Off Fossil Fuels by 2040: Proposed Democratic Resolution for Feb 1 Meeting

Posted on January 26, 2010 by Bill Allen

This resolution was posted on the website Dead River Journal by David Restaino, Chair of the Bernards Township Democratic Committee, on January 26, 2010.

Bernards Township Democratic Committee Resolution No. 2010-01

A RESOLUTION urging Congress and the President of the United States to enact legislation to phase out the use of all fossil fuels by 2040, and urging the President of the United States to declare 2010 a year for national dialog on this program.

WHEREAS, the Bernards Township Democratic Committee is a duly organized local political committee under the laws of the State of New Jersey;

WHEREAS, at a duly organized meeting of the Bernards Township Democratic Committee on Monday, February 1, 2010, a discussion was held regarding the phasing out the use of all fossil fuels in the United States; and

WHEREAS, the within Resolution was called to a vote and was approved by the Bernards Township Democratic Committee.

Be It Resolved by the Bernards Township Democratic Committee:

(1) The United States must work to phase out all fossil fuels by 2040. (We call the program “Off Fossil Fuels by 2040? or simply “OFF by 2040.”)

(2) We respectfully ask President Barack Obama to declare 2010 to be a year for national dialog, in which people in public and private groups across the nation discuss the pros and cons of this program and the means for carrying it out.

(3) We respectfully ask the Congress to enact enabling legislation for the program in 2011 and the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to initiate and carry out the program.

This resolution was duly adopted by the Bernards Township Democratic Committee at its meeting on the 1st of February, 2010.

ATTEST:

(signature) _____________________ (signature) _____________________

Name & Title: Name & Title:

(This resolution will be put forth by Bill Allen at the February 1 meeting of the Bernards Township Democratic Committee, at the public library in Basking Ridge – meeting starts at 6:30 p.m.)
.

Posted in Climate | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

"Rational discussion" is needed in Bernards

Posted on September 25, 2009 by Bill Allen

The letter with the heading above and the content below was published in the Bernardsville News on September 24, 2009.

Editor:
A letter in your paper on September 17 endorsed the Republican candidates for Bernards Township Committee and included comments related to the quarry. These prompt a response.

The writer commends township officials for repeatedly making it known that “they are committed to a prohibition on any further fill and complete testing of existing fill.”

Some relevant history follows. In February 2005 the Planning Board recommended that the steep quarry slopes be reshaped to satisfy the township ordinance. It advised against the importation of fill for this purpose.

In January 2006, with no warning or explanation, the Township Committee rejected the board’s advice and voted to open the door to uncontrolled importation of fill. Four of those who voted still serve on the committee, including John Malay who is running for reelection this year

In 2008 township officials moved to stop the importation of fill. They have managed this so badly that we are now in the 18th month of expensive and paralyzing litigation. There is nothing in this record to brag about.

The writer states that some are proposing “high-density housing” on the quarry property, and that this will bring more school children.

A detailed alternative to single-family houses is described on the website in the post entitled “Quarry Park and Lakeview Village”. The proposal is to substitute two townhouses for each single family house that is allowed under present zoning. An analysis on the same website explains why these townhouses will generate about the same total amount of property taxes, but will be home to only half the number of public school students.

The letter writer denigrates the proposal for a public park and suggests that the quarry pit will become “a sump absorbing all the run-off from surrounding yards, streets and parking lots.”

The most likely outcome for the pit is that it will fill from precipitation to the level of the water table. Because people will live near the resulting lake, and because some lake water will percolate to surrounding ground water, township government has a responsibility to work to assure that the lake water quality is good over the long term.

It must assure that any harmful substances, that are in the fill and near the future lake, are either removed or remediated. This in turn requires a comprehensive program for testing the fill now. The work is the responsibility of the quarry owner and operator.

Township officials must encourage a site design that will reduce the risks of pollution from human activities after the site is developed. The Quarry Park design will do this better than a conventional subdivision.

The lake must be monitored and managed over the long term to assure good water quality. It will be easier to do this if the lake and land immediately surrounding it are owned by a single entity. The Quarry Park plan provides for this.

The writer asserts that the park will be “a huge financial burden for the town taxpayers in perpetuity.”

The Quarry Park proposal addresses costs. There is no reason to conclude that those for taxpayers will be large. The townhouses will produce more school tax revenue than the costs for the public school students who will live in them.

Sonal Shah is the Democratic candidate for Bernards Township Committee. She has published no specific position on the quarry. However, one of her planks is: “Avoid costly, unnecessary litigation.” The quarry litigation is costly. And it could have been avoided.

Future problems of this kind can be avoided, if we elect township officials who will engage in respectful and rational discussion of important issues with each other and with the public. I believe Sonal will do this and I support her.

Vote for Sonal Shah on November 3!

Bill Allen, September 22, 2009

Posted in Bernards | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Quarry Park and Lakeview Village

Posted on July 17, 2009 by Bill Allen

The article below was the basis for a letter published in the Bernardsville News on July 23, 2009.

To see the plan map and detailed description in separate windows click on map and description. Suggestion: Maximize each window and then toggle between them. The description contains six pages. For a table of contents click index.

Editor:

It’s a balmy mid-summer day as I write this for residents of Bernards Township. And I’m thinking that I would like to be in, or on, or just looking out over a nice lake. Today we have to drive many miles for this opportunity. But with imagination, and the will to achieve what we imagine, we can have a large lake for our use and enjoyment right here in Bernards Township.

The place is now the Tilcon Millington Quarry and the time–when the lake will be full and available for fishing, boating, swimming, and other things–will be about 2020. The lake will be inside what I call Quarry Park. The park will contain 100 plus acres and will have facilities for active and passive recreation, such as trails for walking and biking, a put-in ramp for non-motorized boats, and a slope for snow sports. Operations for a bathing beach will be financially self-supporting like Pleasant Valley Pool.

A detailed concept plan is described in a letter to the Planning Board dated July 17, 2009. This is a slightly revised version of a plan first submitted to the board on August 17, 2004.

The board is currently engaged in a review of the township master plan. I intend to present the park plan to the board during a period for public comment. The plan is presented here in two parts: a drawing of a map and a description of the map. To view them in separate windows click on map and description.

The map includes a private community of townhouses on the south slope that is surrounded on three sides by the public park. I call this Lakeview Village.

The wrapup for the letter to the Planning Board contains these comments:

•The park with lake and adjacent land will serve the general public and support many kinds of active and passive recreation.
•The lake will be part of the public park and be managed by the township. This will remove the uncertainties associated with management by a private association.
•The park will be a valuable amenity for the residents of Lakeview Village. The Village will probably become the premier townhouse community in the township.
•The fiscal impact of the substitution of townhouse units for single family units will be positive, because the property tax revenue for each public school student will be higher.
•This can be a case of win-win for the quarry owner and for township residents.
Bernards Residents: You can have this park if you tell your township officials you want it. Start by attending and speaking at the Planning Board public hearings on the master plan. Then speak to members of the Township Committee.

Bill Allen, July 17, 2009

Posted in Bernards | Tagged | Leave a comment

Auto Speed and Fuel Efficienty

Posted on July 29, 2007 by Site Admin

It is generally accepted that auto fuel consumption goes up as speed increases. The national speed limit was reduced to 55 mph in the 70s to reduce oil consumption. It was allowed to rise when oil became plentiful again and prices declined. It’s time, I believe, to reduce speed limits again.

I recently made some measurements of speed and fuel efficiency with my own car, a Honda Civic. On a relatively level interstate highway an increase in average speed from 60 to 70 miles per hour increased the gas consumption by 11%. I expect other cars would show similar results. Truck data would probably be more dramatic.

To read more about the data and analysis go to spreadsheet.

I recommend that we all reduce our driving speeds and thereby reduce our fuel consumption. This will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce the generation of carbon dioxide and slow global warming.

What do you think? Should we mandate lower speeds by state or national law? Could we?

Bill Allen, July 29, 2007

Posted in Energy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Immigration Bargain; Response

Posted on March 18, 2007 by Bill Allen

I posted an article on Daily Kos on March 16, 2007, over the name Jersey Grandpa, and entitled “The Immigration Bargain”.  It received 12 comments.  I responded to these in the comment below on March 18.

As I write this there have been twelve comments on my post The Immigration Bargain.  These are thoughtful and constructive and I thank the authors.  My response follows.

Support:  Some noted that Congressional movement to deal with immigration is slow.  The bargain proposal is for a program that will resolve two key parts of the problem of illegal immigration.  Neither of these parts by itself will get sufficient political support to fly.  Coupled together they have a chance, if people on each side are willing to make a concession to the other.  

Because issues relating to legal immigration and citizenship are deliberately left for another day and not addressed in the bargain, it should be possible to move ahead rapidly and gather Congressional support for the two key proposals.  I believe it should also be possible to win support from a large majority of Americans for the bargain.  The program will be successful if this support is achieved, but only if it is achieved.

Process:  Gooserock notes that the process for dealing with current illegal immigrants “must be dead simple, extremely convenient and highly affordable to the poorest of the poor”.  I agree.  

I suggest a short period, say three months, in which those without legal status come forward,  apply for legal status, and agree to a set of conditions like those outlined in the proposal.  I propose that local law enforcement agencies administer this first stage of the process.  They have facilities for photographing and fingerprinting.  They are accustomed to setting up and maintaining personal files.  

The offices are in the communities where the immigrants live and should be relatively accessible.  During the application period they should be open seven days a week and staffed to meet the application demand.  The federal government should pick up the tab for any extra costs.  

The process should move quickly, because the local agency will only collect information offered by the applicant.  It will not try to verify anything.  The agency will assign temporary legal status for a period of 1-2 years, issue a temporary ID card, and set up a file for each applicant.

When word of the program gets out, there will be a stampede for the borders to get in before the application window closes.  [This may be happening now because of discussions of amnesty.]  Extra efforts should be mounted at the border to stop this flow until the window closes.  This is the reason for the short window.

The INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] has been absorbed into DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and its functions divided.  Some DHS agency should take overall responsibility for reviewing each applicant file, ruling on the legal status, approving the application, and issuing a permanent visa and ID card.  [It may also reject the application for some reason and move down a different path.]  The DHS may delegate some of the work to other agencies, such as FBI, IRS, or state law enforcement.

The approval process can move at a more leisurely pace, but the DHS should plan and budget to complete the process for routine applications in a reasonable time, say two years.  

We need to get over our pessimism regarding the ability and the willingness of DHS to do its job.  I said above that success in this program will require support from a large majority of the American people.  We can insist that Congress provide the necessary funds and that the DHS do its job.  

ID Card:  The temporary ID card for successful applicants will ultimately be replaced by a permanent, standardized, “national” ID card.  This should be issued by the federal government, or by the states so long as the same standard is used by all.  It should be as forgery- and tamper-proof as technology permits and contain biometric data.    

Biometric data includes fingerprints, DNA, and other things.  Here’s a quote from Senator Chuck Schumer’s book Positively American that I am reading now.  “It is now possible to create a largely forgery-proof national employment card.  This card would have a little chip that recorded unique biometric identifying information such as an individual’s retinal or facial features.  It is possible to affordably mass-produce biometric IDs that would be prohibitively expensive to counterfeit.”  

The FBI maintains the AFIS [Automated Fingerprint Identification System] database for fingerprints.  DHS is setting up a database for DNA.  Local police have fingerprint capability, and they will probably use this method to identify applicants for legal status in the first stage.  Biometric technology is evolving.  I don’t know what will be best for the permanent ID card.  DHS can decide.  

An ID card with biometric data facilitates conclusive identification.  Schumer recommends that all workers have one, and that all employers be required to confirm that their employees have one.  I believe a standard “national” ID card will be convenient for general use and that all citizens should be encouraged [not required] to carry one.  

The information on the permanent ID card will be stored in a federal database and be available for use by law enforcement and other agencies as appropriate.  It would be reasonable to merge this with AFIS under FBI management.  New entries in the database will be screened [via computer] to assure that one person does not take on a new identity or the identity of someone else.                            

The information should be limited to what is necessary for identification, such as name, sex, date of birth, biometric data, and residential address.  This database should not contain information about such things as employment, taxes, credit history, or criminal record.  That data belongs elsewhere.  These limits on the data in the ID database should remove most privacy concerns.

Misrepresentation in the application for a national ID card, or in its use, will be a crime, as will forgery or modification of a card.

Sentido:  You wrote that a national ID card that all citizens would carry “sounds awfully creepy to this citizen.”  In our daily lives we frequently identify ourselves, and do this with things like credit cards, driver licenses,  and passports.  A standard ID card will simplify this process and make it more reliable.          

Enforcement:  Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner are politically far apart, but they agree that that the key to stopping illegal immigration is to remove what the latter calls the “magnet of jobs”.  

The ID card will give employers a reliable way to check legality, the law will direct them to do it, and there will be penalties if they don’t.  Schumer says:  “If employers knew that they would be arrested whenever an illegal immigrant was on the premises, the jobs would dry up real quick.  Once the jobs dry up, the workers will stop coming. … Without all the illegal workers, we will finally be able to focus on preventing drug runners, terrorists and other dangerous predators from getting in.”

Removal of job opportunities for those without legal status should be the first priority.  Some other measures will help.

• Residence in the US without lawful status should be made a crime with appropriate penalties.  [I will let others decide whether this should be a misdemeanor or a felony.]
• Allow local law enforcement officers to check residential status and to take action when it is not lawful.  [The city of Hazleton in PA wants to do this now, and is being sued by the ACLU and the US Chamber of Commerce.]
• Relieve government agencies of the requirement to provide services for those without legal status.
• Encourage charitable organizations to not help illegal immigrants.

Fairness:  When she was young my second daughter sometimes said in exasperation:  “That’s not fair.”  With more logic than sympathy, I said that the world is not always fair.  We can only try to make it so.  

Two writers wondered if it would be fair to grant legal status to those who entered illegally when others entered legally or are waiting to do so.  No one can argue that what we have now is fair.  But we can not undo the past, and we need to move on.

Granting of legal status to those already here does not hurt those who entered legally, and it will not slow the progress of those are still waiting to enter legally.  In fact, if those who entered illegally had instead got into the legal line, then the wait for everyone would have been longer

Posted in Nation | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Immigration Bargain

Posted on March 16, 2007 by Bill Allen

The article below was first posted on Daily Kos on March 16, 2007, under the name Jersey Grandpa.  It received 12 comments.  I responded on March 18, and that response is posted in this site with that date.

Congress is currently considerating changes in immigration regulations.  There follows a proposal that I have sent to my own Senators and Representative.  I welcome comments on it and invite readers to send similar letters to their representatives.  The proposal and its rationale follow.

The Immigration Bargain

Part One:  Stop all illegal immigration as soon and as completely as is practical.  

Part Two:  Invite all those immigrants who are here now without legal status to come forward, apply for legal status, agree to meet certain conditions, and receive temporary legal status and a temporary ID card.  Grant permanent legal status and ID card when the conditions are met.

Rationale:  I call this the “immigration bargain”.  It asks those who focus on stopping illegal immigration to agree to grant legal status to residents who do not have legal status now, subject to certain conditions.  It asks those who focus on the interests of current immigrants to support measures to stop further illegal immigration.  

In order to get something it wants, each group will agree to something the other group wants.  This will be a bargain.  Neither group will compromise its primary interest.  

I believe this bargain will resolve the two most contentious issues in the immigration debate.  It deals only with illegal immigration.  Discussion of other issues, such as immigration quotas and a guest worker program, should be put off until passions cool and the dialog can be calm and objective.

A key strategy for part one of the bargain is to remove incentives for illegal immigration and access to jobs in particular.  Success will require cooperation from employers, from the immigrants themselves, and from those who support them.  

It follows that the status of those who are here without legal status today must be resolved in a manner that is seen to be both practical and fair.  This is the reason for coupling the two parts of the bargain.      

There follows a suggested set of conditions that applicants for legal status should agree to.  

• Fill out an application with a short biography, the place and date of entry, and a history of travel, residency, and work in the US.  
• Be photographed and provide biometric data, such as fingerprints.
• Receive and carry an ID card.
• Submit to and pass a background check.
• Be deported or imprisoned if there are significant omissions or misstatements in the application, or if the background check discloses significant crimes or misconduct, other than the illegal entry itself.
• Learn English.
• Pay back taxes.    

These agreements should be enforced with fairness and common sense.  

Very important is a standardized tamper- and forgery-proof  ID card with biometric data.  It will facilitate conclusive identification. All citizens should be encouraged to carry one.  It can become the ID card of choice in most situations.  Examples:  applying for a job, boarding a commercial flight, applying for and using a credit card, medical emergency.  
   
I believe the proposed bargain is superior to some other suggestions.  Examples:

• A program that grants legal status to immigrants who came here before some specific year, and not to those who came later, will be difficult to implement.  It will pick winners and losers and be divisive.  
• Job opportunity is a strong incentive for illegal immigration.  Any new legislation that fails to block this opportunity will also fail to stop illegal immigration.  These failures will cause bitterness for decades.  Much of the current anger and distrust is a legacy of flawed decisions in 1986.        

I fear any legislation that attempts to deal with all immigration issues at one time.  It will inevitably  include compromises, some made out of the public view.  Those who have little influence in Congress will lose out, low-wage American workers in particular.

Posted in Nation | Tagged | Leave a comment