Monday, March 16, 2009

Why LNG is still not a good idea..

The global economy is struggling and those effects are being felt right here in Fall River. Times are tough. The city is struggling with budget issues and layoffs that have impacted every city department, especially those dealing with public safety.

We need tax revenue, we need jobs, we need something that will stimulate our local economy. Councilor Leo Pelletier thinks that something is LNG!

Now, to be honest, I'm not surprised by this at all. I knew that with the tough economy that there would be some who would say it was time to revisit the LNG proposal. It is somewhat of a surprise that it would be one of our city councilors.

The argument for LNG is this simple, it would infuse 3-4 million dollars into the local economy over a span of 3 years. Also we're now being told that their would be 150 permanant job, which is a lot more than the 30 or so that we were told before. It's interesting to compare what is listed on the Weaver's Cove website vs. what is being said now by Leo and Hess. If the facts have changed shouldn't the website be updated? Anyway there is also the benefit to the local economy because of supplies and stuff that would be bought. So Leo looks at this and he thinks, hey why keep fighting them and spending money when we can get some money and jobs into our city.

But LNG is still not a good idea for our city.

After the facility is built all the construction jobs will cease to exist. The money added to the tax roles will be used, at least in part, to cover the additional safety costs. By the way, how will we ever deal with a safety issue on a floating platform? Will we now need boats for fire and medical?

The quality of life for hundreds of residents will be affected, either by the restrictions that will be placed on our waterways or the fear of living near these large tanks of liquid natural gas. Oh, I know, it's safe! We've all heard about the fantastic safety record. However what if the site did become a more tempting terrorist target? And airflight is touted as safe too, unless you're in a plane that crashes. LNG may have a great safety record but I don't want to see a facility wedged into a packed residential area become the site of one of the exceptions.

The biggest reason why LNG is not a good idea is that it robs us of our ability to set our own course. If we allow LNG on our waterfront we will lose the chance to ever develop it to the potential that many of us envision for our city's future. There are those who will say that we've failed to develop anything meaningful in decades. I would argue it's because of that short sighted thinking that believes that a dollar today is more important than investing in our future.


Tom Paine said...

I have always been against LNG. 99% of other coastal communities would not want it located in a densely populated area of their waterfront. Just like Route 79, it will hurt the future of the development of the waterfront. The list of negatives are too long.

With that being said, maybe Fall River should get LNG. Why?

Just look at our leaders, not just the elected ones, but the ones that serve on our boards. These people have been allowing our city to drift without any clear goal.

In the 80s we paid for a waterfront report that was created by LDR. Big money, nothing happened.

In the late 90s we spent over $500,000 on a new report. It was completed in 1999 or 2000. It called for a 4Phase, 10 year approach. Well folks, here it is 10 years later...nothing.

We paid for a study on a convention center. Nothing.

We sunk over $1million into the Carousel, and were told it was going to be a big money maker and would be open all year round. FROED was allowed to use UDAG money, and they lost most of it.

The Bounty!! The state poured money into a dock for the boat. Boat is gone and so is the dock.

We have given out the largest amount of TIFs, and have reduced by 100s of thousands in real estate tax we should be getting. What benefit? We have 16% unemployment!

Every time there is a chance to try and bring back some life to downtown the RDA is there to make sure they keep their blinders on and vote to increase subsidized housing and place it in our downtown.

And speaking of subsidized housing, Watuppa Heights, our pols and Nick Christ and his group said we had too much subsidized housing. So they decided to knock down Watuppa Heights, but guess what, they had no plan, and no revenue stream. So our bright mayor Correia, along with others, went to Boston and got the satet to say yes to our no plan idea. Now we are going to be stuck paying for the project, at least $4million, and we have to build much more than the 26 single family homes we were promised, plus they are going to rentals for guess what?? Low income, more subsidized housing. HA!

So my rant ends with this.....Fall River deserves LNG, why? Becasue we have no idea on how to make our city better, so we deserve the worst.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

don't forget
bulldozing our airport

building a courthouse where there is no parking

bulldozing our waterfall and city namesake

seperating the city from the waterfront with Route 79

building city hall on top of 195

and last but not least, the BFI disaster where a pice of land sold for 1 million and then was resold for 45 million.

But still, IT IS MY RIVER and I love it... I just hate the people who control it.
anyone want to buy a used pack of gum?

Anonymous said...

The money at least some of it will be put toward safety? No, try all of the $3-$4 million will have to go toward guarding these shipments and it still won't be enough money. It is a money loser for the taxpayers and not a money maker, don't let them fool you.

Tom Paine said...

Here is another problem, and it appears that some of our councilors are in favor of it.

70 more homes to be built in our watershed. All that is needed by the developer is to have the city give him an easement to get to his land.

Why is this a problem?

1. As I said more homes in the watershed, means more people living there, more cars, oil changes, weed killer, fertilizer etc.

2. Now we need to get more utilities out there, which means more money!!

3. We need to increase public wait a minute, we do not have the money.

4. More homes there, means more children which means transportation costs go higher....more money.

5. With more children, you will have parents there clamoring for a school. More money.

So whatever revenue in the form of taxes these 70 homes generate will vanish with the extra costs they will create.

I am in such a great mood!

Anonymous said...

Literally seconds ago there was a segment on the national NBC news about Morgantown, WV and it's ability to seemingly have bucked whatever recession the rest of the country is suffering from.

Now, I think the quote was no city or town is an economic island, but they're faring better than most.

And why?

The mayor said it as succinctly as possible: Diversity.

It isn't about just ONE thing. Now remember this small city went through exactly what we've gone through with textile mills with coal mines.

"Having sectors that are all balanced is very important. Education, health care, technology, manufacturing, retail and service."

How do they do it: hospitals, check. public college, check. new construction, check. $4M waterfront redevelopment ... bustling downtown filled with locally owned shops ... this city has EVERYTHING it needs to become a great city or almost has everything.

But instead, we'll end up with a complete lack of forethought and more bad decisions down the line.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Paine, the cities woes can wait until tomorrow. Go drink a beer, it's St. Patrick's Day!

Anonymous said...


W.J. Bloggah said...

Yeah there's a great solution, drink more "beeahs" and put on the Sox, bro! When you wonder where the public support is at LNG rallies (and City Council & School Committee meetings for that matter), that's where they are, drinking beers and watching the game. Eh, I;ll go next time, the #$%^& Pats are on tonight, guy!

Anonymous said...

The Abby Grill will be saved tomorrow local developer Gerry Donovan will be buying the historic property.His track record of respecting historic landmarks speaks for itself.THANK YOU GERRY

Anonymous said...

Tnank you for the information but isn't the auctiom tomorow- I hope he saves it but how do you know donovan will get the bid??????

Anonymous said...

must be the only bidder

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...

Anon 9:23, Why are you laughing. Good for him and all, but seriously, what's so funny? And why are you yelling?

Anonymous said...

How did Gerry make his fortune? Do tell.

Anonymous said...

HARDWORK...get ready for the blog losers to start attacking the Donovans.Anyone who does ok for themselves must be corrupt ,a thief,etc...