I noticed in Sunday's Aiken Standard that our State Legislature passed a law in 2007 which mandates that all costs of building the two nuclear power plants in South Carolina be paid by the ratepayers (read customers). Neither the company nor the stockholders of the company will be at risk. They will, of course, continue to reap a guaranteed profit from all of their operations regardless of the costs. Wouldn't it be nice if they had to reimburse the customers for excessive costs or all costs if they fail to complete the construction of the power plants! I wonder how the Aiken delegation voted on this law?
I support the construction of nuclear plants as part of the solution to our energy problems; I just think the companies building the sites should bear some of the risk.
THE AIKEN JOURNAL-Covering Politics in Aiken, South Carolina,the Nation and sometimes the World.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
GVW INCORPORATION
The GVW referendum is tentatively scheduled for August 26th and citizens residing within the proposed borders which encompass more than 23 square miles must be registered to vote no later than July 25th in order to make their voices heard. Reportedly there have been several hundred new registrations since the petition to incorporate was submitted last November. The total number of citizens eligible to vote may reach 4400. If the turnout is less than 50% it seems likely that the organizers will prevail since they had almost 900 valid signatures on their petition and would need just a few hundred more to win.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – There was not enough time to make any progress on aligning Board and Commission appointments with the Council member’s term of office. We needed more than the allowed thirty minutes to thoroughly discuss the issue. Some of the comments made by Council members suggest that consensus on this issue may be difficult to achieve. I remain optimistic that an agreement is possible. We will re-visit this issue probably in September. Keep in mind that the primary purpose of this change is to ensure that newly elected City Council members are able to make their appointments on the January 1st date after their election.
SMOKING ORDINANCE – In a very difficult and emotional discussion, City Council passed the Smoking Ordinance. Voting in favor of the Ordinance was Mayor Fred Cavanaugh, Councilwoman Beverly Clyburn, Councilwoman Lessie Price, and me. Voting not to impose a smoking ban were Councilman Dick Smith, Councilwoman Jane Vaughters, and Councilman Don Wells. We appreciate the support and advice from constituents on both sides of the issue.
NEW WALGREENS - The new Walgreens project was approved by a five to two vote. Both Dick Smith and I had serious traffic concerns which we hope will be resolved before the new facility is completed. Specifically, as approved, it will be possible to make a left turn from Richland Ave into the new Walgreens and a left turn onto Richland when leaving Walgreen's. Dick and I feel that these turns are dangerous and should not be allowed so near a major intersection in the City (University Ave/Richland Ave).
SMOKING ORDINANCE – In a very difficult and emotional discussion, City Council passed the Smoking Ordinance. Voting in favor of the Ordinance was Mayor Fred Cavanaugh, Councilwoman Beverly Clyburn, Councilwoman Lessie Price, and me. Voting not to impose a smoking ban were Councilman Dick Smith, Councilwoman Jane Vaughters, and Councilman Don Wells. We appreciate the support and advice from constituents on both sides of the issue.
NEW WALGREENS - The new Walgreens project was approved by a five to two vote. Both Dick Smith and I had serious traffic concerns which we hope will be resolved before the new facility is completed. Specifically, as approved, it will be possible to make a left turn from Richland Ave into the new Walgreens and a left turn onto Richland when leaving Walgreen's. Dick and I feel that these turns are dangerous and should not be allowed so near a major intersection in the City (University Ave/Richland Ave).
Monday, July 14, 2008
AIKEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
From Dick Dewar
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – Tonight at 6:30 PM we will have a work session to discuss revamping all boards, commissions, and committee appointments to coincide with City Council elections. At the present time and due to the fact that I was elected last November, I am the only member of the City Council immediately affected with the current system. Of ten or eleven appointments each Councilmember has (some have an appointment to the Aiken Housing Authority; I do not), I have only made five appointments. Two of those appointments were due to resignations.
However, the primary purpose of this change is to ensure that newly elected City Council members are able to make their appointments on the January 1st date after their election. We will also consider whether appointments should be for two or four years or a combination. State Law, for example, requires that the Design Review Board be for a term of between three and five years.
SMOKING ORDINANCE - Tonight we consider the Smoking Ordinance for the second (and probably last) reading. I expect requests to exempt bars and special club facilities at which smoking is permitted. There has been a major effort on the part of many to develop a consistent ordinance between North Augusta, the County of Aiken, and the City of Aiken. While we have not met as a group, we have exchanged information and I hope, through that process, to be as consistent as possible with a smoking ordinance. I know there are some of you who feel that we are infringing on a person’s right to smoke and others who feel that smoking is harmful to the workplace and should be controlled or prohibited. Tonight may be your last chance to voice your concerns and I hope you take the time to do so.
NEW WALGREENS – First, there is no limit on the number of drugstores/pharmacies that are permitted in the City of Aiken. That said, Walgreens is seeking to build a second store near the corner of Richland Ave and University Parkway. The major concerns at this second reading are traffic and storm water detention. The developer wants to gain access to the store from Pepper Hill Way which borders the property, a “right-in/right-out entrance/exit on Richland Ave, and a new curb cut which would replace an existing curb cut near the Buffet Restaurant on University Ave. The entrance on Richland would only allow access by a right turn into the site and exit by a right turn onto Richland Ave. I still have some concerns about the widening of Pepper Hill Way and the granting of waivers to our Access Management Ordinance passed last November. The remaining issue is that of storm water drainage which we were not able to discuss in sufficient detail at the first reading.
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD – We discussed this issue at the last Council meeting and have determined that the process of developing a Residential Care Facility in the City must begin with the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). If that is done, we can consider if the applicant complies with City zoning requirements.
CITY HALL SPACE – At our last meeting, we approved the purchase of land immediately adjacent to City Hall. The cost is $930,851.06 which would be payable in four installments. While the size of the lot is small (0.2117 acres), it will permit the addition of the needed space to accommodate future needs. It may be several years before building commences, but the purchase will ensure that City Hall remains in downtown Aiken.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – Tonight at 6:30 PM we will have a work session to discuss revamping all boards, commissions, and committee appointments to coincide with City Council elections. At the present time and due to the fact that I was elected last November, I am the only member of the City Council immediately affected with the current system. Of ten or eleven appointments each Councilmember has (some have an appointment to the Aiken Housing Authority; I do not), I have only made five appointments. Two of those appointments were due to resignations.
However, the primary purpose of this change is to ensure that newly elected City Council members are able to make their appointments on the January 1st date after their election. We will also consider whether appointments should be for two or four years or a combination. State Law, for example, requires that the Design Review Board be for a term of between three and five years.
SMOKING ORDINANCE - Tonight we consider the Smoking Ordinance for the second (and probably last) reading. I expect requests to exempt bars and special club facilities at which smoking is permitted. There has been a major effort on the part of many to develop a consistent ordinance between North Augusta, the County of Aiken, and the City of Aiken. While we have not met as a group, we have exchanged information and I hope, through that process, to be as consistent as possible with a smoking ordinance. I know there are some of you who feel that we are infringing on a person’s right to smoke and others who feel that smoking is harmful to the workplace and should be controlled or prohibited. Tonight may be your last chance to voice your concerns and I hope you take the time to do so.
NEW WALGREENS – First, there is no limit on the number of drugstores/pharmacies that are permitted in the City of Aiken. That said, Walgreens is seeking to build a second store near the corner of Richland Ave and University Parkway. The major concerns at this second reading are traffic and storm water detention. The developer wants to gain access to the store from Pepper Hill Way which borders the property, a “right-in/right-out entrance/exit on Richland Ave, and a new curb cut which would replace an existing curb cut near the Buffet Restaurant on University Ave. The entrance on Richland would only allow access by a right turn into the site and exit by a right turn onto Richland Ave. I still have some concerns about the widening of Pepper Hill Way and the granting of waivers to our Access Management Ordinance passed last November. The remaining issue is that of storm water drainage which we were not able to discuss in sufficient detail at the first reading.
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD – We discussed this issue at the last Council meeting and have determined that the process of developing a Residential Care Facility in the City must begin with the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). If that is done, we can consider if the applicant complies with City zoning requirements.
CITY HALL SPACE – At our last meeting, we approved the purchase of land immediately adjacent to City Hall. The cost is $930,851.06 which would be payable in four installments. While the size of the lot is small (0.2117 acres), it will permit the addition of the needed space to accommodate future needs. It may be several years before building commences, but the purchase will ensure that City Hall remains in downtown Aiken.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
WOUNDED WARRIORS NEED HELP
FROM THE AUGUSTA CHRONICLE
Fighting For War's Wounded
Augusta lacks advocates to help veterans with benefits
By Johnny Edwards Staff Writer
Sunday, July 13, 2008
storyTools();
The passing of time has only made the pain worse, says Iraq war veteran Daniel Smith.
Iraq war veteran Daniel Smith, of Graniteville, said he found it hard not only to ask for help when he returned home, but to find it. The Wounded Warrior program aims to help veterans get benefits. For full story follow this link:http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/071308/met_465535.shtml
Fighting For War's Wounded
Augusta lacks advocates to help veterans with benefits
By Johnny Edwards Staff Writer
Sunday, July 13, 2008
storyTools();
The passing of time has only made the pain worse, says Iraq war veteran Daniel Smith.
Iraq war veteran Daniel Smith, of Graniteville, said he found it hard not only to ask for help when he returned home, but to find it. The Wounded Warrior program aims to help veterans get benefits. For full story follow this link:http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/071308/met_465535.shtml
Thursday, July 10, 2008
AUGUSTA CHRONICLE EDITORIAL ON "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE'
JULY 7, 2008
If you don't subscribe to the Augusta Chronicle the following editorial published today might make you consider doing so. The editorial also appears on THE AUGUSTA CHRONICLE website as a blog and the 124 COMMENTS are, with a few exceptions, well worth reading. The so-called fairness doctrine is scary we must oppose it with all our might. We do not need thought police!
Arrest the speech police
Return to the Fairness Doctrine has chilling implications
Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff
Monday, July 07, 2008
125 comments
Today's quiz: Can you name the country whose new leaders want the government to impose strict government controls on broadcast speech?
Nope. Not Venezuela. Not Cuba. Not even Putin's Russia.
It's the country formerly known as the United States of America.
Some Democrats, who now control Congress and are pining for the White House, want to bring back the Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine," in which the federal government monitors all broadcast speech in the name of "fairness" and decides if stations need to have more opposing viewpoints heard.
Shouldn't the free market decide that?
And has the free market ever done a better job of it?
The Fairness Doctrine was in force from 1949 until 1987, when it was deemed outdated due to the proliferation of consumer choices and, yes, different viewpoints.
The problem is, most of the viewpoints that have flourished since then have been conservative ones. With the explosion of talk radio, the Internet and cable news, conservative views have seen expression as never before -- certainly more so than when three liberal network news operations and the New York Times set the nation's news and analysis tempo.
So, some liberals want the government to step in and demand that successful conservative broadcasts are counterbalanced by an equal amount of liberal views -- because they can't achieve that balance competing on a level playing field.
Again, why not let listeners decide that? Isn't that what they do in a free country?
It is more than a little frightening that such figures as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi support the reimposition of government manipulation of the airwaves under the Fairness Doctrine. She admitted her support in a recent interview. And she refuses to allow a floor vote on a bill prohibiting the doctrine from coming back.
Democratic nominee-to-be Barack Obama has said he "doesn't support" the Fairness Doctrine. But that's different from opposing it. It's possible the tepid "doesn't support it" could change or simply yield under pressure from his Democratic colleagues. And, as columnist and Phoenix radio talk show host Austin Hill notes, Obama once was a huge proponent of spending limits under public financing of presidential campaigns -- until he found he could raise a lot of money and spend it with no limits.
Might he also change his position on the Fairness Doctrine?
Back in broadcasting's infancy, an argument could be made that the limited number of broadcast outlets required some government watchdogging. Now, however, a return to the Fairness Doctrine would be an attempt not to allow more speech, but to rein it in.
That should scare all of us, regardless of our political views.
From the Monday, July 07, 2008 edition of the Augusta Chronicle showYahooAds();
advertisement
If you don't subscribe to the Augusta Chronicle the following editorial published today might make you consider doing so. The editorial also appears on THE AUGUSTA CHRONICLE website as a blog and the 124 COMMENTS are, with a few exceptions, well worth reading. The so-called fairness doctrine is scary we must oppose it with all our might. We do not need thought police!
Arrest the speech police
Return to the Fairness Doctrine has chilling implications
Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff
Monday, July 07, 2008
125 comments
Today's quiz: Can you name the country whose new leaders want the government to impose strict government controls on broadcast speech?
Nope. Not Venezuela. Not Cuba. Not even Putin's Russia.
It's the country formerly known as the United States of America.
Some Democrats, who now control Congress and are pining for the White House, want to bring back the Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine," in which the federal government monitors all broadcast speech in the name of "fairness" and decides if stations need to have more opposing viewpoints heard.
Shouldn't the free market decide that?
And has the free market ever done a better job of it?
The Fairness Doctrine was in force from 1949 until 1987, when it was deemed outdated due to the proliferation of consumer choices and, yes, different viewpoints.
The problem is, most of the viewpoints that have flourished since then have been conservative ones. With the explosion of talk radio, the Internet and cable news, conservative views have seen expression as never before -- certainly more so than when three liberal network news operations and the New York Times set the nation's news and analysis tempo.
So, some liberals want the government to step in and demand that successful conservative broadcasts are counterbalanced by an equal amount of liberal views -- because they can't achieve that balance competing on a level playing field.
Again, why not let listeners decide that? Isn't that what they do in a free country?
It is more than a little frightening that such figures as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi support the reimposition of government manipulation of the airwaves under the Fairness Doctrine. She admitted her support in a recent interview. And she refuses to allow a floor vote on a bill prohibiting the doctrine from coming back.
Democratic nominee-to-be Barack Obama has said he "doesn't support" the Fairness Doctrine. But that's different from opposing it. It's possible the tepid "doesn't support it" could change or simply yield under pressure from his Democratic colleagues. And, as columnist and Phoenix radio talk show host Austin Hill notes, Obama once was a huge proponent of spending limits under public financing of presidential campaigns -- until he found he could raise a lot of money and spend it with no limits.
Might he also change his position on the Fairness Doctrine?
Back in broadcasting's infancy, an argument could be made that the limited number of broadcast outlets required some government watchdogging. Now, however, a return to the Fairness Doctrine would be an attempt not to allow more speech, but to rein it in.
That should scare all of us, regardless of our political views.
From the Monday, July 07, 2008 edition of the Augusta Chronicle showYahooAds();
advertisement
AIKEN STANDARD STRIKES AGAIN
JULY 8, 2008
AIKEN STANDARD STRIKES AGAIN- While explaining his veto of the DNA bill Governor Sanford made the following points:
“There were some other good provisions in the bill that I would like to see passed at some point. I favor prisoners having the right to DNA testing to prove their innocence. There was also a condition that would have allowed family members of missing persons to have their DNA tested against unidentified remains.”
In light of his comments and the main concern of the web author I cannot understand why the Aiken Standard felt the following web posting should be on the front page of its paper today unless it suited their own "political" concerns.
AIKEN STANDARD STRIKES AGAIN- While explaining his veto of the DNA bill Governor Sanford made the following points:
“There were some other good provisions in the bill that I would like to see passed at some point. I favor prisoners having the right to DNA testing to prove their innocence. There was also a condition that would have allowed family members of missing persons to have their DNA tested against unidentified remains.”
In light of his comments and the main concern of the web author I cannot understand why the Aiken Standard felt the following web posting should be on the front page of its paper today unless it suited their own "political" concerns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)