VIA plans Bus Rapid Transit station for shoping center Bexar County is destroying

While Bexar County has been plotting the destruction of hundreds of jobs and dozens of businesses at Northwest Center, VIA Metropolitan Transit has been going forward with plans to build a Bus Rapid Transit stop at the shopping center.

Supporters of Bus Rapid Transit claim that such stations inspire nearby development such as shopping centers. In this case the shopping center exists but Bexar County has decided to destroy it in the name of flood control without considering the impact on jobs and the community and without examining flood water retention systems that would allow the center to continue to exist.

Paseo del Arte: Expanding the San Antonio River Walk documentary to air on KLRN Tuesday November 10 and Sunday November 15, 2009

Here's a 30 second promo for the documentary" Paseo del Arte: Expanding the San Antonio River Walk".  It will air Tuesday November 10 at 9 pm and again at 1:00 pm on Sunday November 14, 2009 on KLRN.  Be sure to set your DVR . 

Read Greg Harmon's column on CPS Nuke duplicity in the Current

The San Antonio Current has matured into an important publication. Greg Harmon's web article, Nuke Collider: San Antonio delays $400 million nuke bond vote over Toshiba cost surge is a must read.

One can only hope that Mayor Castro will now take the time to seriously consider his political future and the future of our city. In this press conference he really looks like a man who is trying desperately not to admit that he was taken in by the nuclear cabal at CPS.

Greg reports on the lack of interest on the part of Castro and the city council in the Rifken Report: San Antonio: Leading the Way Forward to the Third Industrial Revolution.  An executive summary of the report was prepared by Solar San Antonio as well.

In the video below be sure to check out CPS's interim managers admission that CPS knew about the cost estimate increase for a week and a half. (The reporter's question and his answer begins about 4 minutes into the video.)  I didn't see a follow-up asking why they hadn't told the mayor, council and citizens about it immediately.  Also check out In the video of the press conference 4:21.  Then watch as the mayor tries to explain that the process has been a good one even though CPS lied to him and he and the city council couldn't be bothered to look at alternatives and citing how good CPS has been in the past to justify trusting CPS now.

October 24, 2009 public workshop to help plan restoration of west side creeks

Remember our San Antonio mayor and city council infamously as "The Nuclear Eleven"

From Eric Lane:
The “Nuclear Eleven” is how this City Council should forever be remembered if they vote “Yes” on the proposed two new nuclear power plants.

It looks like City Council and the Mayor will be making the ultimate decision regarding the two new nuclear power plants proposed for STP.  But that decision will have a much vaster impact.  If they vote “Yes,” this City Council will, as we all know, for the first time in 30 years give the green light to restarting the nuclear power industry in this country. The implication is that they have studied this issue thoroughly and completely and have decided that nuclear power is in the best interests of San Antonio, South Texas, Texas, and, by extension, the United States.

Since there will be no public vote, these eleven folks have taken it upon themselves to make that ultimate decision.  If they vote “No,” other than upsetting a few very large business interests, most people will carry on with very little concern.  CPS will go back to the drawing board and come up with alternative energy scenarios.  And a huge, potential monstrosity will have been averted. 

If City Council votes “Yes,” then they should be held accountable for that vote.  It won’t be good enough to simply disappear into the political ether.  Why?  Because by voting in the affirmative they are guaranteeing San Antonio that we have nothing to worry about by going nuclear.

If there are cost overruns, if water becomes too scarce to run the nuclear plants, if uranium becomes too expensive or we become dependent on foreign uranium, if nuclear waste cannot be protected for the next 100,000 years, if there is an accident, a security breach, radiation leaks or any other number of potential risks, then this City Council and this Mayor should be held accountable by being remembered forever as the “Nuclear Eleven.”  They should not be allowed to hide in the fog of memory. 

It would be the height of irresponsibility to vote in the affirmative if City Council cannot guarantee there will be no problems.  The time to stop a problem is before it starts.  Not after.  If anything goes wrong the “Nuclear Eleven” should and will be held accountable.  From the day of any cost overrun, incident, or problem, their names, their political careers, their legacy will be forever tied to the Council vote on the nuclear power plants.

It won’t matter if the vote is 6 to 5, this City Council and this Mayor will forever be known and remembered as the “Nuclear Eleven.”

Eric Lane

Chair

Consumer Energy Coalition

P.O. Box 100806

San Antonio, TX 78201

Send a message to the mayor and city council: Halt the push for more nuclear power

Dear Mayor Julian Castro and City Council Members,

Please halt the push for nuclear power. San Antonio citizens can’t afford the huge rate hikes that would result. CPS Energy finally announced a cost estimate but provided no back up data on how they arrived at the figure. The $13 billion they announced is way too expensive, even though it’s clearly underestimated when compared with detailed independent analyses. Overruns last time ran six times over budget. Former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford has said that our electric rates could increase 60% or more over the next ten years with more nuclear power.

The $5.2 billion that San Antonio would sink into the nuclear nightmare is mo ney that should instead be spent here in San Antonio, creating local jobs in energy efficiency, and developing clean renewable energy technologies including solar, wind and geothermal power.

Nuclear power creates security risks and radioactive waste can cause cancer and genetic damage, remaining dangerous for thousands to millions of years. Nukes consume vast quantities of precious water. 40,000 gallons of water would be consumed every minute at the South Texas Project if additional reactors are built. We can and must do better. Vote NO on nuclear. Thank you and I look forward to your reply.

Wording courtesy of Local Power / Energia Mia a local coalition opposing the CPS nuclear expansion.

Representative Waxman contrasts numerous hearings on climate change with lack of hearing on major legistation during years of Republican majority.

A pdf of the complete letter including footnotes is available here. This text was taken from the pdf and converted using character recognition. There may be some errors in the transcription.

Dear Ranking Members Barton and Upton:

This letter responds to the April 24, 2009, request from you and your Republican
colleagues on the Committee for additional day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and
Security Act of2009 (ACES). Your request was surprising given the extensive hearings the
Committee has held on energy policy and legislation. Our extensive hearings and the many
accommodations we have provided to the minority far surpass the process you provided
Democrats when you and your Republican predecessors controlled the Committee.

In the past two and a half years, this Committee has held dozens of hearings on energy
and climate change policy that have informed the development ofthe ACES text and built a
detailed factual record regarding the need for action on this matter. These hearings included:

• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Addressing Climate ChangeViews
from Private Sector Panels (Feb. 13,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on a Review ofthe Administration's
Proposalfor the Transportation Sector (Feb. 28, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Carbon Capture and
Sequestration; An Overview (Mar. 6, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: Are Greenhouse
Gas Emissionsfrom Human Activities Contributing to a Warming ofthe Planet? (Mar. 7,
2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, The Environmental Protection Agency's
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request (Mar. 8, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change and Energy
Security: Perspectives from the Automobile Industry (Mar. 14,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: State and Local
Perspectives (Mar. 15,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: Perspectives of
Utility CEOs (Mar. 20, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Perspectives on Climate Change
(Mar. 21,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change - International
Issues, Engaging Developing Countries (Mar. 27, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change - Lessons
Learnedfrom Existing Cap-and-Trade Programs (Mar. 29, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Alternative Transportation Fuels:
An Overview (Apr. 18,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Implementation ofthe EPACT
2005 Loan Guarantee Programs by the Department ofEnergy (Apr. 24, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Achieving - At Long LastAppliance
Efficiency Standards (May 1, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Facilitating the Transition to a
Smart Electric Grid (May 3, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Alternative Fuels: Current Status,
Proposals for New Standards, and Related Infrastructure Issues (May 8, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Legislative Hearing on Discussion
Drafts concerning Energy Efficiency, Smart Electricity Grid, Energy Policy Act of2005
Title XVII Loan Guarantees, and Standby Loansfor Coal-to-Liquids Projects (May 24,
2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Legislative Hearing on Discussion
Draft Concerning Alternative Fuels, Infrastructure, and Vehicles (June 7, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Administration Perspectives on
United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali (Jan. 17,2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: Competitiveness
Concerns and Prospects for Engaging Developing Countries (Mar. 5, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Strengths and Weaknesses of
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Using Existing Clean Air Act Authorities (Apr.
10,2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on the Renewable Fuels Standard:
Issues, Implementation, and Opportunities (May 6, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Legislative Proposals to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Overview (June 19,2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: Costs of
Inaction (June 26, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on HR. 6258, the Carbon Capture
and Storage Early Deployment Act (July 10, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Benefits ofImproved
Building Energy Efficiency (July 17, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, Carbon Sequestration: Risks,
Opportunities, and Protection ofDrinking Water (July 24,2008);
• Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership
(Jan. 15,2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on the Climate Crisis: National
Security, Economic, and Public Health Threats (Feb. 12,2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Energy Efficiency:
Complementary Policies for Climate Legislation (Feb. 24, 2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Renewable Energy:
Complementary Policies for Climate Legislation (Feb. 26, 2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on the Role ofOffsets in Climate
Legislation (Mar. 5, 2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on the Future ofCoal Under
Climate Legislation (Mar. 10, 2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Consumer Protection
Provisions in Climate Legislation (Mar. 12,2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Competitiveness and Climate
Policy: Avoiding Leakage ofJobs and Emissions (Mar. 18, 2009); and
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Preparingfor Climate
Change: Adaptation Policies and Programs (Mar. 25,2009).

In addition, the Committee held four days of legislative hearings from April 21 to 24,
2009, specifically on the draft ACES text. We also released the draft text three weeks in advance
of these legislative hearings to ensure that both majority and minority Committee members, as
well as outside experts, had substantial time to review the text prior to these legislative hearings.

In total, the Committee has held over 40 days of hearings on energy and climate change
policy over the past two Congresses. During these hearings, over 300 witnesses testified,
including 130 in this year alone. These hearings have included testimony from numerous
minority witnesses and have involved accommodations for the minority that are not required
under House or Committee rules. For example, 14 witnesses requested by the minority testified
in the legislative hearings on ACES from April 22 to 24, 2009. On both April 22 and 24, the
Committee scheduled new panels during the middle of the day to accommodate last-minute
minority witness requests, pushing majority witness panels into the evening hours on those days.

Our approach to this legislation stands in stark contrast to the approach you and your
Republican predecessors adopted in previous Congresses on legislation that affected millions of
Americans and involved expenditure of substantial taxpayer dollars. Consider these examples:

• The "Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003" (H.R. 2473): In
the 108th Congress, this Committee considered H.R. 2473, which provided for a new
trillion dollar prescription drug coverage program under Medicare. Despite the sweeping
policy and cost consequences of this measure, the Committee held no public hearings on
the legislation. There was no subcommittee markup. Democrats did not receive a copy
ofthe legislation until late Friday afternoon before a Tuesday markup.
• The "Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005" (H.R. 3893): In the 109th
Congress, the Committee considered H.R. 3893, which codified controversial Clean Air
Act "new source review" regulations of the Bush Administration and provided for the
expenditure ofhundreds of millions of dollars for programs relating to the supply and use
ofpetroleum and other energy products. The Committee held no legislative hearings on
the legislation and no subcommittee markup. Instead, the bill was released on a Friday
night at 10:00 p.m., allowing only two business days for its evaluation before a full
Committee markup the following Wednesday.2
• The "National Uniformity for Food Act of2005" (H.R. 4167): In the 1o9th Congress,
the Committee considered H.R. 4167, which preempted virtually every state and local
law that protected consumers from contaminated foods. The Committee held no hearings
on the legislation and no subcommittee markup.3
• The "Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act" (H.R. 5254): In the 109th Congress, the
House considered H.R. 5254, a bill that directed the President to designate no less than
three closed military installations as suitable for refinery construction and required states
to meet a federal schedule for issuing refinery construction permits. H.R. 5254 was put
on the House suspension calendar, a procedure normally reserved for non-controversial
bills, and brought up on the House floor just one day after its May 2, 2006, introduction,
without the benefit of any legislative hearings or markup by the Committee.4 One month
later, still without having held any legislative hearings or markup on this bill, the
Committee brought H.R. 5254 back to the House floor under a rule that permitted no
amendments.5

• The "Energy Policy Act of 2002" (H.R. 4): In the 107th Congress, Rep. Barton
introduced H.R. 3406, which would have made controversial changes to federal laws
governing the electricity sector. This bill was never marked up or reported out of
subcommittee or the full Committee due to its lack of support among Committee
members, and these provisions were not included in the broad energy policy bill, H.R. 4,
that was considered by the House. Nevertheless, when H.R. 4 went to conference, then Committee Chairman Tauzin and Rep. Barton announced that the House would take H.R.
3406 into the conference as the House position.6

These are just a few of many examples ofhow Republicans abdicated regular order when
they controlled this Committee. This track record makes it particularly difficult to see any
reasonable basis for Committee Republican complaints about the thorough, fair, and deliberate
process we are employing to consider the ACES measure. .

Nevertheless, we want to continue to take into consideration issues raised by all members
ofthe Committee as we proceed with this measure. We therefore will provide for an additional
day of Committee hearings on the ACES draft on Friday, May 1,2009.
Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce

Martinez Creek restoration subcommittee to meet Monday May 4 at Bihl Haus

One of the great things happening in our area is the restoration and improvement of the westside creeks: Martinez, Alazán, Apache and San Pedro.

The Martinez Creek subcommittee will meet at Monday, May 4 at 6:30 PM at Bihl Haus Arts, 2803 Fredericksburg Rd.

The Alazán Creek subcommittee meets Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 6:00 p.m at the
Crockett Elementary Library, 2215 Morales Street.

The whole Oversight Committee meets Tuesday, May 12, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the offices of the
San Antonio River Authority, 100 E. Guenther.

The San Pedro Creek subcommittee meets Wednesday, May 13, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at UTSA Downtown in Louis Kahn room- rm 3.340 of the Monterrey Building, 301 S. Frio Street.

The Apache Creek subcommittee meets Thursday, May 14, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at El Progreso Community Center, 1306 Guadalupe Street.

The public is invited to attend these meetings to learn more about the projects and to get involved in the process of planning the changes that will improve our quality of life for many generations to come .

We can urge congress to act to allow young people like Jefferson valedictorian Benita Veliz to become citizens.

Today many San Antonians learned for the first time from the Express News that a former Jefferson High valedictorian and graduate of St. Mary's University, Benita Veliz was in danger of being deported. Though she has succeeded in the US, she was brought here at the age of six without gaining admission from the INS. She had succeeded despite the many burdens that have been put upon such immigrants in the past decades.

Following a routine traffic stop, her immigration status was revealed and now she faces deportation. One hope for her and thousands of other young men and women is the Dream Act.

The Dream Act ‒ introduced by Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois and Richard Lugar of Indiana and Rep. Howard Berman of California and Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida‒ can solve this growing problem. Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, undocumented young people could be eligible for a conditional path to citizenship in exchange for a mandatory two years in higher education or military service. Undocumented young people must also demonstrate good moral character to be eligible for and stay in conditional residency. At the end of the long process, the young person can have the chance to become an American citizen.

According to the Dream Portal, a website devoted to encouraging passage of the act, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson is undecided on the act while Senator John Cornyn is opposed to it. If you support the passage of this act please contact our senators. According to the portal 53 senators are now in favor of the act. They believe that 60 votes are needed in order to overcome the now routine tactic of the filibuster.

If you are on Facebook you may also want to take a look at the "Don't Deport Benita Veliz" group.

Change is on the way to Martinez Creek and you can help!

Within living memory in the river city of San Antonio, most of our creeks and rivers have been little more than drainage ditches with names.

Dating back to the vision of Mayor Howard Peak, we've seen work on Leon Creek, the Medina River, the San Antonio River and Salado creek to remake them into linear parks and green spaces. Now, the San Antonio River Authority has brought that process to the creeks of the westside: Apache, Alazan, Martinez and the downtown portion of San Pedro Creek (which those knowledgeable in San Antonio history may recall was in the west or Mexican end of downtown in the days of segregation.)

At Earth Day in Woodlawn Lake Park, Saturday April 18 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. in the Woodlawn Lake Gymnasium ,SARA will be hosting an Imagination Station where we will be encouraged to envision the future of the creek. We will be given the chance to imagine parks, hike trails, bike trails and recreational facilities.

Woodlawn Lake Community Association creates Facebook Group

The Woodlawn Lake Community Association now has its own Facebook Group. The group is a great way to keep up with events and news associated with the association, the lake and the surrounding areas.

For instance you'll find this notice on their page:

A public meeting will be held Tuesday March 31, 2009 at 6:30 pm at the Salvation Army Peacock Center at 2810 W Ashby Place, Building 2 to discuss the City of San Antonio's Woodlawn Lake Park Master Plan. District 7 City Councilman Justin Rodriguez and COSA staff will review exhibits prepared by the design consultants.

You don't have to have a Facebook account to view the page or to join the association but you do need to join Facebook to join the Facebook group.