IMPORTANT NOTICE
For those of my readers who get the local Peekskill Government chanel 15, Your humble writer will be a guest on Darren Riggers new show ON POINT, ON PEEKSKILL, shown every Tuesday night at 8pm. I will be taping on March 8 for airing at a later date which I will notify you ASAP.
The topic for that taping will be "Local Blogs and there effect on local elections". In the mean time I hope you will continue to watch Darren's show every Tuesday.
A.J.B.
************************************************************************************
ANOTHER IMPORTANT NOTICE
For those of my readers who reside in the town of Yorktown DON PETERS has a show on cable chanel 22 Tuesday nighs at 10 pm. It is called DON PETERS AND YORKTOWN. I have seen it and I urge you to see it also. You may be watching the next Yorktown Supervisor. Then you we be able to say "I remember Don when........."
A.J.B.
************************************************************************************* THIS WAS IN THE JOURNAL NEWS
Big battle looms in proposed bottle bill expansion
By Yancey RoyAlbany Bureau(Original Publication: February 24, 2007)
Redeeming wanesALBANY -
Are New Yorkers losing interest in recycling, when it comes to beer cans and soda battles?Maybe. But they are still much better at it than most Americans. According to the latest state report, the recycling rate for beer, soda and other beverages that carry a 5-cent deposit is at its lowest level since New York enacted the so-called "Bottle Bill" in 1982: 66 percent.Jenny Gitletz of the Container Recycling Institute cites two reasons: "The nickel is just not as valuable as it was" in 1982, she says. Second, not as much money is being spent promoting recycling.
ALBANY - Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal to expand the state's bottle deposit law to juices, water and other beverages could turn out to be one of his toughest fights this year.
About 50 groups are lined up to lobby for or against it, with opponents claiming the plan amounts to a $200 million tax hike. Not only does the Democratic governor want to change what containers carry the nickel deposit but also who gets the nickel when customers don't return them.
Supermarkets, drug stores, beer makers and beer wholesalers, bar owners and 7-Elevens are just some of the groups lining up in opposition. They've successfully blocked previous attempts to expand the so-called "bottle bill." But with a new governor now fighting for expansion and including it as a key part of his budget, opponents know the political climate is different - and they know where they have to go for help.
"There will be an all-out push in the Senate, as well as Assembly," said Jim Rogers, president of the Food Industry Alliance of New York, a lobby group for grocers. "We understand what the political realities are, but we feel we are making inroads."
On the other side are environmental groups who see their best chance to expand the bottle bill since it was enacted in 1982. They are joined by a cast of others, such as the New York Farm Bureau and the League of Women Voters, who view the nickel-deposit proposal as an anti-littering measure, as well as some beverage distributors and Tomra, the company that makes the glass, aluminum and plastic recycling machines that dot grocery stores.
They say the momentum is on their side. Besides the governor, the Democratic-led Assembly has historically backed a bottle-bill expansion. Republicans have traditionally blocked it - Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno once called it "nonsense." But their advantage in the Senate has dipped to 33-29 and a number of veteran GOP senators support expansion.
"The politics have definitely changed in favor of changing the law," said Sierra Club lobbyist John Stouffer.
Currently, the law applies to beer and soda containers. About 66 percent of those were redeemed in 2004, according to the most recent Department of Environmental Conservation statistics. Roughly 3.6 billion out of 5.4 billion nickel-deposit containers were returned.
That rate is an all-time low since the law was passed. The rate of returns has been on a steady decline since 1994, when it was 78 percent. The single-year best was 80 percent in 1984.
Despite the dip, supporters call the bottle bill the most successful recycling measure New York ever enacted. They say the reason bottled water and juices weren't originally included is simple: those products weren't sold in any great volume 25 years ago.
About 3.1 billion noncarbonated containers are sold annually in New York, said Judith Enck, Spitzer's environmental policy director.
Essentially, here's how the system works now: A company, say Coca-Cola, charges a grocery store a nickel for every bottle it stacks on the shelf. The grocery then charges the customer an EXTRA nickel for every Coke purchased. If the customer tosses the bottle in the trash rather than return it to the store, Coke effectively gets the nickel. Estimates of the value of so-called unclaimed deposits range widely, from $100 million annually to nearly $200 million.
Coke also pays the grocery a 2-cents-per-bottle handling fee to cover costs associated with recycling. Typically, the grocery passes this on to Tomra or another recycling company.
Besides expanding coverage, Spitzer proposes two other big changes: bump the handling fee to 3.5 cents per bottle and let the state - rather than Coke - keep the nickel for unreturned bottles. Coca-Cola and other manufacturers would have to make quarterly payments to the state Taxation and Finance Department based on statewide sales. Spitzer would direct the money to the Environmental Protection Fund, which allocates money for preservation of open space and some landfill cleanups.
Enck said opponents are employing many of the same tactics as in 1982 - "using lots of Chicken Little arguments and trotting out a shadow bill."
The latter is a recycling bill introduced last legislative session that would end the nickel deposit and replace it with a broad-based tax on most packaging, from cereal to baby food to beer cans. Rather than return bottles to the store, New Yorkers would place them in curbside recycling containers. The packaging tax would go to expand local curbside programs.
Another bill, sponsored by Assemblyman David Gantt, D-Rochester, would prohibit bottled water from being subject to any container-deposit tax.
Recycling machines in stores produce "clean and separated" containers whereas curbside programs can't make that guarantee, Enck said. She said the push for a radically different recycling bill demonstrates where the momentum is going.
"You feel like you're getting close when opponents hire p.r. firms to come up with misleading alternative bills," Enck said.
Bruno so far has said the bottle bill has to be considered in the context of the state budget, which lawmakers are supposed to adopt by April 1.
Lobbyists for Coca-Cola have been circulating fliers around the Capitol headlined: "Reject the Bottle Tax." Among other things, it claims prices per container will jump 15 cents not just five, to help stores and bottlers pay for added costs. It also makes the argument that New Yorkers "will be forced to contribute their hard-earned money to the state" (as opposed to the bottlers) if they don't redeem their bottles.
Bodegas and convenience stores say they don't have the space to accommodate recycling needs.
Further, Rogers, of the Food Industry Alliance, says grocery stores could lose out because they "overredeem" - that is, get back more containers than they sell because people bring all their bottles to the grocery rather than the point of purchase. The increased handling fees won't cover all their costs, he said.
Plus, they don't want the mess.
"We're in the business of handling food," Rogers said. "We're not recycling centers."
MY COMMENTS ON THIS:
Dear Readers:
First let me say there has been nothing said since my post on Feb. 18, 2007 to change my position. These businesses pay taxes on those uncollected deposits. I have found nowhere in our state constitution that allows the government to confiscate the after taxes profit. Make no mistake about it, what the Governor and other supporters of this bill are advocating is the confiscation of profit for the public good. As noble of an idea that may be, it flies in the face of capitalism, which is what our economy is based. This belief that the government can better spend the money than the private sector insults the intelligence. There is nothing in the recent history of our state government that would lead me to believe that this dysfunctional government of ours would be better equipped to spend the money. To believe that this government would actually choose our interest over their self interest is to ignore the history of this government. To funnel more money from the citizens of this state into this behemoth of corruption is beyond comprehension. In an ideal world or a less dysfunctional government I might be more inclined to give it a go, but not now as this government of ours currently operates. By the way the advocates of this bill always ignore the fact that many people recycle thier bottles in the local recycling weekly pick-ups provided by the towns and/or cities in which they live.
************************************************************************************
Dear Readers:
I write this knowing full well that I probably will never get another letter to the editor published in the North County News again. In this weeks edition there is a front page article about blogs. As I still cannot re-print this article because I still have not received permission I will state that their mention of me and my blog was not negative, in fact it was an accurate description. The same held true for the quotes of mine in the two previous articles where my thoughts were sought, they were accurate and not taken out of context.
So, stating the above, you have the right to ask "what is my axe to grind?" The answer is three-fold. The first part deals with my trying to get permission. I have tried showing up at the office. I have played phone tag., though it was one way as my calls were not returned. I have tried e-mailing the publisher, and the ONLY response I got was his dispute of something I wrote in a previous blog which I did correct at THE TOP of my next entry. However I have received NO response to my inquiries regarding either my re-printing of their articles after that issue is no longer on sale and my request to have my blog listed on their web page blog site as there is no alternative views expressed in the hard copy (though they may say that the letters to the editor express those alternative views, which in my opinion is not the same). I have been told by the nice person who answers the phone that the publisher is a busy man. Well damn it, SO AM I. However I always make time to reply to my e-mails and other inquiries. Courtesy and respect require no less.
The second part deals with the article on blogs negative slant on anonymous blogs. I myself, have no problem signing my name to my opinions, because I believe in the old adage "no fear, no favor". That does not mean every blog has to do the same, nor does it diminish the message those blogs wish to impart. I am an avid reader of the "Peekskill Guardian" blog and always list their link(as they do mine) at the bottom of my entries. I DON'T BLAME THEM FOR THEIR ANONYMITY. Look how they are treated in their anonymity, can you imagine if their identities were known? To emphasize their anonymity is to diminish their message, and that my dear readers is no accident. In fact that is the purpose, to throw sand in your eyes so as you will ignore (they hope) what they are writing about and/or think less of it. What they are writing about in their last few entries is of importance and the local media does a disservice to the taxpayer by not doing a full investigation into the truth of the matter instead of dismissing it out of hand. Something may or may not have happened, but if what has been written about is true(and I suspect it is), then the local paper of record I would think would be duty bound to find out the truth. Now here comes a "history doesn't start when you wake up" moment. Recently the North County News decided a political cartoon on a local Peekskill Republican political wed site was front page news. They screamed sexism. My God it was only CARTOON damn it! However when a blogger produces an e-mail that encourages the recipients to read the "Peekskill Guardian" blog before they vote on a recent bond issue sent by a taxpayer who was against the bond in question that is intercepted by the Superintendent of Schools of Peekskill (she was not an intended recipient), replies to that e-mail(which is also produced) by saying the sender is hiding behind an "electronic white hood", inferring he is against the bond because he is a racist(a typical ploy devised to stifle debate), this is not news because the blogger is anonymous. HOGWASH! If a political cartoon is front page news, then a public servant calling a taxpaying citizen a racist because the taxpayer disagrees with a measure about to be voted upon has to qualify as news also. It would behoove the local paper of record to either prove or discredit but not dismiss. They are a NEWSPAPER, damn it, and this is one way or another NEWS!!!! Bias in media is not restricted to what is printed, it is also what is chosen to be ignored.
My third issue is their new policy of editing letters to the editor. This was never their policy before. In my last published letter they edited (you readers of my blog are already aware of the "Pelosi exemption") out a very important fact in the new minimum wage bill that our new Congressman voted for. The publisher castigated blogs for taking "intellectual property" without consent, yet deems it can edit the intellectual property of the letter writer. While it is true the writer knows this going in, and there is no right to be heard, it is also true that this policy leaves in the hands of people with an agenda the power to alter the thrust of the letter to mean NOT what the writer intended. They would never do this to an elected official, why then should a regular citizen be treat differently?
I have by writing this probably lost all possibility of my letters ever to be printed again. As my phone calls are not returned now, I probably lost any ability to get permission to re-print their articles. As a said earlier though, "no fear, no favor". They are entitled to their opinion and print it in their medium, and so am I, through my medium.
*************************************************************************************
ANATOMY OF A HIT PIECE PART TWO:
THE MYTHS TOLD ABOUT PUTNAM VALLEY SUPERVISOR DAVIS
Dear Readers:
In the movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", the tag line was "when legend becomes fact, print the legend". The same can be said of politics. In both occasions this occurs because those reporting find the legends (or myths) easier to print then doing the necessary homework to find the facts. This is also true when the legend(or myths) fit the agenda of those spreading them. Since 2006 I have seen so many myths spread about Supervisor Sam Davis taken as fact that it is time to print the facts. As this year the Putnam Valley Supervisor is up for re-election I hope you will take a few minutes to learn a few facts.
MYTH: The Supervisor improperly hired his live-in (or domestic partner) Dawn Powell as his Aide To TheSupervisor and set her salary at a higher wage then her predecessor.
HERE ARE THE FACTS:
According to New York State law (GML800(3), Town law 29(15) orPutnam ValleTown Code(17-13) (www.putnamvalley.com/towncode.htm), NOTHING prohibited this hiring.
This was not enough for the town board, they sought a ruling from the Ethics Committee. That committee also found that the Supervisor did nothing illegal, it just did not look good. In stead of letting the matter drop, the town board went a final step a censured the Supervisor and cut
the salary for his aide Dawn Powell(more on this later), which resulted in a lawsuit against the town. This lawsuit would not have occurred had the town board not gone that extra step, which after the ethics review was unnecessary. If there is any blame, it falls on the town board, not Supervisor Davis or his aide Dawn Powell.
The salary for the Aide To The Supervisor for 2006 was set in the budget that was passed in 2005, BEFORE Supervisor Davis was elected. In 2007 the town board voted to reduce the budget line for the Aide To The Supervisor. Question?, If the town board was not responsible for setting the original salary, how could they reduce it?
Besides wasting time misleading the public about the Supervisor, this is also what the town board has done. They voted to raise the salary of the town's videographer 91%., the Supervisor voted against it. The town board voted in the absence of the Supervisor, an across the board raise of 4% for management, . On the issue of the photovoltaic panels the town board voted against accepting the grant money. Supervisor Davis strongly supported the grant! The town board voted to slash the budgets for the fire department, highway department and the animal shelter. The Supervisor disagreed.
Supervisor Davis has tried to enact the agenda he ran on, with NO help from the town board. If the voters wish to take out their anger, it would be misdirected if it were taken out on the Supervisor. The voters anger should rightly be focused on the town board. I hope you the voters will take time to think about this. IT IS NOT THAT COMPLICATED!
************************************************************************************
SITES TO LINK TO:
PLAN PUTNAM: planputnam@yahoogroups.com/PLAN PUTNAM BLOG: http://planputnam.blogspot.com/PEEKSKILL GUARDIAN: http://peekskillguardian.blogspot.com/NORTH COUNTY NEWS: http://northcountynews.com/THE JOURNAL NEWS: http://thejournalnews.com/PEEKSKILL DEMOCRATS: http://www.peekskilldems.com/PEEKSKILL REPUBLICANS: http://peekskillgop.com/
*************************************************************************************
CABLE SHOWS TO WATCH:
ON POINT ON PEEKSKILL: Every Tuesday at 8PM chanel 15 (Peekskill only)
Hosted by: DARREN RIGGER
DON PETERS AND YORKTOWN: Every Tuesday at 10PM chanel 22
Hosted by: DON PETERS
BAZZO 02/24/07
No comments:
Post a Comment