We see that US EPA in concealed from public deals with State and Local government sacrificed the Citizens health for interests of government(s). This should not have ever happened. The solution: for US EPA release all Community hazards information as soon as discovered … forget State and Local emergency management because they are unqualified to protect Citizens from and hazards if the disclosure in not in the government’s interest.
State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) Helps How?
I have always had questions about how a SEPA can protect the environment by its results when the detailed scientific studies, data, and articles are not published first before public input permitted by the SEPA process.
Others have questioned the SEPA process also; for example:
Where “[P]rocess does not mandate environmentally-friendly decisions, but is intended to guarantee that the government will act in light of environmental consequences.” See, The Prima Facie Burden and the Vanishing SEPA Threshold: Washington’s Emerging Preference for Efficiency over Accuracy (at 404), http://blogs.gonzaga.edu/gulawreview/files/2011/02/Hirokawa.pdf (last visited Mar 3, 2016);
The people doing the SEPA EIS review might just have their own results thinking:
2. Serfdom: Isolated decision making in the urban planning context produces a phenomenon that Professor Robin Molloy of Syracuse University calls “serfdom,” in which legal outcomes depend upon personal status in the political sphere. In such a legal environment, what people are allowed to do depends upon who they know, on whether their projects seem politically advantageous, on whether they fit a planner’s vision for a particular urban landscape, or on whether they benefit a city’s financial interests. Public entrepreneurialism, the participation of the public purse in urban development, is part of this phenomenon. See, Abstraction, Precedent, and Articulate Consistency: Making Environmental Decisions California Western Law Review (Vol. 34) (at 3, p. 429), http://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol34/iss2/11 (last visited Mar 3, 2016)
Actual injury, the question is: who pays who and how much?
That has caused me to make a comment
My Methanol Facility comment submitted to Tacoma EIS is this:
To: Tacoma.methanol.sepa@cityoftacoma.org
Friday, February 5, 2016
EIS Scoping Comments: Tacoma Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility (TMMEF): “Proposed Methanol Plant”: SEPA Lead Agency: City of Tacoma (File No. SEPA2015-40000260025).
My comment applies to environment after actual harm caused by—Methanol facility: “Exploration of financial liability beyond the amounts typically held by the plant operators” See, METHANOL EIS DRAFT SCOPING REPORT 02052016.PDF 14, http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/Methanol%20Plant/Methanol%20EIS%20Draft%20Scoping%20Report%2002052016.pdf (last visited Feb 6, 2016). Missing is the liability to each person within the Tacoma Community related to making them whole again as a result of harm caused by this Tacoma Methanol Facility?
I find absent from Tacoma Community impact analysis is: Owners and operators of the Tacoma natural gas (methane)-to-methanol facility fail to explain their actual limits-of-financial liability to Community, people, and persons harmed or injured caused by operation of methanol facility?
My comment: Included within the Draft EIS(s) and all Final FEIS should be a statement describing actual Methanol Facility liability limitation(s) or coverage benefit(s); as a result, for any actual harm or injury caused to Tacoma Community—people, real property, property, lives, and health. Also a statement that, liability coverage is guaranteed to Community persons for all current and all future years as Methanol Facility continues processing natural gas (methane).
John E Sherman
4601 N 26th St
Tacoma WA 98407-4605 USA
Email: jmjsherman@gmail.com http://johnesherman.com
////
It’s funny, just how: thinking one thought; as a result, causes one to think of another thought: Just like this liability of actual injury and who is compensated how much to make the damaged person or property whole again. Didn’t see that explained in the Draft Tacoma EIS related to the Methanol Facility just yet. It’s important when there exists potential hazards operating within the Tacoma Community.
Intellectual property seems exempt from gap discussions, why?
Hence, the U.S. Policies should consider the wealth gap compared to U.S. Society values and the intellectual property (“IP”) rights. Is it good to gift people money under IP right while wealth gaps might just be getting larger?
Balanced against, IP rule rights. e.g.,
Patent rights;
Intellectual Property rights; and
Protectionism rights (U.S. and International).
Let’s start the review discussion
Whether, IP rights trump the U.S. Society wealth gap conditions we are aware of today, and most-likely with become larger tomorrow as money is extracted from wage earning U.S. Citizens to pay for the IP’s right to money absent work.
Bhopal, we disremember multinationals community interests
Patel, N. A., Gandhi’s Prophecy: Corporate Violence and A Mindful Law for Bhopal, (2015) online at http://works.bepress.com/nehal_patel/10/ (visited Jan. 14, 2016).
I agree, Tacoma natural gas industrial plant(s) are a fitting remembrance: what can go wrong when it goes wrong: absent community right-to-know and hazards present planning and stakeholders (citizens) overview involvement. All community right-to-know: corporation activities not sacrifice local community safety, lives, resources, and environment.
Solves what? How? Applied to who?The solution is achieved when what happens? As fixed; the question is: do the specific taxes, lists, fees, rules, and licenses (collectively, “obeyers”) get removed?
Applying obeyers upon people; as a result, do we really have improved people actions tomorrow. Don’t think so. I have not recognized the obeyers in action creating the desired society (people interactions) improvements yet, as we continue to add more obeyers rules everywhere.1,2,3,4,5
We have doctor rules,5 police rules,4 government’s people rules and the fees or taxes that solve the problem.1,2,3
I think this
People, the average person, absent obeyers; therefore, will revert to what is right and just for people when given the correct and information. We don’t need obeyers that create new rules and collect money (not for the common good tomorrow) today. Ever hear the government say “we just don’t have a solution, so you must solve this problem yourselves”.
Prolific rules3 and more everyday but nobody, except the writer and writer’s employer, might read the written words?
A rule is written absent people’s ideas how a problems solution might already exist—for example, legislatures and judicial common law new law sources written. Therefore (the solution action plan) find somebody somewhere to join the words necessary making new rulemaking script.
I recalled, from reading, just how rules and regulations formation has evolved within the United State; since Congress and states had adopted a change from rules of common law courts enacted or decided to also include legislature(s) enacted statutes.1
Comes the written rule reading overload
Presently with court rules and legislator rule written approved and becoming something for someone somewhere to obey, follow, or prohibit; it follows, just a few examples of rules so complex that the average reader of words is confounded:
IRS Tax Code;
Affordable Care Act;
Cybersecity acts2; and
Patriot Act; i.e. a few.
New written rulemaking why?
A rule is written when people don’t have any idea what to do for a problems solution. Therefore find somebody somewhere to join the words necessary making the rulemaking script.
Does a pubic benefit exist?
New rule. No real public benefit for tomorrow. Also, just thinking a-bit, the written rules are so complex, so many words, so many meaning, and lacking insufficient editors to alter existing adopted rules; as a result, rules written, rules adopted, rules enforcement, and rules changed to align with tomorrows society norms and standards and civilized society stand little- to no-chance of every being reconsidered. Too bad. Stare decisis1 used by courts past might have been the real solution to the overwhelming words written as rules today for tomorrow enforcement.
The rule making mistake, just might have been, when the Congress decided to expand who can create and enact rules including Congress.
(1) As a reminder to do or remember something;
(2) a listing of what I like or dislike; or
(3) a list made by others that qualifies or un-qualifies a person where name is placed upon the list.
Lists created for personal use are good but not for government use where public access discrimination follows a name-on-list blindly
As a result:
Any listing of any person by name upon any list that has not been created by any court of law remedy (within public view) and has prohibitory result to the named person, absent persons right to argument in open court.
In other words:
Lists, absent rule’s purpose, provides many problem solutions; but blind to rules, policy, and why list persists once created.
List’s applied:
Now we have the No Fly List1 considered for people’s name prohibited from gun purchases. Already No Fly List restricts named people from using public transportation systems. Then we have the Terrorist Watch List as just another list.
Citations, Quotes & Annotations
(1) Wikipedia No fly list (Wikimedia Foundation 2015), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List.
Note: (“No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. The Terrorist Watch List contained around 1,000,000 names by March 2009.”).
