I believe that Deval has taken some very thoughtful positions on environmental issues, and has won over many (if not most) of the environmentalists here in the western part of the state. Not that he doesn’t have his critics, and for a few, no candidate can be too pure. Still, Mr. Patrick has established himself as THE environmental candidate for many in the environmental crowd.
One potential glitch came when Deval called for “expedited permitting” to allow businesses seeking to locate in the Commonwealth more timely answers to questions about whether they would be granted necessary permits.
Some environment activists noted that this sounded suspiciously like the right-wing calls for riding roughshod over local (and especially environmental) regulations. In response to a question at a local event, Deval quickly quashed that worry by saying that what he meant was that he wanted to fully staff state regulatory agencies so they could move quickly, and that he felt local interests should be involved in the discussions from the get-go. This seems to be another “framing” issue, and Deval made it clear that he is absolutely in favor of respecting local regulations and environmental concerns.
Andy’s post seemed to suffer from a couple of technical problems (like the closing statements appearing in the middle), but it gave an excellent flavor of the event. Here is an excerpt (see the link above for the full monty):
It was unfortunate that Tom Reilly could not be there, I would have liked to hear his perspective on environmental issues. The only loser tonight was Christy Mihos. He was over his head. Most of his answers were I am going to do good for the environment. Absolutely nothing of substance. …
Things havenât quite started. Gabrieli is walking around shaking hands. … Deval just walked in, there was applause and cheering. Not sure that any of the other candidates got that.
Grace Ross has been allowed in to the debate. This is a much bigger forum than the housing forum. I would say there are about 500 people here.
Thanks to Mass Revolution Now for liveblogging the environmental debate
<
p>
The exact question was:
<
p>
Q: Massachusetts ranks 49th on per capita park and recreation spending. We have a 750 million maintenance backlog. What would you do with $10 million? (source Mass Revolution)
<
p>
That was the question posed in the Enviromental Forum to Deval. I think the reporter was looking to what programs would increase
<
p>
Answer (again thanks to Mass Revolution Now)
<
p>
DP: We have capital and maintanence issues. We need more than $10 million. The less we invest on the capital side the more we end up paying on the operating side. I would invest the money and use the income off of it. We donât connect the dots on environmental issues. People come to Mass and spend tourist dollars. They wonât do that if our infrastructure isnât good then we lose money. I commit to $50 million for parks. (source Mass Revolution)
<
p>
—————————-
I’ll say that I saw a few surprised faces at the “use the income off of it” pitch.
<
p>
I’d say Deval needs to re-think that answer. Investing $10 million at 5% gets you $500,000 a year and even at 10% it gets you only $1,000,000. What is $1,000,000 going to do against a $750,000,000 maintenance backlog? What does “I commit to $50,000,000 for parks” mean? He’ll invest $50,000,000 and live off the interest for parks? That then is just 5 times the numbers above or$2.5 million at 5% and $5 million per year at 10% . Doesn’t make sense to me.
<
p>
When there is a need of $750,000,000 even with $50,000,000 expenditure per year being, it will take 15 years to get through it.
<
p>
But if you do as Deval suggested, instead you’re saving it and (investing it at 10%) and living of the income, it goes to 150 years!!!
<
p>
I’d be interested to hear a Deval supporters take on it.
since you responded to my post, I feel an obligation to reply.
<
p>
As I said, I wasn’t there, so I don’t know exactly what was said, and I certainly can’t get inside Mr. Patrick’s mind to know what he meant. Still, I can make a guess.
<
p>
If you’ve been to any of our state parks lately, you’ll probably share my embarrassment and dismay at how they’ve been let go to ruin — well, okay, that may be overstating the case, but the facilities have certainly not been adequately maintained, let alone improved.
<
p>
So, investing in these facilities will undoubtedly contribute to their being used more. Why would people vacation in a run-down campsite, where the picnic tables are broken, for example? We have beautiful natural resources in this state that are no longer as accessible to public use as they once were.
<
p>
By improving campsites, hiking trails, and other facilities, it stands to reason that they will be used more. More visitors translates into more revenues for local businesses, all of which collect taxes for the state. So, investment produces revenue.
<
p>
As to whether your 5% or 10% number is right or wrong, who knows? To me, it’s beside the point. If preserving our natural heritage has to be measured in terms of ROI, it might be a hard case to make. But the enjoyment I get out of hiking a beautiful trail is priceless. Am I willing to have 10 bucks (or something like that) of my state taxes go towards maintaining our state parks? You bet I am.
<
p>
If it takes 15 years to get back to even, let’s get started. 16 years of Republican rule in this state has set us back in a lot of areas. This is just one example.
to a pretty weak question.
<
p>
Disclusure: I’m a Deval supporter, and I was there last night.
<
p>
I think Patrick’s point was that $10,000,000 is a pittance when you consider that it will cost $50,000,000 a year to maintain (which he pledged — no reference or IMO implication of investing that $50M as above poster suggests) and the $750,000,000 in capital improvements necessary. How could he pick a single project and reject the rest, on the spot, without a careful analysis, for an arbitrary amount?
<
p>
So, I think it was a dumb question. Yes, I also think it was a weak answer. What should he have said instead? Either (a) point out that its a foolish question and answer a different question (say, why does he think its a good idea to invest more in parks than Romney et al have been, and how that will improve everyone’s quality of life) or (b) not actually say it was a foolish question, and then go on to talk about investing more tax dolalrs in our parks, etc.
My 2 cents:
<
p>
First of all, the format mostly sucked. I would really like to see the idiot who invented this type of “debate” format–where each politician is asked a different question, leaving the audience members with no basis to compare where they stand on a given issue–put in the stocks and pelted with rotten fruit.
<
p>
Also annoying was that a) the forum was only 1 hour and b) of that hour 25% of the time was utterly wasted on some clueless “Green Rainbow” nobody polling under 1%. (She also had no idea how renewable energy works, actually claiming that large windmills are inherently less effecient than lots of tiny ones–the exact opposite of reality.)
<
p>
I thought Deval did OK, though he got some tough questions (as CG gets a softball about how to promite renewable energy, DP gets asked about some case he litigated for Texaco.), and spoke in general platitudes more than specifics.
<
p>
Chris Gabrielli gave strong answers–I’m still for DP but will be more enthusiastic about helping CG in the general should he win the primary.
<
p>
Christy Mihos gave surprisingly strong, direct answers. For example, saying “Yes.” with no qualifier to a questions of whether he’d support Cape Wind if it were a public, rather than a private, developer.
First of all, Green-Rainbow Party candidate Grace Ross has never polled under 2%, and has polled as high as 4%, which is high enough to re-establish major party status in the Commonwealth. Secondly, wouldn’t you rather have more voices added to the conversation on the environment, or are you content with the corporate parties arguing over which moneyed interests they need to defend the most?
<
p>
What Grace was referring to is that a better model for wind power is if it is generated on an individual basis, house by house, as opposed to giant wind farms that cause controversy due to their environmental (local) impact and so-called “eye pollution.”
<
p>
Would someone like to explain how DP has actually taken steps to help the people he talks to reduce their carbon footprint? Grace Ross is traveling the state in a hybrid vehicle trading energy efficient lightbulbs for a donation. She plants trees at her events. So I would say that Ross is already helping the environment… doesn’t sound very “clueless” to me. Please, let’s maintain some respect here.
Patrick’s travels in a hybrid vehicle as well.
Good for him! He can certainly afford to!
What’s with the attack on Grace Ross as a “clueless nobody” and putting the Green-Rainbow party’s name in quotes? That kind of rude and dismissive thing doesn’t do well to make people take you seriously. If you’re curious, the Green-Rainbow Party’s name comes from the merger a few years ago of the MA Green party and the Boston-based Rainbow Coalition, which emerged as the backbone of Mel King’s mayoral run is the early 1980’s. If you’d like more info on either of those, I’m happy to provide sources, though it does suggest that you should be a bit more cautious about calling people clueless.
<
p>
As for Grace Ross, I wasn’t at the forum, but I’ve heard from numerous sources that she was well-informed and impressed people. Perhaps you didn’t think so–fine. I have to guess that she knows more about environmental issues than Christy Mihos–or does his wealth mean that he’s not a “nobody,” and hence okay?
MFW,
<
p>
Just curious what you thought of this if anything. I know you might not comment on his answer at the forum because you weren’t there, but I was just wondering if you had any insight. Thanks.