Commission Impossible

You are right, this solar array/stop global warming doo-doo is just election time hype, and we pay for it.

These four are such hypocrites. Scott Gruendl drives a fossil fuel burning automobile right past that solar array every day to his job in Orland. When I met Scott, I told him it bothered me that he lived in Chico but commuted to Orland. I offered to sell him my mom's house in Willows. He said No, he was determined to be a Chico councilman and was looking for a job in Chico. Instead he has accepted a lucrative promotion with Glenn County. That is completely counter to all his bull---- claims about "sustainability."

Maureen Kirk calls a press conference because she's going to ride her bike. I'm betting she drove her bike over there on her car and saddled up at Community Park. As mayor, she had every opportunity to continue the "Bike to Work Thursday" tradition, but she dropped it like a lead balloon. She also bought a house and raised her kid in an "unsustainable" subdivision in the foothills (Cal Park) and claimed that she had to drive her kid to PV High because it wasn't safe for him to ride a bike. What has she done about that?

I have never seen Andy Holcombe or Anne Schwab ride bikes, although I realize Schwab at least lives near her job. They don't seem at all in touch with the needs of pedestrians or cyclists, so I'm betting they drive more than they walk or ride. I could be wrong.

Not that I live a perfect lifestyle, but neither do I blow my own horn and then let working class people pick up my tab.

Juanita (check spelling...OK),

The WPCP Solar Array was supported unanimously as far as I can tell. The idea came from Dan (Bullfight) when he was on the council, but was broadly supported. I couldn't find many references to the Solar Array in the council minutes, but the ones I found had conservatives calling and seconding the motions.

The one below is interesting due to absentees. If the conservatives didn't support this aspect of the project they could have killed it here.

City Council Minutes - January 25, 2005 Page 8 of 12

Consideration of Budget Modification to Fund Demonstration Site Project at the Water
Pollution Control Plant (14012)
By memorandum dated 1/18/05, staff requested that the City Council authorize a $200,000 shift
in funds budgeted for the co-generation facility upgrade for the Water Pollution Control Plant
(WPCP) to be used for a related demonstration project with the goals of reducing the energy
demand of the WPCP, increasing co-generation energy production, and increasing the treatment
capacity of the WPCP.

The Director of Public Works recommended that the City Council authorize the shift in funding as described. A motion was made by Councilmember Bertagna and seconded by Councilmember Herbert to authorize the requested budget modification. A confirming administrative budget modification will be processed following this meeting.

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: Bertagna, Herbert, Holcombe, Kirk, Wahl
NOES: None
ABSENT: Schwab, Gruendl
DISQUAL: None

You are right that the sustainability conference and "cool cities" pact are being used for politics. If they were broadly supported endeavors they would be populated by all components of the political spectrum. They could be broadly supported. But you'd have to have a real discussion involving economics.

And the solar array "opening ceremony" a year after the project has been on line is probably political. It's a good project but the claims of "paying for police" are probably hype. The fact is we spent about as much on the Solar Array as we spent on the downtown park. $3million dollars put in a fund with 5% interest would generate $150K in interest every year (forever). That was the number Scott used for funding 3 officers (seems on the low side, when you include bullets and everything).

FYI: Anne Schwab rides her bike pretty often. I see her peddle past my office every now and then. But it takes a serious committment to quit using an automobile. Most people will never turn idealism into action.

I know, the conservatives don't have much to say for themselves on this one, but they never pretended to.

I'm glad Anne rides her bike now and then. It's good advertising for her husband's bike shop. Maybe she should re-institute Bike to Work Thursdays.

I know alot of people who are too busy living their ideals to yak about it. I guess that's what raises my ire, the way the liberals have to yak themselves up all the time. Actions speak louder than words. Too much talkin', not enough walkin'.

hey, if you aren't too busy this morning, tune in to Dave Guzzetti's show at about 10 am to hear my friends Liz and Aaron with their latest political humor.

You know, the "I've never seen so-and-so on a bike" argument is about as valid as "I never have a problem finding a parking place downtown". It's anecdotal, and for that reason alone suspicious.

The other morning Ed McLaughlin scolded me, saying he'd never seen me on my bicycle, only in my Fiat or pickup truck. I started to reassure him that I ride avidly, frequently use my bike, etc., but then I realized; I'd never seen Ed on a bike. I've seen him in biking togs, certainly, carrying his helmet, etc. But I've never seen him riding.

This is not to say that I have any doubts as to his commitment to human-powered transportation, nor about the sincerity of his activism. But, you know, through whatever mischance that governs serendipity, I have no direct proof of him actually pedaling around town.

So I'd take it easy with those kinds of arguments. The fact is that we have a fairly bicycle-friendly town, although there is plenty still to be done to improve the situation. But I don't believe that increased investment in bike lanes, parking stands, etc., is going to encourage more people to give up their cars on hot, rainy, or dusty days. I ride my bike for pleasure, and when it is not pleasant, I drive.

If Chico was more like, say, Amsterdam, 90% of uis would get around on foot, bikes, and public transit. Of course, if Chico was more like Amsterdam, there'd be a tolerance of recreational drug use, legal prostitution, and free medical care. So, you know, count your blessings.

Alan,

I saw Juanita's comments as "actions speak louder than words". And in the case of some of our activists there may be more words than actions. I assume you and Ed are friends, otherwise it would seem intrusive and obnoxious for him to question your lifestyle.

There is some benefit to exploring the extremes of the "bike only" argument. For example, if Maureen Kirk is elected to Supervisor, should she bike to work? Does Ed bike his trash out to the dump? Do bike enthusiasts only purchase food products that are delivered via human powered transportation?

The answers to those questions should be no. I assume that bike advocates support less-reliance on the automobile, but not abstinence. That should be an apolitical argument. If a two car family could reduce to a single car they could save at least $6,000/year in car payments, fuel, maintenance, and insurance costs. I’m a 2 car family and I can only reduce to about 1.75 cars (ride my bike 25% of the time) on a good week.

Environmental issues should be apolitical. When these issues are argued from a political stand-point, and used as wedge issues, they prevent half of the population from listening. The green energy solution is being trumpeted as a solution to our budget woes by Nickell. And I have heard Gruendl use the “solar pays for 3 police officers� argument before (you did as well). Our budget problems have not been created by energy costs. They were created by spending more money than we had.

Signing the “cool cities� pact was about politics, and not doing what is right for Chico. That’s my opinion. It could have used more debate and less politics, and then the entire city might have thought it was a good idea.

That's funny Mr. Chamberlain, I've never seen Ed without his bike. And the only time I've seen him in "togs" is at the Wildflower. Ed is one of the most real people I know. He walks the walk.

I see what you mean though, it looked like I was picking on Anne. Lon's right, I am just tired of people blowing their own horn when they don't live their yak. I live my life, I don't need to yak about it. Frankly, I'm disgusted with my self for being such a reactionary - I let those stooopid liberals get my goat, dammit!

Baaaaaa!

I assume you and Ed are friends

Not exactly. Perhaps colleagues is closer. I don't consider questions challenging my arguments to be either intrusive nor obnoxious per se. We were arguing about the need for a parking structure, and I had observed that even though I do ride my bike sometimes, I did not consider encouraging increased cycling as a strategy for addressing the downtown vacancy rate, which was when he observed that he'd never seen me on a bike. Fair enough, but as I say, irrelevant.

As for walking the walk, I'm inclined to slack. I'm generally committed to reducing my energy footprint, minimizing my waste impact, etc., but some circumstances are corner cases, I do the best I can, etc., but sometimes I have to compromise my ideal in favor of the pragmatic. I try to remember that the same is the case for others, so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. And then there's Mark Foley.

Actually, I usually see Ed at intersections, on his bike. I just run into him so often we've become familiar. I admire his "practice what you preach" attitude.

I don't mind your slacking, as long as I am not expected to pick up your slack. For example, I am not paying a bond on my property taxes to foot the new downtown parking structure. I pay for my parking space at my grocery store or whereever every time I spend money there, that seems fair to me. Their employees park for free. When I go downtown, I usually ride my bike, or I am just driving through on my way somewhere else. If I have to park, I always find a spot within steps of where I'm going, and I certainly do not mind paying for that privelege. Why should I pay a bond for the new structure?

According to the muni code, parking downtown is supposed to be paid for by business and property owners. The fees are ridiculously low, levied by number of employees instead of by the nature of the business (surely Smokin' Mo's brings more drivers downtown than your business, obviously they should pay alot).

I do not see how anybody can justify using tax money to provide parking for one part of town. That is the only objection I have to the current parking structure plan. I am not a dirt-worshipping treehugger, am not, am not, am not!

Just to prove that, I'm going to cut down a tree in my yard and burn it in my woodstove.

I do not see how anybody can justify using tax money to provide parking for one part of town.

Downtown is more than a commercial corridor. It's the heart of the city, and the surrounding region. The historic and cultural center of the city integrates the social, civic, and economic domains by connecting the academy, the civil authority, the nonprofit and social services networks, the arts community, and the commercial sector to the residents of the city, the county, and the surrounding region.

Everyone has a stake in the success of downtown Chico, not just the merchants. Without a healthy, thriving market segment, there is no glue to hold together the other elements that make downtown meaningful. There's no reason why the city hall should not move to Humboldt Road, for example, without a flourishing agora in the city center. The many nonprofits that are centered in downtown might as well find cheaper digs down on Park Avenue. The university certainly can live without a strong downtown, and student support businesses can locate along Nord Avenue.

Downtown merchants are stuggling, and unless the city and the rest of the stakeholders invest in the infrastructure that supports them, it will decay and have all the charm of downtown Orland. You have to feed the cat, or you end up feeding the rats.

Well, I totally disagree with you here, but I'm going to leave it at that.