“I said, ‘Take a look around, hang out as long as you want and see if you want to live here.’ ”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here’s the Bent Tree project – click for larger version:
Carol A. Overland, Overland Law Office — Utility Regulatory and Land Use Advocacy
UPDATE: ORDINANCE #115 TAKEN OFF DECEMBER 11 COUNCIL MEETING. WON’T BE HEARD UNTIL AFTER JANUARY COUNCIL ANNUAL WORKSHOP… if ever…
At Monday’s City Council meeting, a strange item, 9b, was on the agenda:
09B – Int Ord 115 – Enforcement of Rules of Order for Govt Meetings – CC 11
Here is the link to the video, two options:
How did this get on the agenda? It didn’t go through committee…
Look at this discussion of the matter in minutes from previous meeting, September 25, 2017:
First, “City Attorney Amy Mace referenced a recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision that struck down part of the disorderly conduct statute.” That would be the Hensel decision:
So let’s look at this order of events. The City’s Rules of Order address disruption of a city meeting, long standing rules. The Hensel decision comes down September 13, 2017. The meeting minutes above are September 25, 2017.
Listen to that part of the 9/25 meeting HERE – MP4 (begins at ~ 58:56, goes to ~1:03.00). Note the City Attorney’s focus on “anger” — behavior that would cause anger, and statements that the public/private aspect of the statute was problematic. That was not part of the rational that Minn. Stat. 609.72, Subd. 2 that was deemed unconstitutional:
(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
Again, the decision:
So between the time the Hensel decision is published and the Council meeting of the 25th, 13 days, the Red Wing Chief of Police goes to the Goodhue County Attorney about it, and that “[t]he County Attorney feels that, as long as these rules are in place, there would be a basis for someone to be removed from a council meeting if they do not stop their disruptive behavior when given an order by the Council President to do so.” That means that someone discussed this with the City Attorney prior to the 9/25 meeting. This discussion is begun by “Council President Kim Biese, who asked whether additional discussion is needed with regard to managing a disturbance during a public meeting. So there was some discussion between some parties prior to the meeting. The City Attorney goes on to say, “the City Attorney’s Office is considering whether language should be added to the City Code to make this type of behavior a misdemeanor offense.” On whose authority, initiative, direction is this “considering” occurring? Biese knew of this, City Attorney knew of this, and Chief Pohlman went to the County Attorney about it before the ink was dry on the Hensel decision — and he was told, “no problem.” So why is this happening and on whose direction? “Discussion” and “consideration” is ongoing despite advice that there is no problem, the City’s rules are sufficient per the County Attorney.
What’s Biese and Chief Pohlman’s concern? Why is City Attorney working on this, and why are we paying for it?
Makes no sense… and this is contrary to the recommendations of the Red Wing Citizens Assembly:
From the report:
And “Better Public Meetings” was a key component:
Looking forward:
Not only is Ordinance #115 action for a problem that doesn’t exist, it is a step in the wrong direction, away from “Better Public Meetings” and instead hanging a threat over the heads of lawfully participating citizens.
It’s out. Former U.S. Attorney Heaphy was commissioned to lead investigation and issue report on the Charlottesville mess. Here it is, just released:
Heaphy-Independent Review of the 2017 Protest Events in Charlottesville, Virginia – Dec 1 2017
Read it!
Bottom line:
Independent Review of Charlottesville Rallies, Protests Released
From this article:
However, the review determined the following went wrong that day:
- CPD did not seek input from law enforcement personnel experienced in handling similar events.
- CPD did not provide adequate training or information to officers in advance of the event.
- Charlottesville waited too long to request the specialized assistance of the Virginia Department of Emergency Management.
- Charlottesville City Council unduly interfered with operational planning by directing that the event be moved to McIntire Park just days in advance.
- Charlottesville did not provide adequate information to the public about plans for the event.
- City planners mistakenly believed that they could not limit the possession of certain items used as weapons at the Unite the Right event.
- The owners of private property adjacent to Emancipation Park refused access to their facilities, which hampered law enforcement response during the event.
- UVA Police Department refused multiple offers of mutual aid assistance from CPD, resulting in violent encounters that emboldened protesters at the Unite the Right rally.
- CPD implemented a flawed operational plan that failed to protect public safety on August 12.
- Failure to protect public safety erodes trust in law enforcement
Ah, yes, it’s that time of year again… remember this map, way back when, connecting existing coal plants to the proposed CapX 2020 system? (note the Mid-American coal plant built in 2007 over by Council Bluffs isn’t there, it’s at the green lines on the southwest side where transmission starts.)
It’s the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing!
Here’s the full notice:
2017_Docket 17-18_Notice_201711-137509-01
And going back in history:
2006 Report to PUC – Docket 06-1733
2007 Report to PUC – Docket 07-1579
2008 Report to PUC – Docket 08-1426
2009 Report to PUC – Docket 09-1351
2010 Report to PUC – Docket 10-222
2011 Report to PUC – Docket 11-324
2012 Report to PUC – Docket 12-360
2013 Report to PUC – Docket 13-965
2014 Summary Report– Docket 14-887
2015 Summary Report – Docket 15-785
2016 Summary Report — Docket 16-18
Here’s the summary of what I had to say last year, from the report above:
Does this sound familiar?
Meanwhile, we’re still waiting on the rulemaking, 12-1246, which addresses PPSA siting rules, Minn. R. Ch. 7850. To see rulemaking docket, which ostensibly is to address the changes in the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell, go HERE and look up rulemaking docket 12-1246.
I expect this rulemaking to reach the Public Utilities Commission before I drop dead. But I’m starting to wonder. The “12” in “12-1246” means the docket was opened in 2012. This is 2017, almost 2018. Good grief!
Everybody, get out your HERC Hanky and wave it for the home team!!!
Last Thursday was a fairly short, but quite intense, day at the Public Utilities Commission. First up was Freeborn Wind (go here and search for docket 17-332), and its application for a transmission line for the project plus more. We did get the “proceeding” process and not a summary report. That’s good, not a huge deal, but enough that it means we get some extra process in the transmission routing docket, meaning an ALJ drafted Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (not just a report), and the opportunity to file Exceptions to the ALJ Recommendation. In those exceptions, we can also ask for public comment and oral argument to the Commission.
Second on the agenda was the HERC Power Purchase Agreement, and Xcel Energy’s HERC PPA Petition to cut the rate (go here and search for docket 17-532).
Bottom line, after much deliberation, and a 10 minute break (what is it they do back there???), here’s the decision option they chose, as framed in the Staff Briefing Papers_201711-137262-01:
Way to go, Mr. Alan Muller!
Seems to me that but for our squwaking, it would have eased on through. But the question remains, where were all the folks who supposedly had committed to shut down HERC?
Primary documents were posted earlier here:
Yes, Minnesota, impacts of wind turbines are real, and you’re going to have to deal with it.
“I want quiet and dark nights, not the noise and red flashing lights on top of wind towers,” she said. “We did not choose to live out here to be next to an industrial park.”
Here’s the proposal for Freeborn Wind with sound modeling (See Figure 6 Application, Siting_Initial Filng_Figures1-17_20176-132804-02), and consider, Minnesota standards for setbacks are that it much comply with MPCA noise standard PLUS 500 feet — the 500 feet is not built into this map (click for larger version):
Shadow flicker? Commerce admits in its Comments that there are homes affected beyond what is allowed by county ordinance (See Figure 8 Application, Siting_Initial Filng_Figures1-17_20176-132804-02) (click for larger version):
“I said, ‘Take a look around, hang out as long as you want and see if you want to live here.’ ”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here’s the Bent Tree project – click for larger version: