Why we must Ban Hyrdro-Fracturing or Fracking

Recently I have been involved in a campaign to ban Fracking in Rochester. To some people this may seem like the standard liberal waste of time. After all no drilling company has taken out a lease in Monroe County no less in Rochester, but there are many reason we need to protect our water and city. Despite claims that fracking is save there is a mounting body of independent evidence that this is not true. The Duke University study "Increased Stray Gas Abundant in Subset of Drinking Water Wells Near Marcellus Shale Gas Extraction" found a higher risk of contamination in shallow water wells within 1KM of a gas well. This supports state findings as 4 states have confirmed more than 100 water wells have been polluted from fracking. This should not be a surprise as a 2011 EPA report found ground water contamination in North Dakota. But water contamination is only part of the problem as William Ellsworth in 2013 Science Mag reported that fracking causes micro earthquakes all the time. Though these are not large enough to cause problems much of the polluted fracking water is stored in deep water wells which cause much more dangerous earthquakes. Storage is done this way because most water treatment plants can not clean the chemicals out of the water as the city of Auburn found out to their detriment. Finally, in "Birth Outcomes and Maternal Residential Proximity to Natural Gas Development in Environmental Health Perspectives" there was found a 30% increase in birth defects for mothers in close proximity to fracking wells. So the evidence is very clear that this is a very bad process and even though no drilling leases have been filed in Rochester we still need a ban. The main reason for this is that the state is likely to legalize the process and allow local control. This may happen as soon as January 2015 and when that happens we will need a ban in place as it will make it much harder to obtain one after this. The reason no leases have been filed is that Rochester sits above the Utica Shale formation. This is similar to the Marcellus Shale but is much deeper and has less gas trapped in it. That makes this a perfect area for the storage of waste water which is still dangerous. Yet when Fracking happens in NY the fracking companies will start paying municipalities to take waste water. With a continuous shortfalls in revenues this will be a tempting way to balance the budget even if it puts people's lives and property at risk. Most importantly our water comes from two Lakes which sit right smack in the middle of fracking country. Canadice and Hemlock Lake are well protected pure water souces which are owned by the city of Rochester. Unfortunately we sold land around the lakes to the state and the state is not going to ban fracking on state land. Around this area there have been numerous fracking leases taken out and it will only be time until some are right near the lakes which form our water supply. As a result we will have to sue the state to keep these lands protected and a ban will make a much stronger argument. Two years ago Rochester City council passed a moratorium on fracking. This is a one year injuncture against the process. At the time they claimed this was done to give the legal department more time to get the legislation done. Well two years have passed and the mayor's office continues to claim a ban is tied up in legal. While legal waits, big name democrats like Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand have been touting fracking as right for NY. As a result I am forced to wonder if Rochester has the worse legal department in the world or if perhaps our elected leaders are just letting our legal window to ban fracking close, something I hope none of us will allow to happen quietly.

A Tale of Two Cities the First 100 Days

Since the great reformer F.D.R. ushered in the New Deal, the first 100 days of an administration have become a benchmark for any newly elected, reform-minded official to set in motion the vision upon which they campaigned. While no F.D.R., Rochester’s newly elected mayor spoke at length of bridging the divide between what she called the two Rochester’s during her campaign. The tale of two cities, one for the rich and one the poor, is not unique to Rochester and a number of democratic mayors used this narrative in their campaign. With the first 100 days now behind them, let’s look at how two mayors who campaigned on these ideas from two actual cities spent their first 100 days. New York City’s new mayor, Bill De Blaiso ran on the narrative of a divided city. Since taking office, he has ended stop and frisk policing, opposed retroactive tax breaks for condos, started a conversation on universal pre-k which led to the state funding the program, ended the free use of city resources for charter schools, appointed a reformer as commissioner of jails and began a campaign for affordable housing in NY. Sure his fights with the governor over taxing the rich have led to some negative press, and his dislike of carriage rides in central park is odd, but when it comes to working to bridge the divide, it has been quite the successful beginning. By contrast, Rochester’s new mayor, Lovely Warren, who also vowed to bridge the divide, seems to have spent much of her first 100 days, when not out-of-town, dealing with scandals and settling old scores. Since taking office, the one Rochester of public schools has seen teacher layoffs and school closures, while the other Rochester of wealthy boat owners has seen plans for publicly-financed condos around their new marina. The one Rochester of local businesses has seen increased harassment, while the other Rochester of out-of-town big box stores has seen concierge treatment to tax breaks. And, of course, the one Rochester of soaring murder rates still has stop and frisk, while the other Rochester can now apparently blame diabetes for their drunk driving. Not a good start. When it came to bridging the divide, voters were told that policy, not just personality, would change in city hall. With the first 100 days now behind us, how much longer must Rochesterians simply “believe?”

Lessons from Recent Developments

On Friday 4/11 more than 350 local people attended an auction run by the city for over 500 tax foreclosed properties. These folks spent more than half a million dollars to purchase these properties and will invest more than $5 million into these buildings to create roughly 700 new mostly low cost housing units through out the city. The most amazing thing about this is that it is all being done without significant public financing and no tax breaks. Meanwhile in Midtown sits the midtown tower. This building was recently owned by the city but they sold it along with three other parcels and a parking lot to Buckingham properties for $4 even though the city estimated its value at $700,000. Rochester has also given Buckingham properties $10.7 million and the state has found another $5 million. All this will create 177 apartments. While these are two very different types of property, it seems to me that one of these is a far better deal for Rochester than the other. While at the auction the city raised money, revitalized neighborhoods, stimulated investment, and created housing the others will cost a lot of money, get millions in tax breaks, and will create more vacant houses in our neighborhood. Perhaps there is a lesson here.

Another Reason Why Rochester has Budget Problems

It is budget time again in the city of Rochester and once more we have an almost $30 million deficit. Like every year the city has tried to address this problem by begging Albany for more money as it seems that this is the only tool we seem to have. Unfortunately I do not believe the $6 million that Albany has gifted us is enough. After all it seems that our city council has no limit on their ability spend money. Last month at the council meeting there were a number of proposals like $50,000 to design repairs for the Rochester Police Department Special Operations facility, $485,000 to implement these design, $269,000 to design the conversion of N Clinton and St Paul to 2 way streets, $7,000 to the army corp of engineers to dredge the rive at port, $213,000 for building modernization for libraries, and $2,642,500 for implementation of a standard coordinated revenue and control system for all City-owned parking garages I was struck by both the size and randomness of the numbers. I understand that planning is important and that to convert streets from one way to two way takes more than a line of yellow paint but $269,000 seems like an awful lot to plan this change particularly when $7000 dredges the port of Rochester. Of course one of the problems is that all these projects were not bid out but were done through a request for proposal. If these proposals had been bid out then we would have gotten the lowest cost but in a request for proposal cost is only 10% of the criteria used for determining the winning proposal. As a result it is more important to have a slick proposal, a proven track record, and an experienced team than a low bid. This was reinforced by a representative of Ber-National Automation Inc of Rochester who bid a million dollars less on the parking garage project but lost to an out of town bidder. Now it is important to have companies that can complete project but this needs to be balanced with the need for effective use of our tax dollars. That night in march council spend around $1.5 million more than they should have. So at this rate the extra $6 million the state sent us will only last 4 months and so this is just another reason why we can afford nice things.

Alex White Tries to Buy Midtown Tower

Green Rochester

Seed Paper

Have you gotten one of our Seed Paper Cards during the Green Rochester campaign?

  

Go to the Green Rochester website to find out how to turn this card in to basil, parsley & chives!

Transforming Rochester 21 - Why Are We Doing the Marina Project?

On this episode of Transforming Rochester we discuss the Port of Rochester Marina Project.  The project takes away public park land and privatizing it with so many grants, tax breaks and low-interest (not paid back) loans that it doesn't come close to a breaking even financial investment.  It is a giveaway of local, public money with no effect on poverty, crime or the budget.  So why are we doing it?  There only seems to be one logical reason: as a reward to builders and developers for political contributions.  Do you have a different reason?

You can listen to the podcast here or click on the link in the column on the right.