Legalectric

I often use this photo, because it represents one simple fact: Sometimes things go off the rails.  Wind siting in Minnesota is one of those things, we have no wind specific siting criteria!

Thursday, December 6th, we’re back at the Commission, where they’ll address Goodhue Wind Truth’s Petition for Reconsideration, or not (and toss it in the circular file).

PUC Notice – Agenda Meeting 12-6-2018

Apparently Invenergy doesn’t like the idea that we’re intervening in their Wisconsin dockets.  I guess after Freeborn Wind, it’s not hard to understand why.

Intervention in Badger Hollow HUGE 300 MW solar project docket — approved by the Administrative Law Judge (Docket 9697-CE-100):

Jinkins Jewell Wendhausen_Intervention

Order_Interventions_11-1-2018

And then the related dockets, the transmission line and the acquisition docket, appropriately known as the BS docket, our intervention, their objection, and our response.  The transmission docket (Docket 9697-CE-101):

Jewell Jinkins_101_Intervention_FINAL

9697-CE-101 Badger Hollow – Response to Request for Intervention (Objection!)

Jewell Jinkins Intervenors_101_Reply to Objection

And the acquisition BS docket (Docket 5-BS-228):

Jewell Jinkins_228_Intervention_CORRECTED

Applicant Response to Motion to Intervene (Objection)

Jewell Jinkins Intervenors_228_Reply to Response

Oh, and the Cardinal Hickory Creek 345 kV Transmission Line!  Docket 5-CE-146.

Jewell Jinkins Intervenors_Cardinal-Hickory Creek_Intervention

To look up any of these dockets, go to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission’s Search site, and  plug in the numbers.

Meanwhile, we’re waiting on the Minnesota Commission meeting on Reconsideration for our Rulemaking Petition, and waiting on two orders, project and transmission, for Freeborn Wind.

And around all these filings, I’ve been to band practice, made wild rice and garbanzo salad, and I hear a Ferndale Market turkey calling…

What a long week it’s been!  WHAT?  Tuesday?!?!  No, really?!?!

Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigns.  YES!!!  But that opens the door for misbehavior of tRump and interference/obstruction of the ongoing investigations.  He was boasting today in that beyond bizarre press conference that “I could fire them all” and “I could stop the investigations” “BUT I DIDN’T” so now, what will happen?  $50 he starts firing a few more folks because “I could stop the investigations.”  Hope he does, because that sounds like obstruction to me!

What a wild ride this is…

Here’s the RICO Complaint filed in federal court, the Southern District of New York.

COMPLAINT_gov.uscourts.nysd.503637.1.0

They’re trying to hold our Grifter-in-Chief accountable.  Read the details — 160 pages of details.

There’s a meeting about the Sturtevant Redo, actually it’s Sturdevant, Putnam, Sanford and Kingman, and it’s coming up soon.  Sturtevant is our street on the other side, up next to be redone, joys of living on a corner.  Alan said a city engineer or ? was hoofing it around the neighborhood handing out notices for the meeting:

11-7 Meeting Notice

WHERE? WHEN?  Here’s the short version:

6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 7

Sunnyside School Gym

1669 Southwood Ave

Red Wing, MN

GREATLY APPRECIATE THE NOTICE!  Somehow we slept through the notice for the West redo, and that was a mistake…

So far, I have two questions, procedural and substantive:

1) Why is this meeting at Sunnyside, the other end of town, instead of downtown, where we could just roll down the hill?  Usually meetings like this are at City Hall, at the Library, at Ignite, so why not this one?  Is there a number of scheduling conflicts?  Makes no sense.

2) The handout suggests that there are two options under consideration for Sturtevant and Putnam, either one side parking with boulevards and trees, or two way with NO TREES?!?! Ummm, NO!

For Sturtevant, that makes sense, it’s one-sided parking now, because the street is just too narrow for parking on both sides.  It’s a pain for our neighbors on the other side, for sure, but that’s how it is, it’s been that way for a long time, and we’ve adjusted. Putnam, though, is another matter.  That street is an inexplicably VERY wide concrete superhighway, and every time I’ve driven on it, there are cars parked on both sides.

It’s obvious that Putnam between West and Pine is as wide was West, a major thoroughfare in town, with upwards of 4,000 cars daily!

On Putnam, West to Pine, from perspective of both available space and resident use considerations, I don’t see any rationale for both-sides parking with NO trees OR one-sided parking with trees.  Are they planning to change the width of Putnam?  There’s no reason to change the status quo of parking on both sides with trees.  DON’T TEAR OUT THOSE TREES!

On Sturtevant, West to Prairia, that’s might be what’s at issue.  It is already one-sided parking with trees from West to Pine, which makes sense, but I don’t recall if it’s no parking on the north side west of Pine… I think I remember cars parked on both sides.  There are also many beautiful big trees there.  I’d think that it should remain as is, either no parking on the north side as it is from West to Pine, or parking on both sides WITH the trees.  Is parking an issue on that block?  For some houses, I think it is.  The ones on the south side seem to have large garages and driveways, on the north side, there are smaller garages, and some gravel driveways.  Restricting street parking may be a problem.

Neighbors, if you have thoughts about this, now’s the time!  Don’t wait, like we did, where we didn’t weigh in on the plans for our other street, West!  Here’s what West looked like:

Sturdevant, Putnam, Sanford and Kingman won’t be as bad, no way will it be anything like West, but oh, my, if you have any ideas, thoughts, comments, critique, NOW IS THE TIME, before it’s set in a blueprint.