Thursday, July 29, 2010

"SPINNING WHEELS" blood,sweat & tears

Talk about spinning a story? Should be called the Spin Doctors.
Here are some of the articles from different sources; first off is an AMP-OHIO press release. Then other newspaper accounts of meetings with other cities.

You have to wonder if our own local paper The Newsless-Herald has been invited to the Monday August 2,2009 meeting at 6:00pm at city hall?
Again, here are some of the stories and remember this is NOT the Meigs County travesty.
Something tells me we will hear about "special" lightbulbs and believe it or not... coupons?




Monday, July 26, 2010


Painesville City Schools have announced Mrs. Mary Hadas replacement on the school board
Mr. Jeffery Powers is a twenty year Painesville resident along with twelve years of running the schools DARE program. Mr. Powers is a Geauga County Sheriff Deputy. They presently have a daughter attending Heritage Middle School which is a plus for the board.
Best wishes to Mr. Powell and success on his appointment.

I checked it seems the city did not get the Grant for the bridge over the railroad tracks if this is true I would think the ball to future development is in Mentors hands presently.

Millstone, More questions than answers. One where will Painesville if given the opportunity to purchase the property in question get the money from? Then turn the property over to the State of Ohio?

No news presently on the charter changes.

I'm getting very sensitive in a certain area thinking about what AMP-OHIO has in store for Painesville Power users... Hope they bring some Vermont syrup.


Well, by next Monday we might have some answers to some of our questions.
By the end of the month Painesville will find out if we will get the "shovel ready" grant to build the bridge at the end of the road to nowhere. I'm betting we do.
We will also know the fate of the Millstone property on July 29. I'm betting no one will be happy. The city and the election board will have reviewed the charter change request by the end of the month and I'm left wondering? Were all the I's dotted and T's crossed? Even if you don't agree with Ms. Becks' petition, the lesson here is you can make a change in city government without the approval of the administration and or council. In the past I believe way to much control has been given to the city manager through the vote of council, heck maybe a few more charter changes are in order?
We should also know shortly who will replace Mrs. Hada on the school board, I hope. Maybe it will be a secret like the proposed levy? Still trying to figure out their thinking on that one.
Prairie View Energy will be sending the city a whole lot of paperwork this week also.
Next Monday I believe a Mr. Eric Lloyd from AMP-OHIO will bring along with him the traveling Vermont Energy Investment Corp. {VEIC} to explain this 15 million dollar mitigation court order that AMP and its partners [us] have agreed to.
My only hope is that council president does not limit the residents to 3 minutes to ask all their questions and not be given a chance to ask AMP-OHIO questions after their presentation. This is what happened when the city voted to join in the Meigs County project. Joe Hada and the President of AMP spoke for almost 50 minutes and wouldn't take questions afterwards. My hope is there are some on council that will do their "homework" and be ready with questions.
At the last council meeting as I tried to answer Mr. Fodor, council president Hada mentioned "we will not have any dialogue here" To which I answered him, "that just might be the problem here." DIALOGUE, talk, discussion, conversation, verbal exchange, communication. Is this the reason so few show up to ask questions?
Truth is most people believe if its on the agenda why bother, its going to pass anyway.
As far as the AMP-OHIO Meigs County deal, I believe that news will come in late November or December, sorta like a Christmas present. We will NOT discuss that Monday evening.
In the next few days I will be posting information on what to expect next Monday evening. I'm praying people will start paying attention.

Saturday, July 24, 2010


I learned this morning of the passing of Jim Wetzel. Anyone who attended Harvey in the 50's or 60's knows who this fine man was. An excellent teacher, coach, and all around good person.
Coach Wetzel took over as Harveys head football coach and had to follow the legendary Jack Britt. Mr. Weitzel also was an assistant basketball coach for many years.
To understand what a great influence this man was on so many students as well as athletes was how many stayed in touch with him after his retirement.
He told me once kidding me, how much easier it was training dogs after putting up with some of us in school.
Coach you will be remembered and missed by so many. Thank-you and God Bless.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

"BALL OF CONFUSION" temptatations

I have never been so ashamed of being a resident of Painesville as I am tonight. Some may disagree with me but that doesn't change how I feel. Councilman Flock, who also attended the zoning meeting, said he also is embarrassed. I watched a young couple plead their case about wanting to move into a house on Condon Court; which was purchased from HUD and still listed with that agency as residential property. In defense of the city, the assistant city law director, Jim Lyons, explained to the BZA how they could navigate this couple's problem to at least have the end result of being in their newly purchased home TONIGHT.
The BZA Board wanted no part of this. Although they all proclaimed their desire to help this couple, they voted not to get involved in the situation after it was explained to them how they could resolve the issue. The four members that were there tonight will go home to their comfortable beds, and should get up tomorrow morning and resign their respective positions on the board. If you can't make the tough decisions, don't get involved in city government. First off, I have to ask "out of what mind do these stupid ignorant ordinances escape from?". Has anyone but me noticed all the available commercial property available in the city...and what business is looking at this property on Condon Court which has been a home/residence since it was built?
Instead of a house being inhabited by a young couple with two children, chances are this will become an another neglected, rat-infested property in the city of Pain.
The city council, starting Monday, should amend some of these zoning variances and take these decisions away from the city manager. I don't know the legal reasons why a city can legislate ordinances like they do, and what is the reason behind these ordinances? A good example is my home that has residential property on three sides of it, yet if God forbid, lightening strikes my house tonight and it burns to the ground, I will not be allowed to rebuild on this site because of an ordinance similar to this. When my grandfather built my home, it was in a residential area and if it should ever burn to the ground I will rebuild it if I have to go to the Supreme Court.
We had an opportunity to show people wanting to move to Painesville we would bend over backwards to accomodate them; but four clowns on the BZA wanted to play Matlock. The Zoning Board had a chance to think outside the box and do a fine thing and instead they totally dropped the ball. If they are upset, they know where to find me. I sincerely hope this family finds a community that will embrace them.
A close friend suggested I wait until morning before posting a comment so I would have a chance to cool down....that's not going to happen. We lost four good people tonight that would have been an asset to Painesville.




Wednesday, July 14, 2010

"25 OR 6 TO 4" chicago

Well I received this in an email today. I have to wonder the same people that cause me to get a front end alignment every six months because they can't find the resources to fix our roads. Have recently become electric power energy experts with our money. Seems as though Peabody Energy decided to find investors in this $2 billion dollar project that has grown to over $4 billion dollars and as the article states the investors are at the mercy of Peabody, sound familar?
Well in Meigs county we had exposure of 13 megawatts now in this Prairie Energy is 9.9 megawatts. Just so you know AMP-OHIO got us involved here also. With friends like this who needs a candle?

This Painesville is your investment in Prarie States Energy.


Clean coal dream a costly nightmare

Five Chicago suburbs and dozens of other Midwest towns in power-plant deal now face the prospect of rising electricity bills

Air Pollution By Michael Hawthorne, Tribune reporter

4:18 p.m. CDT, July 12, 2010

Sold on a promise of cheap, clean electricity, dozens of communities in Illinois and eight other Midwest states instead are facing more expensive utility bills after bankrolling a new coal-fired power plant that will be one of the nation's largest sources of climate-change pollution.

As the Prairie State Energy Campus rises out of a Downstate field, its price tag already has more than doubled to $4.4 billion — costs that will largely be borne by municipalities including the suburbs of Naperville, Batavia, Geneva, St. Charles and Winnetka.

The communities are locked into 28-year contracts that will require higher electricity rates to cover the construction overruns, documents and interviews show. Municipal officials told the Tribune they expect costs to soar even higher before the plant begins operating next year.

Then there are the environmental costs of the project, which was designed by St. Louis-based Peabody Energy, the world's largest private-sector coal company, to burn fossil fuel from one of its nearby coal mines.

Though the company and its partners promote the plant as a national model for environmentally friendly "clean coal" technology, Prairie State will be the largest source of carbon dioxide built in the United States in a quarter-century.

Each year, it will churn more than 13 million tons of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, an amount equivalent to adding 2 million cars to the nation's highways. Most U.S. power plants emitting that much climate-change pollution date to the 1960s and '70s.

The pollution also could make the plant more expensive to operate. Climate and energy legislation pending in Congress would slap a price on greenhouse-gas emissions, requiring Prairie State's owners to spend hundreds of millions more a year. Local officials didn't account for those costs when buying into the plant.

It is difficult to estimate what the tens of thousands of households in the five suburbs ultimately will pay for electricity. But even without any carbon-related costs, the Prairie State plant will drive up energy costs for communities that have long prided themselves on keeping rates lower than ComEd and other competitors, according to records obtained by the Tribune under the Freedom of Information Act.

"We don't know yet if we've been sold a bill of goods," said Ray Pawlak, a Geneva alderman who was one of the few Chicago-area officials to vote against the project. "But why should we take a risk like this?"

One indication of how rates might rise is buried in files from the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency, or IMEA, an association of 33 cities that owns a 15 percent stake in the plant. Naperville, St. Charles and Winnetka all buy electricity through the agency.

In documents filed last year for a bond issue, the agency predicted its electric delivery rates to member communities will increase to $63.40 a megawatt hour in 2013, up 30 percent from 2007. Agency officials attribute the rate increase to their investment in the Illinois project and a smaller, less expensive coal plant in Kentucky.

Officials said additional cost overruns for the Prairie State project will force them to borrow more money and boost rates even higher to pay off the debt. What customers pay will be decided by each municipality after local officials tack on expenses to operate and maintain their electric distribution networks.

Doug Krieger, Naperville's city manager, declined to speculate how construction overruns and potential carbon regulations may affect rates. "That's anybody's guess," he said.

"We still feel good about our decision," Krieger said. "IMEA's volume purchasing power, combined with ownership in Prairie State and other generation, will allow us to continue our price advantage over ComEd."

St. Charles officials said their 2007 decision to invest was based on the best information available at the time. "It's still a good deal for us in the long term," said Mayor Donald DeWitte. "There's no way the cost of our power is going up 30 percent."

But elected officials in Geneva are having second thoughts. Along with neighboring Batavia, the suburb belongs to a separate municipal group that owns a 7.6 percent stake in Prairie State. Mayor Kevin Burns told the Tribune he recently ordered his staff to study whether the city can limit paying for the project's skyrocketing costs.

"We thought this would insulate us" from electricity price spikes, Burns said. "Until we have all the figures in, it's premature to say whether that remains the case now."

Officials in Batavia and Winnetka declined to comment. "There's nothing to be said about this now," said Eldon Frydendall, chairman of Batavia's public utilities committee.

When officials decided to invest in the plant and adjacent coal mine, they saw the project as a hedge against volatility in the energy market. Since Prairie State won't be their only source of electricity, they said, cities will be shielded from the full brunt of the project's costs.

"This is just one piece of a larger portfolio," said Phillip "Doc" Mueller, IMEA's vice president for government affairs and management services. "Nobody likes to see costs increase, but this will have a relatively small impact on the system."

Prairie State will be a major source of air pollution, but for the amount of electricity it generates, it will be cleaner than most of the nation's existing coal plants, some of which date to the 1940s and '50s.

Federal Clean Air Act regulations required Peabody to install equipment that will reduce lung-damaging smog and soot, and curb emissions of toxic mercury that makes fish unsafe to eat. Because the mine is next to the plant, the project will avoid greenhouse gases that otherwise would have been emitted by coal trains and trucks.

"Prairie State was a winner a decade ago, it is a winner today and Prairie State will be a winner decades from now," Peabody spokesman Vic Svec wrote in response to questions.

Flanked by a high school band and people waving black and white Peabody banners, company executives unveiled their plans for the Prairie State plant in 2001 on the steps of a 19th century courthouse in Nashville, Ill., about 50 miles southeast of St. Louis.

Peabody said the plant would cost $2 billion and pump millions into a regional economy reeling from a decades-long decline in coal mining jobs. The plant's pair of 800-megawatt turbines would generate enough electricity to power 2.5 million homes. It would be fueled by Illinois coal, create 3,000 construction jobs, add 500 permanent workers and eliminate transportation costs.

The company found an enthusiastic ally in then- Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Eager to court southern Illinois voters, the Chicago Democrat offered the company millions of dollars in tax breaks and other subsidies. He pushed for quick approval of the necessary environmental permits, brushing aside questions about how he could embrace a new coal plant while condemning the Bush administration for failing to limit climate-change pollution.

The decisions by various cities to help pay for Peabody's project garnered little attention at the time, and prompted only a smattering of objections from citizens and environmental activists. Minutes from city council meetings where the project was discussed show Prairie State's municipal backers agreed with coal company representatives who promoted it as a low-cost power provider.

"We believe the Prairie State project is in the long-term strategic interests of Winnetka," village officials wrote in a March 2007 memo urging elected officials to approve the deal.

Yet around the same time cities were signing contracts with Peabody, private investors were starting to abandon dozens of similar coal-plant projects nationwide, scared off by rising construction costs and the likelihood of tough limits on greenhouse gases that would make carbon-rich coal less attractive.

In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases can be regulated as air pollution.

Governors in Florida and Kansas scuttled proposed coal plants, urging utilities to find cleaner ways to meet future energy demands. In a deal with environmental groups, one power company canceled eight of 11 coal-fired plants planned for Texas in favor of investing in wind energy.

Along with aggressive opposition from environmental groups, ballooning costs for trained workers, steel and other materials discouraged dozens of companies that once flirted with new coal plants. Only 31 projects remain in the works nationwide, an abrupt shift from the 150 proposed a few years ago.

By the time construction began on the Prairie State plant in 2007, Peabody had raised the price tag to $2.9 billion. Since then, the estimated cost has risen to $4.4 billion, forcing municipal investors throughout the Midwest to borrow more to cover the overruns.

Peabody ended up with just a 5 percent share of the project, limiting its liability for the additional costs.

To cover its latest share, the Indiana Municipal Electric Agency is seeking approval for $122 million in new debt. State regulators in 2004 approved an $850 million bond issue that was supposed to be enough to finance three power plants. Now more than three-quarters of the cash is going to Prairie State, according to documents filed with Indiana regulators.

Analysts for a state agency that represents Indiana consumers concluded that Prairie State now costs as much as a coal gasification plant, which would have been significantly cleaner and readily adapted to capture carbon dioxide emissions. Peabody had rejected calls to make Prairie State a gasification plant, arguing it would be too expensive.

"(O)ne has to wonder if these projects would be considered viable alternatives today if hundreds of millions had not already been invested," Duane Jasheway, an analyst for the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, testified in February.

Now that they are paying for the Prairie State plant's escalating costs, officials in dozens of small Midwestern towns have been enlisted as lobbyists against climate legislation. For Peabody, they've become potent allies in an aggressive campaign to block the legislation or make it less onerous for coal interests.

Twenty Illinois communities involved in the Prairie State project sent representatives to a February rally in Washington where municipal officials urged members of Congress to back down from a House-approved climate bill.

"It is undeniable that this bill will increase our customers' costs," IMEA president Ronald Earl wrote in a letter urging Illinois lawmakers to "mitigate the worst aspects of this legislation."

The letter doesn't mention the other cost increases associated with the project.

"These cities and towns are captive buyers at the mercy of Peabody and its ever-increasing costs," said Howard Learner, president of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, a group that fought the plant. "People are going to pay higher rates for more pollution. That isn't a winning formula."

Sunday, July 11, 2010

"AUTHORITY SONG" john mellencamp

HERE IS THE RESOLUTION #10-172 to declare necessity to replace the existing 6.0 mill tax levy on the November 2010 ballot. The levy they want to replace was a 6.0 mil levy that was voted on in 1977, it presently generates approximately 1.5 mills.
As I get more facts I will post them on this site.
My only hope is that they don't sell this as not a new tax; or not a tax increase. Off-hand I believe this will make this proposed tax about $170.00 per year on a $100,000 home from the present $45.00 a year...don't hold me to this....this is an estimate.
One resolution I will email the board office about Tuesday:
17.2 #10-191 to approve the amended Addendum to the Superintendent's employment contract. Wonder what this means?

Heard an interesting story about a man that bought a home in Painesville and want s to move here from Perry? Seems its a HUD house and the city will not turn utilities on until it can go in front of the BZA that meets later this week. Until then this family is "homeless."
You have to wonder who runs the PR at city hall? This ordinance is in effect because the home has been unoccupied for over a year in a precinct that is now not zoned for single family homes. Remember a few years ago when the city had to be dragged to let that lady rebuild her home after a fire on Canfield Ave.? The zoning was for light industrial and not single family homes.
I have no idea who this family is, only welcome to the "City of Pain" You are presently "homeless".
People must be clawing over each other to live here I guess, or maybe the city manager wants to sell them a house downtown?
Seems thats where all the focus is.
A note to our leaders... a Joe Pagonakis from Channel 5 wants to do a story. Do you think we could come off positive on this one? Although there must be plenty of fault to go around, in the end this family is presently the only one suffering.

On a related subject Doug Lewis and his building department should check out my favorite home in the north end 458 N.State St. The driveway is filled to the max and now there parking in the parking lot at the building across the street.
Mr. Lewis how many people are living there now?

WELCOME BADA BING PIZZA!!!! Well it didn't take long for some one to occupy the old Angela's, Pizza Pan Pizza store, on State Street. "Bada Bing" has a nice menu, and I'm the guy that can't stand Domino's, or Papa John's, almost any franchise pizza chain. An old Italian man once told me "If a shop won't just sell you a slice,maybe you should just eat the box." You be the judge their fare., along with welcoming them to downtown.

Saturday, July 10, 2010


More AMP-Ohio news. Now after bamboozling local governments they now want $17 million from the king fish[Federal Government.] Wonder if any "D" or "R" asks why not put the plant where there is presently a gas line?
I was told all along "Green" wasn't the way to go?

Pomeroy Daily Sentinel - AMP signs deal to develop solar plant

AMP signs deal to develop solar plant
by Beth Sergent

COLUMBUS — American Municipal Power yesterday announced it has partnered with Standard Energy, an affiliate of Standard Solar, to develop up to 300 megawatts of new solar energy generation capacity.

The agreement between the two companies is for 30 years and is reported to yield one of the largest groups of solar electricity facility developments in the country, according to a joint press release from the two companies. The power generated by this venture will be offered to AMP’s 128 member utilities in six states which include Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, Kentucky and West Virginia.

AMP’s announcement left many in the local community wondering what, if anything, this means to the possible development of AMP’s property in Letart Falls into a natural gas-powered power plant.

Perry Varnadoe, Meigs County economic development director, said AMP developing its energy portfolio to include more solar energy has nothing to do with the company deliberating the development of a natural gas plant in Letart Falls.

“The Meigs project is very much alive and we’re working very hard to bring it to the county,” Varnadoe said. “We continue to have meaningful discussions with AMP about the alternative project (natural gas) in the county and hope to have a decision from them likely late this summer.”

Varnadoe said a rough figure concerning how much a natural gas plant would generate is around 500-700 MW. As for the 300 MW solar development project, Varnadoe was not surprised, saying he knew this was a project AMP had been working on for some time to expand their power portfolio.

AMP owns over 1,000 acres in the Letart Falls area along the Ohio River, making it a prime location for a coal-fired power plant though there is a major hurdle in converting the site into a plant powered by natural gas — namely, no natural gas line.

This spring US Congressman Charlie Wilson reported he spoke to President Barack Obama about funding to place a gas line in the area and later received a phone call from U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu saying the $17 million for the project will be the top appropriation from the U.S. Department of Energy in an upcoming spending bill. Varnadoe said Congress would likely act on this spending bill this fall.

Great! We now know AMP has some "juice" with a legislator or two.

Friday, July 2, 2010

"WE DON'T CARE ANYMORE" phil collins

I wish all of you a fun safe 4th of July.

Now the post, what is wrong with President Obama? Gives a speech Thursday on immigration yet never mentions illegal? We are a nation of immigrants. Yes we are, but at the same time the federal government had and enforced rules concerning immigration along with securing the borders. Something we haven't done for over 20 years now we want to give a pass again up to 20 million illegals who broke the law.
Call your Senators and Congressmen and tell them to relay to this administration that the American people DO NOT want to see a lawsuit against Arizona by the Federal government.
Now on top of all this Obama appoints a Police Chief of a Sanctuary city as head of ICE?
Enjoy your Hot Dogs, Fireworks, Parades and singing Lee Greenwoods song but take the time to read this article.

STEIN: Obama aims pro-illegal lawsuit at Arizona
Federal leviathan will use tax dollars to intimidate states
By Dan Stein

The Obama administration has announced that it intends to sue Arizona over its new law that will allow the state to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The stated goal of the lawsuit is to block implementation of the popular Arizona law before it takes effect on July 29. The unstated - but perhaps more important - objective of the administration is to intimidate other states where similar legislation is being considered.

The Obama administration's position on immigration policy is clear. The administration's goal is a sweeping amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and the virtual dismantling of all meaningful immigration-related enforcement. Not only is immigration enforcement not a priority for the current administration, but it is a threat to their overall political strategy that must be attacked aggressively.

A lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice is no idle threat. This administration is working in concert with amnesty advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union to try to make Arizona's defense as burdensome and costly as possible. Even if Arizona ultimately prevails - as many legal scholars believe the state will - victory is unlikely to come swiftly or cheaply.

For Arizona, which is saddled with an estimated $2.6 billion a year fiscal burden as a result of the federal government's refusal to enforce immigration laws, the cost of mounting a legal defense may be worth it. The problem of illegal immigration has become so acute in Arizona that residents seem ready to stand behind state leaders even as the costs of a legal defense mount.

In filing suit against Arizona, the administration is delivering an only slightly veiled and deeply troubling message to other states: Enforcing immigration laws locally may be right for your state; it may be popular with the voters; you even may prevail in the end. But we would rather fight you - American citizens - than fight illegal immigration. Upping the ante appears to be the latest strategy not only of the Obama administration, but also of others who want to prevent enforcement of immigration laws. In the case of the illegal-alien advocacy network, the threat is explicit, not implicit. "Local legislation is going to end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars," warned Ali Noorani, who runs the National Immigration Forum, an amnesty advocacy group.

Those threats are playing out in Fremont, Neb., where local voters approved an immigration-enforcement ordinance by a 57 percent to 43 percent margin on June 21 over the objections of the mayor and many on the City Council. Many local officials were not against the ballot measure per se but were concerned about the cost of defending the will of the people against the deep pockets of foundation-supported groups that oppose immigration enforcement.

"I do caution everyone that voted for this that there will be a cost to pay," said one opponent on the Fremont City Council after the vote. "It's going to be very costly for the city while this is litigated," warned another council member. Their concerns are not unfounded. No sooner had the votes been counted than the ACLU announced its intent to sue the city. "Our intention is to make sure the law does not go into effect for even one day," said a spokeswoman for the Nebraska ACLU.

Whether in Arizona or Fremont, whether instigated by the Obama administration or advocacy groups, lawsuits over local immigration-enforcement policies appear to have less to do with the pursuit of justice than with raw intimidation for partisan gain. In the process, justice and protection for ordinary citizens harmed by unenforced immigration laws become collateral damage as political interests are pursued through the courts.

In the end, many local governments will have little choice but to endure the expense of a court battle as the costs of providing basic services to illegal aliens escalate. The decision of the Obama administration to bleed the taxpayers of Arizona signals that before Americans can protect themselves against the harmful effects of mass illegal immigration, they will have to fight a very costly battle with their own government.

Dan Stein is president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC

Now enjoy that Hot Dog

Mrs. Mary Hada announced her resignation from the Painesville City School Board.