Even the most ancient of ancient civilizations going back to the Mesopotamians and Babylonians understood that when large groups of people live together there needs to be an infrastructure in place to channel and control the flow of human waste. The Greeks, the Romans even going way way back to the pre-celtic tribal communities of the Orkney Islands, all aspired to channel sewage away from living areas and supplies of drinking water. See historical timeline of sewer development. http://www.sewerhistory.org/chronos/roots.htm
Though 5,000 years ago it may have seemed like a no-brainer to build sewer systems and to protect wells from hazardous raw sewage, the attitudes in 2007 Central Bridge are, shall we say, slightly different.
The small hamlet consists of a lower-lying downtown area surrounded by hillsides that are fairly heavily populated. These homes contain very old septic systems, some of which are in danger of seeping into and contaminating groundwater supplies.
Despite the dangers involved in contamination of groundwater by leaking septic systems, the creation of a sewer district and the construction of a modern sewage system to replace the old septic tanks has been an elusive proposition for Central Bridge. Critics have complained that the process has left with too few options and that the creation of a sewer system may be far too expensive of a solution to a problem that is small by comparison.
Despite the potential for high construction costs, it may be best in the long run for Central Bridge residents and surrounding communities to make the investment in a municipal sewer system. In the short-run, the benefit is that it would help to solve any groundwater contamination problems currently posed by failing septic systems. In the long run current and future residents may save time and money by not having to maintain existing septic systems or building new ones. Residents would be pooling their resources to deal with a collective problem rather than leaving it to private individuals to have to deal with.
My personal take on it, is that I'd rather just plug into a municipal sewer system than worry about getting approvals for septic tanks and drainage fields and everything else. It's fine to complain that the costs may be too high, but then again, the costs of repairing damaged septic systems can be quite high as well.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Clearing The Air on Wind Energy Issues
Not Quite NIMBYs –
In the debate over wind farms, we often hear the term NIMBY thrown around, I myself have thrown this term around quite recklessly. But let’s examine for a moment what NIMBYism strands for. It is an acronym meaning, “not in my backyard”. The key word here is “backyard”. In order to be a NIMBY, one has to be objecting to something that is actually taking place in his or her backyard. But wind farms are not going to be set up on anybody’s property against their wishes. If this were in fact a case of eminent domain, one might be more understanding of those in such fervent opposition to wind farms.
Local Government needs to be More Open
While I support the erection of wind turbines in Schoharie County (and I am a resident of the Town of Richmondville), I have to sympathize with those who feel left out of the process at the local level. My main concern is that officials at the town level will mishandle this process and in turn embitter many and make enemies out of potential friends. My sincere hope is that this changes and information and dialogue begin to flow freely between the Towns of Richmondville and Fulton and the citizens of those towns.
What about Richmondville’s Energy Needs?
Maybe the scale of this project is too big and the beneficiaries too far away. It would be interesting if Richmondville Power and Light for example, could either buy the power through National Grid, or from Reunion Power, or even operate the wind turbines itself, meeting the needs of its own customers and then selling excess power to other communities in Schoharie County.
I don’t doubt for a second that if more residents were directly benefited by the generation of energy via wind power, they would be a lot more supportive.
In the debate over wind farms, we often hear the term NIMBY thrown around, I myself have thrown this term around quite recklessly. But let’s examine for a moment what NIMBYism strands for. It is an acronym meaning, “not in my backyard”. The key word here is “backyard”. In order to be a NIMBY, one has to be objecting to something that is actually taking place in his or her backyard. But wind farms are not going to be set up on anybody’s property against their wishes. If this were in fact a case of eminent domain, one might be more understanding of those in such fervent opposition to wind farms.
Local Government needs to be More Open
While I support the erection of wind turbines in Schoharie County (and I am a resident of the Town of Richmondville), I have to sympathize with those who feel left out of the process at the local level. My main concern is that officials at the town level will mishandle this process and in turn embitter many and make enemies out of potential friends. My sincere hope is that this changes and information and dialogue begin to flow freely between the Towns of Richmondville and Fulton and the citizens of those towns.
What about Richmondville’s Energy Needs?
Maybe the scale of this project is too big and the beneficiaries too far away. It would be interesting if Richmondville Power and Light for example, could either buy the power through National Grid, or from Reunion Power, or even operate the wind turbines itself, meeting the needs of its own customers and then selling excess power to other communities in Schoharie County.
I don’t doubt for a second that if more residents were directly benefited by the generation of energy via wind power, they would be a lot more supportive.
Happy Trails, Unhappy Property Owners
After more than a year of wrangling and debating over the length and course of a proposed Cobleskill Creek Trail, supporters have decided to limit the project to land currently owned by SUNY Cobleskill, which is fairly expansive. The hope is that some time in the near future, property easements and funding might be obtained and the trail extended to the Cobleskill-Richmondville High School.
After the trail was proposed, a little over a year ago, people owning property near or on the proposed path began to criticize the plans citing concerns about security, littering and safety.
It is disappointing that so many in the community are so misguided about the potential surrounding bike and pedestrian trails. It’s easy to point to the costs of building trails, obtaining easements and crossing obstacles (rivers, railroad tracks, etc.). However, it’s far more difficult to quantify the benefits. Pedestrian trails often prove to be invaluable assets to communities. They can be important in attracting potential residents. They can also help to link neighbors and foster a greater sense of community. They also promote walking and bicycling which adds up to better health. It would also raise awareness about the nature of shared resources such as streams and watersheds.
The proposed trail is a great start to what could potentially be a huge asset for the Cobleskill-Richmondville area. Though difficult to quantify, the benefits outweigh the negatives. To those who are against the trail and whose property could be used, I urge you to reconsider your position. Farbeit from me to tell you how to use your property, but your kind of being a stick in the mud. I know there are legitimate misgivings to be had, but your only depriving yourself and your fellow community members of a true asset that could potentially bring people together and enrich the local quality of life.
After the trail was proposed, a little over a year ago, people owning property near or on the proposed path began to criticize the plans citing concerns about security, littering and safety.
It is disappointing that so many in the community are so misguided about the potential surrounding bike and pedestrian trails. It’s easy to point to the costs of building trails, obtaining easements and crossing obstacles (rivers, railroad tracks, etc.). However, it’s far more difficult to quantify the benefits. Pedestrian trails often prove to be invaluable assets to communities. They can be important in attracting potential residents. They can also help to link neighbors and foster a greater sense of community. They also promote walking and bicycling which adds up to better health. It would also raise awareness about the nature of shared resources such as streams and watersheds.
The proposed trail is a great start to what could potentially be a huge asset for the Cobleskill-Richmondville area. Though difficult to quantify, the benefits outweigh the negatives. To those who are against the trail and whose property could be used, I urge you to reconsider your position. Farbeit from me to tell you how to use your property, but your kind of being a stick in the mud. I know there are legitimate misgivings to be had, but your only depriving yourself and your fellow community members of a true asset that could potentially bring people together and enrich the local quality of life.
Know Your Rights!
For some reason I feel like I need to comment on the recent story in the news about the guy who refused to allow clerks at his local Wal-Mart or whatever store it was, to check his bag and receipt before leaving the store.
It’s very easy to dismiss people as being too sensitive if they feel degraded or dehumanized upon being asked to submit to such a search. But the fact is, security or “loss prevention” personnel are often overzealous in their pursuit of potential shoplifters. Further, they are often quite ill-informed as to the parameters of their authority. Customers who are equally quite ill-informed of their own rights may be easily intimidated into submitting to searches when they do not need to.
The simple legal fact of the matter is that no personnel or security officer in any department store or shopping mall has any legal right to detain, restrain or direct your action in any way other than to remove you from the premises. This they can do only by calling the police, who then may do the actual physical ‘ejecting’ from the premises. Even if witnessed or filmed shoplifting, no loss prevention employee has the legal right to restrain you. However, if they have evidence that you are indeed shoplifting they can and will call the police and attempt to keep you in the store until the police arrive, even though legally they do not have the authority to do this.
Unless ‘deputized’ by an appropriate law enforcement agency, such as a sherriff’s department for example, loss prevention personnel or security guards are there merely to observe and record alleged crimes and to then apprehend or detain the suspect as much as possible without actually tackling you and handcuffing you. Despite having no authority to physically detain anyone, many security and LP employees will do just that. Generally, neither the security guard or the victim is aware that this is a gross overstepping of legal boundaries. You can actually press charges against someone for assaulting or menacing you if this happens.
In my own experience, I can recall an incident that took place at the Cobleskill Fair a number of years ago, where a fair security guard got my attention and directed me to come with him to an undisclosed location where he wanted to “ask me some questions”. Apparently I fit some description of a perpetrator of recent acts of vandalism or some other such thing. Anyway, I felt no need to comply with the request of this individual and turned and walked away. Then, I noticed he was chasing me, so I decided to run from him. Why not? This person has no legal right to question me or take me anywhere. By the way, at the time I was a minor (I was 12!).
So after a few seconds I decide to stop running and give this guy a piece of my mind. But before I could turn around he tackled me to the ground and proceeded to forcibly restrain me. He then picked me up off the ground and continued to restrain me in a headlock! A twelve year old in a headlock, can you imagine! Finally, my mother notices this situation and basically goes ballistic on this guy.
At the time, I didn’t really know what the legal issues involved were, but my parents insisted that we file a police report with the Cobleskill Village police, which we did. Hesitantly, the police took a report and agreed to file a charge of menacing against this security guard.
We were actually in the process of moving out of the area, so we didn’t really follow through on the charges, and I’m not actually sure if the guy ended up actually getting cuffed or just ticketed. But the point is, such an unsanctioned use of force by overzealous security guards or loss prevention personnel is illegal, and if you press the issue you can get justice.
There is also an element of profiling inherent in many of these cases. You know minorities and young people (especially young people dressed differently) are going to be profiled and picked on more than others. This makes this all the more egregious!
My suggestion is that people inform themselves of what their rights actually are. If you’re walking out of Wal-Mart and an employee requests to inspect your bag and see your receipt, just tell them no thanks and keep walking. They have no legal authority whatsoever to forcibly inspect your person or property. Would it be a whole lot easier to simply submit? Would you be avoiding a whole lot of drama and commotion by just giving it? Yes, but take it from me, there is a real sense of satisfaction derived from telling these people to fuck off. I guess it is the part of me that never grew out of my headstrong and rebellious teen years, but it still feels pretty damn good. And hey, there’s always the chance that some idiot will try and tackle you and ya might just get a lawsuit out of it if you’re lucky.
It’s very easy to dismiss people as being too sensitive if they feel degraded or dehumanized upon being asked to submit to such a search. But the fact is, security or “loss prevention” personnel are often overzealous in their pursuit of potential shoplifters. Further, they are often quite ill-informed as to the parameters of their authority. Customers who are equally quite ill-informed of their own rights may be easily intimidated into submitting to searches when they do not need to.
The simple legal fact of the matter is that no personnel or security officer in any department store or shopping mall has any legal right to detain, restrain or direct your action in any way other than to remove you from the premises. This they can do only by calling the police, who then may do the actual physical ‘ejecting’ from the premises. Even if witnessed or filmed shoplifting, no loss prevention employee has the legal right to restrain you. However, if they have evidence that you are indeed shoplifting they can and will call the police and attempt to keep you in the store until the police arrive, even though legally they do not have the authority to do this.
Unless ‘deputized’ by an appropriate law enforcement agency, such as a sherriff’s department for example, loss prevention personnel or security guards are there merely to observe and record alleged crimes and to then apprehend or detain the suspect as much as possible without actually tackling you and handcuffing you. Despite having no authority to physically detain anyone, many security and LP employees will do just that. Generally, neither the security guard or the victim is aware that this is a gross overstepping of legal boundaries. You can actually press charges against someone for assaulting or menacing you if this happens.
In my own experience, I can recall an incident that took place at the Cobleskill Fair a number of years ago, where a fair security guard got my attention and directed me to come with him to an undisclosed location where he wanted to “ask me some questions”. Apparently I fit some description of a perpetrator of recent acts of vandalism or some other such thing. Anyway, I felt no need to comply with the request of this individual and turned and walked away. Then, I noticed he was chasing me, so I decided to run from him. Why not? This person has no legal right to question me or take me anywhere. By the way, at the time I was a minor (I was 12!).
So after a few seconds I decide to stop running and give this guy a piece of my mind. But before I could turn around he tackled me to the ground and proceeded to forcibly restrain me. He then picked me up off the ground and continued to restrain me in a headlock! A twelve year old in a headlock, can you imagine! Finally, my mother notices this situation and basically goes ballistic on this guy.
At the time, I didn’t really know what the legal issues involved were, but my parents insisted that we file a police report with the Cobleskill Village police, which we did. Hesitantly, the police took a report and agreed to file a charge of menacing against this security guard.
We were actually in the process of moving out of the area, so we didn’t really follow through on the charges, and I’m not actually sure if the guy ended up actually getting cuffed or just ticketed. But the point is, such an unsanctioned use of force by overzealous security guards or loss prevention personnel is illegal, and if you press the issue you can get justice.
There is also an element of profiling inherent in many of these cases. You know minorities and young people (especially young people dressed differently) are going to be profiled and picked on more than others. This makes this all the more egregious!
My suggestion is that people inform themselves of what their rights actually are. If you’re walking out of Wal-Mart and an employee requests to inspect your bag and see your receipt, just tell them no thanks and keep walking. They have no legal authority whatsoever to forcibly inspect your person or property. Would it be a whole lot easier to simply submit? Would you be avoiding a whole lot of drama and commotion by just giving it? Yes, but take it from me, there is a real sense of satisfaction derived from telling these people to fuck off. I guess it is the part of me that never grew out of my headstrong and rebellious teen years, but it still feels pretty damn good. And hey, there’s always the chance that some idiot will try and tackle you and ya might just get a lawsuit out of it if you’re lucky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)