PUBLIC WORKSHOP AND COMMENT PERIOD FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AMENDMENTS
The public is invited to comment on proposed amendments to WILMAPCO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for fiscal years 2011-2014; the proposal will be available for public review beginning August 2 through September 1. The TIP provides federal funding for transportation projects in our region and these amendments will make the TIP consistent with available state funding based on the Delaware Bond Bill. In step with federal regulations, the FY 2011 - 2014 TIP also features an air quality conformity analysis. This analysis demonstrates that the planned projects meet the our region's air quality requirements.
Information will be available for public review and comment at a public "open house" workshop on August 30, at
Friday, July 30, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Didn't Councilman Powers Have a Bill Proposed to Rescind Workforce Housing?
If Bill Power's honestly believes that workforce housing should be rescinded, as was in a ordinance he proposed recently, shouldn't he have the courage to stand on his convictions, lead by example, and not be willing to introduce development plans using this code?
Or was his proposed bill just as the News Journal reported - nothing but a political campaign ploy?
The Resolution Councilman Powers will sponsor is listed is on the Council agenda for Tuesday night, July 26:
Introduced by: Mr. Powers
7/27/10
RESOLUTION NO. 10-133
PLAN OF THE RESERVE AT BECKS POND: PENCADER HUNDRED; EAST SIDE OF SALEM CHURCH ROAD, ONE HALF MILE NORTH OF ROUTE 40; CONSTRUCT A 240 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX UTILIZING THE WORKFORCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OPTION; ST ZONING.
BE IT RESOLVED:
Or was his proposed bill just as the News Journal reported - nothing but a political campaign ploy?
The Resolution Councilman Powers will sponsor is listed is on the Council agenda for Tuesday night, July 26:
Introduced by: Mr. Powers
7/27/10
RESOLUTION NO. 10-133
PLAN OF THE RESERVE AT BECKS POND: PENCADER HUNDRED; EAST SIDE OF SALEM CHURCH ROAD, ONE HALF MILE NORTH OF ROUTE 40; CONSTRUCT A 240 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX UTILIZING THE WORKFORCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OPTION; ST ZONING.
BE IT RESOLVED:
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Paul Baumbach's Progressive Update: Primary Candidates' Forum In Newark, 1 - 5 PM August 22nd At The UUFN
Forum For All Congressional, Statewide And Newark Area Primary Candidates Set For 1PM August 22nd At The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Of Newark
Candidate Forums—Sunday August 22nd from 1-5pm at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Newark at 420 Willa Road in Newark (www.uufn.org). Free and open to the public. See and share the flyer(pdf). We have invited the candidates with a primary on September 14th, of both parties. Can you name the four people running for county sheriff? You will be able to say yes on the 22nd if you join us!
Candidate Forums—Sunday August 22nd from 1-5pm at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Newark at 420 Willa Road in Newark (www.uufn.org). Free and open to the public. See and share the flyer(pdf). We have invited the candidates with a primary on September 14th, of both parties. Can you name the four people running for county sheriff? You will be able to say yes on the 22nd if you join us!
Monday, July 19, 2010
Public Meeting On Hercules Golf Course Development Proposal Set For Wednesday, 6:45PM In The Marbrook Elementary School Cafeteria
What: Public Meeting to discuss new development proposed for Hercules Golf Course
Where: Marbrook Elementary School, [2101 Centerville Road Wilmington, DE 19808] in the cafeteria
When: Wednesday July 21st - 6:45 till 8:30.
Who: All are welcome.
Bill Franey and I are arranging a meeting of all interested parties at Marbrook Elementary for next Wednesday (July 21) at 6:45. Little Falls Village is a townhouse community off Centerville Rd. that is very interested in what we have done in the past with Gr.Ov. I and any insight we might provide for this project.
If you combine this Tolls Brothers development plan with the redevelopment of Barley Mill Plaza, Greenville Town Center and the old Columbia Gas/MBNA property, you have millions of square feet of structural expansion in a 2-1/2 mile radius with little to no regard to the impact of existing communities.As we have always said, we are not opposed to development/redevelopment, as long as it shows adequate consideration to existing communities.
Bill Dunn - VP
MLCA
(Community News ) Grace Lo Porto reports ~ Residents sound off on proposed golf course development
Where: Marbrook Elementary School, [2101 Centerville Road Wilmington, DE 19808] in the cafeteria
When: Wednesday July 21st - 6:45 till 8:30.
Who: All are welcome.
Bill Franey and I are arranging a meeting of all interested parties at Marbrook Elementary for next Wednesday (July 21) at 6:45. Little Falls Village is a townhouse community off Centerville Rd. that is very interested in what we have done in the past with Gr.Ov. I and any insight we might provide for this project.
If you combine this Tolls Brothers development plan with the redevelopment of Barley Mill Plaza, Greenville Town Center and the old Columbia Gas/MBNA property, you have millions of square feet of structural expansion in a 2-1/2 mile radius with little to no regard to the impact of existing communities.As we have always said, we are not opposed to development/redevelopment, as long as it shows adequate consideration to existing communities.
Bill Dunn - VP
MLCA
(Community News ) Grace Lo Porto reports ~ Residents sound off on proposed golf course development
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Victor Singer's Submission RE: Delaware River Dredging Project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
RE: July 13 & 14, 2010 Public Hearing on the Delaware River Dredging Project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Dear Folks at DNREC:
SUMMARY: From the start of DNREC's handling of the Corps of Engineers' Dredging Proposal, I have been troubled by the general absence of news media mention of the relevance of Delaware's Coastal Zone Act. But the notion that it was only a journalistic omission provided an easy excuse for not looking further to ascertain that it's nothing more.
Secretary O'Mara's 6/15/2010 letter to the Corps of Engineers brings me briskly to recognition that there's MORE to it than just journalistic omission. It appears to me that DNREC has disregarded a key element of the Coastal Zone Act and the Coastal Zone Regulation (therein authorized), or at least is giving that element less weight than is appropropriate. The purposes of this statement are therefore:
Before me is a copy of DNREC Secretary O'Mara's June 15, 2010 letter to Lt. Col. Tickner (US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District). This letter announces the July 13 & 14 public hearing dates and lists "Issues which should be provided and/or addressed in further detail" for the hearing. In particular, I am drawn to "Attachment 1: Comments Re: Kelly Island" in the letter, where the following language appears, quarreling with the balance between environmentally damaging and environmentally beneficial aspects of what the Corps proposes: ". . . we have not been provided with any quantitative data that indicates that the benefits will outweigh the environmental cost." The notion that there ought to be more environmental good than harm is more than just nice.
As I understand the Delaware Coastal ZoneAct ("CZA") and the Regulations Governing Delaware's Coastal Zone ("the Reg"), adopted in 1999 under CZA authorization, the environmental benefits MUST outweigh the negative impacts. But my understanding is that that requirement applies to the project as a whole - - or at most to the portion of the entire project that is within Delaware's boundaries - - rather than separately to its several parts. Of course, my interpretations of the law could be wrong - - after all, I'm not a lawyer; I'm only a retired rocket scientist. In that light, however, I have been troubled that I have seen nothing in the ongoing news coverage of the dredging project suggesting that DNREC's treatment of the Corps' application since its submission about a decade ago reflects the CZA requirements, which apply of course cumulatively with other relevant law at both the Federal and State levels.
Obviously, all of the dredging project that is within the State of Delaware is within Delaware's Coastal Zone. But applying the CZA and the Reg to the dredging proposal could well be distasteful to those who are completely opposed to the entire project because among the purposes stated at the very outset of the CZA is the following: ". . . to strike the correct balance between [two policies], encourag(ing) the introduction of new industry into Delaware, [and] the protection of the environment, natural beauty and recreation potential of the State . . .". (Ref. 7 Del. C. 7001) That language prevents absolute disapproval of the dredging application except on a finding that the application would enable new heavy industry or bulk product transfer operations not entitled by grandfathered rights. (The CZA enables expansions or extensions of forbidden activities if they began before enactment of the CZA. The Delaware River was used for shipment of commercial cargo long before the CZA.)
The Reg doesn't set a standard for damage control. But it contains features that could be useful as regulatory devices:
The appeal followed. The two sentence Conclusion and the paragraph just before it, are particularly worth repeating here: "In essence, Norfolk Southern's arguments reduce to an assertion that increasing coal exports is in the national interest and that Delaware, in seeking to protect its own environment, has struck an unwise balance between these competing interests. In our view, the dormant Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal court to engage in the kind of broad-based 'national interest balancing' requested by Norfolk Southern. Balancing the societal value of decreasing unemployment in the Eastern coal mines and shrinking the size of the trade deficit against the societal value of protecting the coastal zone is within the province of the Congress. In contrast, the Commerce Clause, as applied by the judiciary, acts as a limitation on the authority of the states designed to preclude the establishment of protectionist state barriers that would threaten the operation of the federal union. We conclude that Section 7003 of the CZA was not immunized from Commerce Clause review by the CZMA. We further hold that Section 7003 of the CZA does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Thus, we will affirm the order of the district court granting summary judgment for appellees."
The words of that decision seem to be exactly applicable to the current Corps of Engineers dredging application. But relying on that Norfolk Southern decision, by a three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, requires some sort of explanation as to why it hasn't been relied upon earlier - - unless it HAS BEEN - - as well as why other features of the CZA were not given weight earlier - - unless they HAVE BEEN. In particular, what comes to mind is the last sentence of 7 Del. C. 7005, which requires a DECISION on an application 90 DAYS after submission. The dredging application has been festering for more than 90 MONTHS.
Yours very truly, Victor Singer
Dear Folks at DNREC:
SUMMARY: From the start of DNREC's handling of the Corps of Engineers' Dredging Proposal, I have been troubled by the general absence of news media mention of the relevance of Delaware's Coastal Zone Act. But the notion that it was only a journalistic omission provided an easy excuse for not looking further to ascertain that it's nothing more.
Secretary O'Mara's 6/15/2010 letter to the Corps of Engineers brings me briskly to recognition that there's MORE to it than just journalistic omission. It appears to me that DNREC has disregarded a key element of the Coastal Zone Act and the Coastal Zone Regulation (therein authorized), or at least is giving that element less weight than is appropropriate. The purposes of this statement are therefore:
- To point out what I regard as error by DNREC in its handling of the dredging project;
- To suggest immediate correction; and
- To ask for an explanation from DNREC as to why the error occurred in the first place if indeed it is error, or why DNREC thinks it isn't error. (In this sense, "error" may be singular or plural.)
Before me is a copy of DNREC Secretary O'Mara's June 15, 2010 letter to Lt. Col. Tickner (US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District). This letter announces the July 13 & 14 public hearing dates and lists "Issues which should be provided and/or addressed in further detail" for the hearing. In particular, I am drawn to "Attachment 1: Comments Re: Kelly Island" in the letter, where the following language appears, quarreling with the balance between environmentally damaging and environmentally beneficial aspects of what the Corps proposes: ". . . we have not been provided with any quantitative data that indicates that the benefits will outweigh the environmental cost." The notion that there ought to be more environmental good than harm is more than just nice.
As I understand the Delaware Coastal ZoneAct ("CZA") and the Regulations Governing Delaware's Coastal Zone ("the Reg"), adopted in 1999 under CZA authorization, the environmental benefits MUST outweigh the negative impacts. But my understanding is that that requirement applies to the project as a whole - - or at most to the portion of the entire project that is within Delaware's boundaries - - rather than separately to its several parts. Of course, my interpretations of the law could be wrong - - after all, I'm not a lawyer; I'm only a retired rocket scientist. In that light, however, I have been troubled that I have seen nothing in the ongoing news coverage of the dredging project suggesting that DNREC's treatment of the Corps' application since its submission about a decade ago reflects the CZA requirements, which apply of course cumulatively with other relevant law at both the Federal and State levels.
Obviously, all of the dredging project that is within the State of Delaware is within Delaware's Coastal Zone. But applying the CZA and the Reg to the dredging proposal could well be distasteful to those who are completely opposed to the entire project because among the purposes stated at the very outset of the CZA is the following: ". . . to strike the correct balance between [two policies], encourag(ing) the introduction of new industry into Delaware, [and] the protection of the environment, natural beauty and recreation potential of the State . . .". (Ref. 7 Del. C. 7001) That language prevents absolute disapproval of the dredging application except on a finding that the application would enable new heavy industry or bulk product transfer operations not entitled by grandfathered rights. (The CZA enables expansions or extensions of forbidden activities if they began before enactment of the CZA. The Delaware River was used for shipment of commercial cargo long before the CZA.)
The Reg doesn't set a standard for damage control. But it contains features that could be useful as regulatory devices:
- Under Section 8.0 (also known as Section H) Permitting Procedures, Section 8.1.4 (AKA Section H.1.d) requires an Environmental Impact Statement complying with Section 8.2 (AKA Section H.2); and Section 8.1.10 (AKA Section H.1.j) requires an offset proposal if required under Section 9.1.1 (AKA Section I.1.1)
- Under Section 9.1.1 (AKA Section I.1.1) says: "Any application for a Coastal Zone permit for an activity or facility that will result in any negative environmental impact shall contain an offset proposal. Offset proposals shall more than offset the negative environmental impacts associated with the proposed project or activity requiring a permit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to choose an offset project that is clearly and demonstrably more beneficial to the environment in the Coastal Zone than the harm done by the negative environmental impacts associated with the permitting (sic) activities themselves."
The appeal followed. The two sentence Conclusion and the paragraph just before it, are particularly worth repeating here: "In essence, Norfolk Southern's arguments reduce to an assertion that increasing coal exports is in the national interest and that Delaware, in seeking to protect its own environment, has struck an unwise balance between these competing interests. In our view, the dormant Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal court to engage in the kind of broad-based 'national interest balancing' requested by Norfolk Southern. Balancing the societal value of decreasing unemployment in the Eastern coal mines and shrinking the size of the trade deficit against the societal value of protecting the coastal zone is within the province of the Congress. In contrast, the Commerce Clause, as applied by the judiciary, acts as a limitation on the authority of the states designed to preclude the establishment of protectionist state barriers that would threaten the operation of the federal union. We conclude that Section 7003 of the CZA was not immunized from Commerce Clause review by the CZMA. We further hold that Section 7003 of the CZA does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Thus, we will affirm the order of the district court granting summary judgment for appellees."
The words of that decision seem to be exactly applicable to the current Corps of Engineers dredging application. But relying on that Norfolk Southern decision, by a three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, requires some sort of explanation as to why it hasn't been relied upon earlier - - unless it HAS BEEN - - as well as why other features of the CZA were not given weight earlier - - unless they HAVE BEEN. In particular, what comes to mind is the last sentence of 7 Del. C. 7005, which requires a DECISION on an application 90 DAYS after submission. The dredging application has been festering for more than 90 MONTHS.
Yours very truly, Victor Singer
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Civic League needs to evaluate and take a position on proposed expansion of Nuclear Reactors in our Region.
Today's News Journal Article "Delaware energy: Nuclear growth puts region at risk", is an excellent report done by Jeff Montogemery that shows how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is downplaying the risks of nuclear power as part of a political play to get more nuclear plants built, including a fourth reactor at Salem. Nancy Willing also has some more detailed analysis of the information on the Delaware Way Blog.
This political approach is very similar to the one taken by the Mineral Management Service that regulates offshore drilling. As we watch the news daily from the gulf, we are reminded of just how dangerous this type of covering up of the actual facts and downplaying the dangers can be.
The proposed new nuclear reactor is
This political approach is very similar to the one taken by the Mineral Management Service that regulates offshore drilling. As we watch the news daily from the gulf, we are reminded of just how dangerous this type of covering up of the actual facts and downplaying the dangers can be.
The proposed new nuclear reactor is
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Darley Green Redevelopment Project: A poster child for failed policy in NCC?
In a July 3, 2010 News Journal articled titled "Delaware communities: Darley Green developer offers move-in help", the article describes a $300,000 dollar program to provide a subsidy to public employees to move into this struggle redevelopment project claiming is is being done "with no money coming from taxpayers".
"It's something that allows us to give back to those people," said Don Robitzer, chief operating officer and project head for The Commonwealth Group. "It creates an avenue for us to help them out."
While this paints a Rosie picture of the project, the reality of the public subsidy and tax payer cost required to make this project possible may be viewed very differently.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Board Member Charlie Weymouth is SPOT ON about Del DOT priorities being amuck!!!
Todays' News Journal Editorial by Charlie Weymouth points out a major reason why so many in Delaware are increasingly stuck in traffic, and will soon be bailing out the State's Transportation Trust Fund.
For years, WILMAPCO and other have tried to use a technically sound prioritization system to rank transportation investment based on there technical merits and needs; but special interests and "political accommodation" continue to be the rule!!!
***************************************
Don't lose perspective in NKS road deal with DelDOT
Lest we lose our perspective by focusing upon the specific NKS-Tigani-U.S. 1 accommodation in a “sweetheart” deal, one should be reminded of that long held Delaware travesty,
For years, WILMAPCO and other have tried to use a technically sound prioritization system to rank transportation investment based on there technical merits and needs; but special interests and "political accommodation" continue to be the rule!!!
***************************************
Don't lose perspective in NKS road deal with DelDOT
Lest we lose our perspective by focusing upon the specific NKS-Tigani-U.S. 1 accommodation in a “sweetheart” deal, one should be reminded of that long held Delaware travesty,
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Update on candidates for New Castle County
Here is a nice update of the candidates filed for New Castle County Government Offices from the Delaware Liberal Blog.
We are still unsure if Mike Protack has or is going to file.
We will be inviting all of these candidates for our Civic League for New Castle County Candidates Forum to be held on Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2010.
We are still unsure if Mike Protack has or is going to file.
We will be inviting all of these candidates for our Civic League for New Castle County Candidates Forum to be held on Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)