Cart before the horse?
by M. Stewart
I've been following the TS&T pottery situation in the newspaper, but the more I read, the more confused I get. Maybe someone out there can help me understand.
Today's Review tells us about a meeting of the "TS&T Citizens Taskforce" where participants were asked use construction paper and markers to draw pictures of how the property could be used once it is cleared of the remaining debris. From the newspaper description, the meeting sounded like a "we can do it" pep rally, and while I'm not suggesting that is a bad thing, I have to wonder why the group is focusing so much on putting the cart before the horse.
Clearly the Dietz family wants to make its problems a public concern, but it already is a public concern. The task at hand is cleaning up the ugly, dangerous conditions that currently exist at the site. Because this is private property, the focus should be on the local and state governments forcing the owner to address the problem. At least that's how I see it.
If I'm reading the newspaper right, the task force currently is focusing how to help the Dietz family get out from under the responsibility of managing the cleanup and how the family can profit from the sale of the property to potential developers. I am willing to admit that I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure what it is.
Can someone fill in the gaps?
I've been following the TS&T pottery situation in the newspaper, but the more I read, the more confused I get. Maybe someone out there can help me understand.
Today's Review tells us about a meeting of the "TS&T Citizens Taskforce" where participants were asked use construction paper and markers to draw pictures of how the property could be used once it is cleared of the remaining debris. From the newspaper description, the meeting sounded like a "we can do it" pep rally, and while I'm not suggesting that is a bad thing, I have to wonder why the group is focusing so much on putting the cart before the horse.
Clearly the Dietz family wants to make its problems a public concern, but it already is a public concern. The task at hand is cleaning up the ugly, dangerous conditions that currently exist at the site. Because this is private property, the focus should be on the local and state governments forcing the owner to address the problem. At least that's how I see it.
If I'm reading the newspaper right, the task force currently is focusing how to help the Dietz family get out from under the responsibility of managing the cleanup and how the family can profit from the sale of the property to potential developers. I am willing to admit that I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure what it is.
Can someone fill in the gaps?
posted by M. | 9:36 AM
17 Comments:
Matt, from earlier articles that I've read it was stated that in order to receive grant money, for demolition and eventual reconstruction of the site, there must be a plan in place for what the new use of the property will be.
Matt, Everyones confused and the parties involved seem bent of spinning the story in their favor. It's a convoluted mess which, in the end, no one will win. The Dietzs, who I grew up with, are good people who inheritited a bad situation. They and the EPA/WVDEP can't seem to agree on much. I believe they have turned done what, today, would be more than generous offers, but like most property owners, believe it's more valuable than do any potential buyers. From what I've heard, to qualify for Brownfield grants, a public entity must own the property and have a plan in place for future use, hence the taskforce's exercise. Come Septmeber of 2013, either some individual with DEEP pockets or local government with taxpayer supported Brownfield funds will buy it at auction and something positve will happen. Until then, it's just all white noise.
WV--
If a "public entity" has to own the property before Brownfield cleanup funds are available, then local authorities (city, county, state) should demand that the private owner either take care of the problem in a timely manner or hand over the property to a public entity. Holding out to see how the family can profit is obscene, and expecting the community to get behind a scheme designed only to create profit for the family is sinister. Surely some of those people involved in the task force realize how they are being used.
The long email explaination I got from the WVDEP outlined the limitations of government actions on private property. Reguardless of hazards present. Much of it was covered in one of the Review articles. You're right about the profit thing. However, with approximately one million dollars in EPA liens and DEP liens coming soon, the chances of the owners making a profit, with all the attorney fees involved, is doubtful. Sadly, it seems like it's to the point of just pissing people off because they can.
Go take a look at Sterling China. It"s almost all cleared. Not to say they won't probably have some brownfield issues in the future, but the mess is being cleaned up pretty well.
Why is TS&T taking so long?
The Sterling China clean up has taken almost 2 months to complete, considering the weather issues also. Keep in mind they begin working at 5:30 - 6:00 am until approx 5 pm. The only complaint that I have is they start so early in the morning.
Sterling seems to be going so quickly because they (the city?) actually hired licensed professionals.
Anyone think the city of ELO would be interested in another fixer upper property? It's just across the river!
No comments yet on Libya? What gives?
Been very busy. Libya, yes. I'm all for it. Khadafi is evil, and Libyan rebels need help from the West. Not at all for continued intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, though. I'm not pleased at all with Obama's escalation of Afghanistan conflict.
Ah, a broken promise from the "annointed one." You still seem surprised. I'm sorry, I don't buy for a second that he is still cleaning up Bush's mess. This mess is his. He can blame Bush all he wants- but until he proves to me that he a plan, AND A CLUE- it's his mess now. He is going to go down in history as the first black President, yes, but also as the worst 1 term President ever. I just pray the GOP comes up with something better than Sarah Palin.
Matt, seriously, you're a moron. Would you send your son off to Libya to die in an effort to depose Kaddafffiiii?
LBJ, LBJ how many kids did you kill today?
Bob, seriously, no. I wouldn't "send" him to do anything, but that's not an issue in Libya. My son didn't choose a military career, but if he had, then yes, I would expect him to serve in whatever capacity his country asked. This is a moot point anyway because we're not sending troops to Libya. It must take a "moron" to notice those kinds of minor details.
If you served in the military, what would you do? Refuse an assignment because you don't like the president? Is that where the Tea Party people cowards are taking us? Go to Iraq or Afganistan as long as a Texas Republican president tells you to, but pay no mind to the darkie?
I think it's clear that whatever Obama does in any situation, the right wing will be against it. Why? Because the right wing does not support the United States; it supports only the rich, and the rich have no country.
M,
After reading your last comment I find you are are about as politically screwed up as a person can get. Where in the world are you getting these ideas: "the right wing is for the rich...doesn't support the United States." There is a fast growing group of people on the left who use to be Obama supporters and have done a complete 180. If you still support this president then you are the one who doesn't support the United States. Obama is doing everything possible to destroy this country. Evidence? Name one of his policies and you have one. Spending, oil, corn, wars, deficit, social welfare and the list goes on.
Eddie--
I readily admit that I am against corn.
Corn in your gas tank. Outrageous outlays of tax dollars to create high priced ethenol from corn thereby driving the price of food not only because corn is being used as a gasoline additive, but farmers are using land to plant corn that would have been used to plant something else.
Fast Eddie - Ethanol subsidies are a creation of George W. Bush, enshrined into law with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The last I checked, he almost doubled the national debt, started two wars, turned a budget surplus into a record deficit and expanded social welfare programs to a certain degree. Was he out to destory America, too? Or was it all in the name of "freedom" then?
I do agree, though, that corn-based ethanol subsidies are a waste of time and money. Don't expect them to go away anytime soon, though. As long as Iowa is the first presidential contest in the nation, they're here to stay.
Watch, all your Republicans heroes running for president in Iowa will bow down and kiss the ring of the industry.
I recall Ethanol being a big deal and savor that was advanced in the 1870s. Gee, who was President then?
Post a Comment
<< Home