchase.

It is obvious that the Seattle School District and Seattle School Board is giving preserving green space on its school campuses a very low priority. Most in city schools across the country would love to have the green in city forested area that is present on the Ingraham High School campus. It seems the school district here is still following in the footsteps of those past school board members who in the past saw some value in paving over school playground space with asphalt, which many schools in Seattle still have an over abundance of while having a deficit of grass and shrubs and trees.

Comments Off on Speak Up for Parks and Green Spaces in Seattle!

Posted in Elections, Environment, Urban Forests

Tagged , , , , , ,

Eight Seattle City Council Members Sign Letter Urging Seattle School Board to Look at Alternative Design for Ingraham High School

Posted on May 13th, 2008 | Comments Off on Eight Seattle City Council Members Sign Letter Urging Seattle School Board to Look at Alternative Design for Ingraham High School

Threatened NW Tree Grove at Ingraham High School

 

Eight of the Nine Seattle City Council Members yesterday signed a letter urging the Seattle School Board to look at alternative designs to cutting down over 80 trees on the west side of Ingraham High School. Ingraham High School is currently considering adding an addition to the west side of the high school to replace a number of old portables that will be taken down.

One alternative site is on the north side of the high school and would not require that any large trees be cut down. It is currently listed as a possible site for a future addition to the high school as part of the school’s long range plans – so it is certainly a viable alternative.

Below is the e-mail sent out by the eight Seattle City Council members as well as some links to previous coverage of this issue and a link to the Seattle Public Schools website link on the Ingraham High School Construction Project. Last Friday the Seattle Public School’s issued a Revised Checklist and (another) Determination of Nonsignificance for the Project.

While the Seattle School District added some more mitigation in the form of planting more trees on the campus, they still do not do a biomass or CO2 fixation analysis that determines how many small trees are needed to compensate for even one large 50 year old, 100 foot tall Douglas fir tree.

With 50 plus years of growth the majority of the Douglas fir and western red cedar trees proposed to be cut down are well on their way to being trees of significance in Seattle. Somewhere the continued cutting down of large trees in Seattle has to stop. The tree cover in Seattle in 1972 was listed as 40%. Last year it was 18%.

 

From: Richard Conlin
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:36 PM

To: cheryl.chow@seattleschools.org
; harium.martin-morris@seattleschools.org
; mary.bass@seattleschools.org
; michael.debell@seattleschools.org
; peter.maier@seattleschools.org
; sherry.carr@seattleschools.org
; steve.sungquist@seattleschools.org

Subject: Ingraham H.S. Plans for Expansion

May 12, 2008

Seattle Public Schools
School Board
PO Box 34165, MS 11-010
Seattle WA 98124-1165

Dear Board Members,

As members of the City Council, we are writing to request that the School Board take a closer look at plans to expand Ingraham High School. We recognize that the authority to determine a design rests with the School District and School Board, but we have concerns about the proposed plan. We therefore want to communicate those concerns and ask that you consider them as you move forward with this important project.

Our primary uneasiness rests with the loss of most, if not all, of the sixty plus Douglas Firs and some twenty-two Madrona trees that we understand will be cut down under the proposed design. We would like to encourage you to consider alternative designs that might preserve these important assets.

It is important that we maintain and increase our tree canopy, not only to honor the esthetic that our residents know and love, but in order to carry out our responsibility to prevent global warming and to maintain a healthy environment. Stands of mature trees are the lungs of our ecosystem; they provide important benefits to our drainage systems and creeks. In 2007 the City launched an Urban Forest Management Policy to preserve and maintain our tree canopy. Unfortunately, we are rapidly running out of available green space; and, despite our commitment to maintaining the urban forest, trees like those on your property too often are cut.

The loss of mature Madrona and Douglas firs cannot adequately be compensated for by planting young trees. As a City that recognizes its responsibility to future generations, and as a city that has made urban density a goal, we must not lose the opportunities we have to keep existing natural areas.

The City Council has received a significant number of emails and calls opposing the removal of these trees. We believe that it is quite possible that an alternative exists which would give the School District what it needs without losing a valued feature of the community and a precious environmental resource to the City.

We offer any assistance that we could give to work with you to find the right answer for the School District and the community. We sincerely hope that you will take our concerns into consideration.

Sincerely,

Council President Richard Conlin
Councilmember Tim Burgess
Councilmember Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Jan Drago
Councilmember Jean Godden
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

Council President Richard Conlin
Seattle City Hall
600 Fourth Avenue, Floor 2
PO Box 34025
Seattle, WA 98124-4025

(206) 684-8805

Additional information by Majority Rules Blog for this post::

Ingraham High School Renovation, Demolition and New Construction Project – Seattle Public Schools

http://www.king5.com/video/index.html?nvid=234572 – King TV Video

Neighbors near Ingraham High School Fight to Save Evergreens – Seattle Times

A Growing Contradiction at Ingraham High – Seattle PI

Correcting the Public Record on Ingraham High School – Majority Rules Blog

Seattle School Board Wins Grinch Award – Majority Rules Blog

Neighbors Urge Seattle School Board to Redesign Ingraham High School Project – Majority Rules Blog

King Co Executive Ron Sims, Senators Ed Murray and Ken Jacobsen Sign Petition to Save the Trees – Majority Rules Blog

Seattle School District Says Cutting Down 62 Evergreen Trees in City is Not Significant – Majority Rules Blog

Comments Off on Eight Seattle City Council Members Sign Letter Urging Seattle School Board to Look at Alternative Design for Ingraham High School

Posted in Environment, Urban Forests

Tagged , , , , ,

Correcting the Public Record on Ingraham High School

Posted on May 12th, 2008 | Comments Off on Correcting the Public Record on Ingraham High School

Threatened NW Tree Grove at Ingraham High School

 

Last Friday I attended the BEX (Building Excellence) Programs Oversight Committee that is supposedly helping oversee the latest construction projects being done by the Seattle Public Schools. I went to correct errors in their meeting notes from a previous meeting. I was graciously given an opportunity to present my concern regarding the lack of public involvement in siting and designing the Ingraham High School Construction Project that is moving ahead to cut down 62 large Douglas Fir and western red cedar trees, most over 50 years old and many over 100 feet tall, as well as up to 22 madrone trees

While the committee was responsive to realizing that there was a lack of public notification and involvement on the front end, their response seemed to center on the fact that they needed to do a better job in the future addressing public involvement and environmental concerns. The present situation seems to be a classic group think process. No one seems to want to be the one to say maybe they need to look at alternative designs because that would stop the forward momentum and no one wants to be the one to say now that maybe they messed up and they should step back and site the project on an alternative site.

It doesn’t matter that it is now obvious that no alternative designs or sites were seriously considered. In fact at the August 27, 2007 Ingraham High School Design Committee meeting #2, the recently published minutes have the statement that “Building Scheme A with new addition at the west end is preferred.”

When I recently asked to see any blueprints or budgets or even serious sketches of alternative designs to the west addition, I was told that none were available. A formal request for alternative designs and budgets to the Legal Department of the Seattle School District brought the response that none exist.

Ironically the guy dealing with the environmental review process for the Seattle School District is Ron English who reminded me recently that he was involved in defending WPPSS’s (Washington Public Power Supply System) building its 5 ill fated nuclear power plants many years ago. Back in 1981 when he was an attorney for WPPSS, I was the sponsor of Initiative 394 to require that there be a public vote before they could issue more public bonds to be paid for by ratepayers to continue building the projects. The initiative required for the first time that WPPSS do cost effectiveness studies on the projects to determine whether or not there were cheaper alternatives to generating energy than building all 5 plants. This was something WPPSS never did before starting to build its 5 nuclear power plants.

In some ways the Seattle School District, while much more benign than WPPSS, has approached building the new addition to Ingraham High School in the same secretive way WPPSS went about building its nuclear power plants. The Seattle School District did a non public design review process. It started last year with the Ingraham High School Principal selecting a few teachers and a couple of parents to meet with consultants and Seattle School Administration people to sit on a school design team that was involved in selecting a site and design for the new project. The design team did not hold public meetings or seek public input. It was only in March, 2008 long after the meetings were held that brief notes of the minutes were posted on the school’s website. The meetings started back in July of 2007.

Neighbors, other community members and concerned citizens were not given a chance to give input on the project or even follow its progress until after the site was chosen and the architectural firm had drawn up the blueprints. When neighbors first heard what was happening – that the school design team, consultants and Seattle School District Administrators had made their decision – they were basically told it was too late to look at any alternative designs or question the decision of the in-house committee. The first public neighborhood meeting was on March 18, 2008 the day before comments were due on the Environmental Checklist that was used to reach a Determination of Non-significance by the School District’s in house environmental Lawyer, Ron English.

The parallels with WPPSS are obvious to me- they did not seriously look at alternatives, either in terms of environmental costs or for comparison of building costs. They only seriously considered one site, the same as WPPSS only considered building nuclear plants. WPPSS treated its ratepayers the same way as the School District did in this process – WPPSS allowed them the opportunity to respond after the meeting was over and the Board had taken their votes on agenda items. It was obvious that the public’s opinion did not matter.

Being given an opportunity by the Seattle School District to make comments after the site and design decision is made allows for only token public involvement. We repeatedly hear the argument that we’ve already spent money to come up with a design and we don’t want to waste it by looking at alternatives now. WPPSS made the same kind of argument, as they continued to issue more and more bonds for what eventually became the largest municipal bond default in US history. Continuing to spend more money does not make the original decision any more right. Being unwilling to re-evaluate projects as to their feasibility and desirability as concerns arise is a sign of rigidity and a shirking of public responsibility. Saying we will do better next time does not make it right this time.

The following is the letter I submitted to the BEX committee. Originally it by some committee members was suggested to add the letter to the meeting minutes but the representative from the UW sitting on the committee thought that was going too far since I was advocating a position (they aren’t?) and got the committee to agree to only amend the minutes. Heaven forbid if the public read what I had to say at a public meeting of a committee of the Seattle Public Schools. Anyway here’s the letter:

Correction needed to Meeting Notes
of March 14, 2008 BEX Programs Oversight Committee

Under Project Updates for Ingraham High School it says “Numerous community meetings were held.” This is not true. No community meetings had been held to this point. The first community meeting anyone heard of was a March 18, 2008 open house and it was poorly attended because of a messed up mail program that sent a few people 29 copies each of the meeting notice and the rest of the neighbors got no notice, including those right across the street from the proposed construction site. A second and final meeting was held April 24, 2008. These were all after a design and site had already been picked without community involvement.

At the April 24th meeting four sites were noted on a map, on the north, east, south and west side of the school. This was the first time neighbors and others in the community heard any discussion of other sites besides a north site mentioned in the geophysical report and dismissal of the north site when neighbors asked why it was not being considered. Besides the site in the west grove of trees, the site on the east side was in a second grove of trees, while the south site was where the tennis courts are and the north site is actually on a grassy lawn that does not require any large trees to be cut down.. So to say that “even more trees would have to be removed if another location had been selected” is also factually wrong.

It is important to note that over 700 citizens have signed a petition asking that the school district build on an alternative site like on the North side of the school that does not require destroying 62+ fifty year old 100 foot tall Douglas fir and western red cedar trees, as well as up to 22 madrone trees. The tree cover in Seattle was listed as 40% in 1972 and last year was 18%. The Douglas fir madrone forest area on the west side of Ingraham is becoming rare in the city and destroying over half the forest would be a loss for Seattle and the school district that is not necessary.

What is strange here is that the North site is actually discussed as a building site for Ingraham in its long range plans. The community and neighbors are upset that they were excluded from the process and are still viewed as only a nuisance. Yet the public that was given no chance to be meaningfully involved in a timely fashion are the ones who will be paying off the bonds for the projects.

Groups like the Haller Lake Community Club, the Seattle Community Council Federation and the 46th District Democrats have all taken positions questioning the lack of community involvement, opposing cutting down over half the forest area and supporting an alternative design. Signers of the Save the Trees petition included King County Executive Ron Sims, Washington State Senators Ed Murray and Ken Jacobsen and State Representatives Mary Lou Dickerson and Phyllis Kenney.

Support is strong for preserving the trees and the public does not understand why the Seattle School District seems to think they can destroy so many trees and think it is not significant or that they did not feel the need to consult with neighbors and others before going ahead with a design that significantly destroys so much of a unique urban forest, significantly altering both a school campus and the neighborhood.

The Seattle School District needs to step back and give an alternative design serious consideration or it stands to lose serious credibility as a responsible member of the larger community. Building on the current proposed site will destroy many trees that have been growing for over 50 years and that given time will be exceptional trees, Just as educating students takes time, trees do not reach maturity in just a few years. And serious questions exist as to the viability of the remaining trees because of possible severe root damage and changed wind dynamics at the site.

The Seattle School District has an opportunity to step back, take a second look and act in a more environmentally responsible way. It is not easy to do that but it would set a great example for Seattle students to see the Seattle Public Schools change course and adapt to changing times, needs and circumstances and put a greater emphasis on preserving our natural habitat in which we live. It is a great lesson to impart to our future leaders – that it is possible to change course and be more environmentally conscious and responsible.

Steve Zemke
Save the Trees
2131 N 132nd St
Seattle, WA 98133
www.MajorityRules.org/blog

dated Friday, May 9, 2008

Comments Off on Correcting the Public Record on Ingraham High School

Posted in Environment, Urban Forests

Tagged , , , , , ,

View KING 5 News Coverage of Save the Trees

Posted on May 8th, 2008 | Comments Off on View KING 5 News Coverage of Save the Trees

Threatened NW Tree Grove at Ingraham High School

 

Efforts continue to save 62 old Douglas fir and western red cedar trees at Ingraham High School in North Seattle. The trees are in a grove of about 120 trees on the west side of the high school.

The Seattle School District decided to design a new classroom addition to replace old portables on the campus without involving neighbors or others in the community. Instead Ingraham High School Principal Martin Floe selected an in house group of administrators and teachers and other school affiliated people to come up with a design. No effort was made to reach out to neighbors or the local Haller Lake Community Club to let them know the design process was going on, to ask if anyone wanted to be involved or give input from the neighborhood.

It turns out that they never priced out or looked at any other designs besides the site the architect who designed the school in 1959 suggested in 1959. Since then a large grove of 120 some trees, including 100 foot tall Douglas fir, western red cedar and madrone trees have thrived in the area and created a unique park like setting on the west side of the school.

Back on Arbor Day last month King 5 TV did a segment on the controversy. You can view it by going to KING 5 VIDEO.

Since the session aired the Seattle School District has withdrawn their original determination of non-significance and have completed a second draft of the Environmental Checklist. They will soon issue a revised draft for comment and this will represent another opportunity for neighbors and Seattle residents to question the need to cut down some 62 large Douglas fir and western red cedar trees when an alternative site exists on the North side of the school to build the new classrooms without cutting down any trees.

You can help to stop the destruction of these trees by sending an e-mail to the Seattle School Board members telling them you oppose cutting down the trees and that they should come up with an alternative design. Our tax dollars pay for the Seattle Public Schools. We have every right to demand that they spend them in an environmentally sound way and do it in a manner than protects our urban forested habitat.

In the last 30 years we have lost some 50% of our tree canopy in the city. It is absurd to keep cutting it. And the Seattle School District and Seattle School Board have a viable alternative to cutting the trees down. The Seattle School District actually shows the North site as available for possible future expansion. What a terrible lesson the Seattle School District is giving to our students.

Comments Off on View KING 5 News Coverage of Save the Trees

Posted in Environment, Urban Forests

Tagged , , , ,