You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Clifford “Bill” Lee’ category.
“I’m starting to think we really ticked off Mother Nature somehow, because we’ve been getting spanked by her for about a year now,” he said while grabbing some coffee at a convenience store…..
OF COURSE YOU DID, DUMMY. YOU VOTED FOR REPUBLICANS!
Sussex Green drops a bombshell…
Despite what Meatball says, there is something sick in Sussex County and it rhymes with taker….
Here in essence is the argument for open government… This type of stuff goes on all the time and those of us jaded by its constant misuse, forget that is really antithetic to representative government… Which is why we need citizen watchdogs… and Sussex County has one now….
This must be read… Not only by residents of Sussex County who have to put up with the antics of a family who thinks they can rule with impunity, but by every man, women, and child of the future, so they know exactly how these things are done, and can intercept their implementation before similar actions are finalized.
Here are several examples of the travesty those communists who represent the fine folks of Sussex County have levied against their own kind….
Instead, the list of parcels and areas being considered for inclusion on the future land use map were presented to the P&Z Commission as Old Business at a meeting on April 30, 2008. The parcels and areas were discussed by the P&Z Commission, approved or rejected, and that was that. There was no public hearing on any of them. Then, when the Comp Plan was finally approved (June 24, 2008) all those amendments, which had been approved at the April 30, 2008 meeting were incorporated into the land use map and became part of the ordinance that authorized the Comp Plan.
The Wilson Baker parcels case illustrates this. Baker got a conditional use (c/u) for the smaller parcel in 2005. He either owned or quickly acquired the larger adjoining parcel of AR-1 soon after being granted the c/u on the smaller parcel. He established a propane, kerosene, and diesel fuel business on the smaller parcel under the c/u requirements. However, he wanted to sell both parcels and that proved a bit too complicated because of the c/u, or so his representative testified at the recent change of zoning hearings before the P&Z Commission and County Council. As a result, he apparently decided that getting both parcels rezoned to heavy industry (HI-1) from their current AR-1 would be the most profitable option.
The P&Z Commission scheduled the Wilson Baker parcels for the June 18, 2008 meeting under the agenda heading “Additional Old Business”. The one item under that heading is “Comprehensive Land Use Plan”. The minutes state that Mr. Lank “advised the Commission that a request had been received for inclusion into the Town Center Area around the Town of Milton; that the request came from Baker Petroleum of Wilson Baker, Inc. for the inclusion of their properties; that they are intending to apply for industrial zoning and to create a railroad spur for access to rail service; that the site has been reviewed through the PLUS process” (P&Z Commission Minutes, June 18, 2008, Page 8). The P&Z Commission decided to incorporate the request of Baker Petroleum into the Future Land Use Map by consensus. There was no public hearing
.
On June 24, 2008, the County Council voted to adopt the ordinance establishing the 2007 Comp Plan Update, with amendments. There was no public hearing
.
The entire sketch of how this parcel was rezoned was not done in secret.. It is available on reruns of the Dukes of Hazard television series that was shot during the 1980s.. The faces may look a little different, but the characters who play them are the same…….
You may have read this from the Federal Report titled “The Cost of Holding Back the Sea.” The following shows us the national cost of doing just that. These costs are adjusted for a 1 meter rise.
Previous studies suggest that the expected global warming from the greenhouse effect could raise sea level 50 to 200 centimeters (2 to 7 feet) in the next century. This article presents the first nationwide assessment of the primary impacts of such a rise on the United States: (1) the cost of protecting ocean resort communities by pumping sand onto beaches and gradually raising barrier islands in place; (2) the cost of protecting developed areas along sheltered waters through the use of levees (dikes) and bulkheads; and (3) the loss of coastal wetlands and undeveloped lowlands. The total cost for a one meter rise would be $270-475 billion, ignoring future development.
We estimate that if no measures are taken to hold back the sea, a one meter rise in sea level would inundate 14,000 square miles, with wet and dry land each accounting for about half the loss. The 1500 square kilometers (600-700 square miles) of densely developed coastal lowlands could be protected for approximately one to two thousand dollars per year for a typical coastal lot. Given high coastal property values, holding back the sea would probably be cost-effective.
The environmental consequences of doing so, however, may not be acceptable. Although the most common engineering solution for protecting the ocean coast–pumping sand–would allow us to keep our beaches, levees and bulkheads along sheltered waters would gradually eliminate most of the nation’s wetland shorelines. To ensure the long-term survival of coastal wetlands, federal and state environmental agencies should begin to lay the groundwork for a gradual abandonment of coastal lowlands as sea level rises
The report comes with his warning.
“Sea level rise is an urgent issue for coastal environmental planners for the very reason that it lacks urgency for some directors of public works. If state and local governments fail to develop plans to protect the coastal environment as the sea rises, the public will almost certainly call upon engineers to protect their homes in the years to come.”
So as we ignore the potential of having windmills blowing off our east side, we will be asked to pay increasingly more to fight back the sea. All this at a time when according to this man, we can least afford it.
As far as I know no one yet has tried to account for the additional cost required to build ourselves above oblivion, but in all fairness, that should be added to the Delmarva side of the ledger when it comes to debating just how much this proposed Wind Farm will cost us.
The answer…….ironically comes in the form of another question:
How much will NOT building an offshore wind farm……cost us?
.
kavips 
