Letters 10-24-2016

It’s Obama’s 1984 Several editions ago I concluded a short letter to the editor with an ominous rhetorical flourish: “Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984 and the grand opening of the Federal Department of Truth!” At the time I am sure most of the readers laughed off my comments as right-wing hyperbole. Shame on you for doubting me...

Gun Bans Don’t Work It is said that mass violence only happens in the USA. A lone gunman in a rubber boat, drifted ashore at a popular resort in Tunisia and randomly shot and killed 38 mostly British and Irish tourists. Tunisian gun laws, which are among the most restrictive in the world, didn’t stop this mass slaughter. And in January 2015, two armed men killed 11 and wounded 11 others in an attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. French gun laws didn’t stop these assassins...

Scripps’ Good Deed No good deed shall go unpunished! When Dan Scripps was the 101st District State Representative, he introduced legislation to prevent corporations from contaminating (e.g. fracking) or depleting (e.g. Nestle) Michigan’s water table for corporate profit. There are no property lines in the water table, and many of us depend on private wells for abundant, safe, clean water. In the subsequent election, Dan’s opponents ran a negative campaign almost solely on the misrepresentation that Dan’s good deed was a government takeover of your private water well...

Political Definitions As the time to vote draws near it’s a good time to check into what you stand for. According to Dictionary.com the meanings for liberal and conservative are as follows:

Liberal: Favorable to progress or reform as in political or religious affairs.

Conservative: Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditions and limit change...

Voting Takes A Month? Hurricane Matthew hit the Florida coast Oct. 6, over three weeks before Election Day. Bob Ross (Oct. 17th issue) posits that perhaps evacuation orders from Governor Scott may have had political motivations to diminish turnout and seems to praise Hillary Clinton’s call for Gov. Scott to extend Florida’s voter registration deadline due to evacuations...

Clinton Foundation Facts Does the Clinton Foundation really spend a mere 10 percent (per Mike Pence) or 20 percent (per Reince Priebus) of its money on charity? Not true. Charity Watch gives it an A rating (the same as it gives the NRA Foundation) and says it spends 88 percent on charitable causes, and 12 percent on overhead. Here is the source of the misunderstanding: The Foundation does give only a small percentage of its money to charitable organizations, but it spends far more money directly running a number of programs...

America Needs Change Trump supports our constitution, will appoint judges that will keep our freedoms safe. He supports the partial-birth ban; Hillary voted against it. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, critical issues are at stake. Trump will increase national security, monitor refugee admissions, endorse our vital military forces while fighting ISIS. Vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence will be an intelligent asset for the country. Hillary wants open borders, increased government regulation, and more demilitarization at a time when we need strong military defenses...

My Process For No I will be voting “no” on Prop 3 because I am supportive of the process that is in place to review and approve developments. I was on the Traverse City Planning Commission in the 1990s and gained an appreciation for all of the work that goes into a review. The staff reviews the project and makes a recommendation. The developer then makes a presentation, and fellow commissioners and the public can ask questions and make comments. By the end of the process, I knew how to vote for a project, up or down. This process then repeats itself at the City Commission...

Regarding Your Postcard If you received a “Vote No” postcard from StandUp TC, don’t believe their lies. Prop 3 is not illegal. It won’t cost city taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal bills or special elections. Prop 3 is about protecting our downtown -- not Munson, NMC or the Commons -- from a future of ugly skyscrapers that will diminish the very character of our downtown...

Vote Yes It has been suggested that a recall or re-election of current city staff and Traverse City Commission would work better than Prop 3. I disagree. A recall campaign is the most divisive, costly type of election possible. Prop 3, when passed, will allow all city residents an opportunity to vote on any proposed development over 60 feet tall at no cost to the taxpayer...

Yes Vote Explained A “yes” vote on Prop 3 will give Traverse City the right to vote on developments over 60 feet high. It doesn’t require votes on every future building, as incorrectly stated by a previous letter writer. If referendums are held during general elections, taxpayers pay nothing...

Beware Trump When the country you love have have served for 33 years is threatened, you have an obligation and a duty to speak out. Now is the time for all Americans to speak out against a possible Donald Trump presidency. During the past year Trump has been exposed as a pathological liar, a demagogue and a person who is totally unfit to assume the presidency of our already great country...

Picture Worth 1,000 Words Nobody disagrees with the need for affordable housing or that a certain level of density is dollar smart for TC. The issue is the proposed solution. If you haven’t already seen the architect’s rendition for the site, please Google “Pine Street Development Traverse City”...

Living Wage, Not Tall Buildings Our community deserves better than the StandUp TC “vote no” arguments. They are not truthful. Their yard signs say: “More Housing. Less Red Tape. Vote like you want your kids to live here.” The truth: More housing, but for whom? At what price..

Home · Articles · News · Other Opinions · Peak oil... Be Prepared
. . . .

Peak oil... Be Prepared

Mark Nixon - July 14th, 2008
“If we don’t drill more, in this country, I am quite concerned about civil disturbances in our urban areas because of the price of fuel” says John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil.
His solution, of course, is to ask our legislators to relax drilling restrictions in areas like ANWR (the Arctic refuge in Alaska) and off our coasts. Events which will send the signal that everything is back to normal and we can safely resume our excessive (patriotic?) consumption habits. And when we finally do run out of oil, in the distant future, robust American market forces will fix this temporary problem with Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the marketplace.
Price, profit incentive, and technology are all we need to correct any imbalance between supply and demand, say the oil companies. In contrast, author Richard Heinberg (“The Party’s Over,“ “Peak Everything:) takes a different and longer view: “Cheap oil is the party we’ve been enjoying for the past 150 years, and that party is coming to an end, in our lifetime. We’re going to see the end of the age of oil, and the result of that will be the end of the American way of life.”
Likewise, author Jim Kunstler (“The Geography of Nowhere“), is also wary of oil executive pronouncements as nothing more than the typical bias towards shareholder interests (short-term profits) that will only increase the painful consequences awaiting us (on par with a new Mel Gibson film: “Mad Max IV, The Last Hummer“).
Hofmeister’s prescription for lowering high gas prices will give us a few more years of denial that we have an economy dangerously addicted to a finite resource.
Our addiction is a direct result of public decision-making that not only built a landscape around cars, oil, and short-term economic interests, but also the creation of a media built for ratings and profits that renders the electorate ill-equipped to make informed choices about public investment schemes longer than our attention span.
A short review of transportation/land-use decisions over the last 70-80 years reveals the evolution of this classic American problem. The two major legislative decisions responsible:
1. The ubiquitous adoption of ‘separate use zoning’ instead of more sensible ‘mixed use’ codes as the template for all master plans for cities. By instituting separate use zoning you automatically infer auto transit dependency, and by not democratically debating the long-term design consequences (i.e., sprawl, strip development, inequitable bias against non drivers), we set in place a land use model heavily dependent on cheap oil.
2. The huge public surrender to the auto/oil industrial complex via the construction of the inter-state highway system without mandating an equal investment in bike, pedestrian, and public transit-friendly land-use designs.
“The whole suburban project can be summarized pretty succinctly as the greatest mis-allocation of resources in the history of the world. America took all of its post-war wealth and invested it in a living arrangement that has no future,” says Kunstler.
Our marketplaces moved from human scale, walkable and friendly neighborhoods to big box & drive-thru retail on our high-traffic highways. We get low-priced domestic goods from China, but the costs in congestion, maintenance, public health, environmental degradation, and visual blight diminish us both politically and culturally. We now have a dismal cartoon (pun intended) architecture landscape designed around obedient car consumers enslaved to a daily banal economic routine almost everywhere.
Our investment in sprawl has failed to improve either mobility or quality of life. Pundits lament: “We’ve become a nation full of lonely, overweight, impatient, single occupant commuters, stuck in traffic, trying to communicate with each other with bumper stickers.”
Not only is sprawl as obvious as obesity, it is the primary cause of our collective road rage. Instead of diversifying the modes of transit to reduce “congestion” we decided (with a little help from lobbyists) to build our way out of auto gridlock by adding lanes and investing in more roads, which only encouraged more automotive use.
Kunstler says America is sleepwalking into a future of energy scarcity, climate change and geopolitical turmoil, while still caught in a dream of denial. “No amount of wind, solar, or even nuclear, will allow us to keep living the way we do,” he says.
Are these guys just doomsday purveyors crying “Wolf!” or are they truly attempting to steer us from the edge of a cliff? Does the cliff represent the chasm of psychological change we are about to undertake? Can we develop a code to live by that can replace our current ‘economic growth/culture of excess’ model? As we assess the veracity of these dire predictions, the question arises; how can we possibly craft some humane solution?
Does any relatively quick energy fix seem plausible, or on the horizon?
Venture capitalist John Doerr is optimistic. “Renewable energy is the next Silicon Valley,” he says, urging government leadership to make green technology the solution.
Others, less enamored by the promise of science and technology, hold a different view: “If it can’t be done without fossil fuels, it can’t be done,” cautions author Richard Heinberg. Bioregionalist and author Stephanie Mills (“Epicurean Simplicity“) sees the economy shifting from global to regional and is also pointing to the re-localization approach as a transition from the old economy. “Only in place will we learn anew, in myriad ways, to carry on,” she says.
Mark Nixon of Traverse City is involved in real estate management and development with an active interest in public policy on transportation, media and environmental issues. He is a member of the Congress for the New Urbanism on urban & rural land-use design solutions.
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5