Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 42 of 42

Thread: GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds

  1. #41
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 08:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    55

    Re: GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds

    Hi tumbleweed,

    It was not my intent to cast dispersions on your point of view and in fact I had read all of your prior comments. Here is a compilation of the comments that you had made that prompted my post:

    The exact number won't be known until this fall when the project is scheduled to begin

    Another aspect to the project is it benefits steelhead trout, Chinook salmon and smelt which could offer recreational value also.

    I consider it stimulus spending but questionable on economic growth potential. It's difficult to determine what potential it has until the project is completed.

    I believe that could be accomplished at least in part through long term management of the ecosystem.

    it could be the point where the ecosystem in question becomes uninhabitable, becoming nothing more than a leach field for the sewage systems that seems to be one of the major contributors to it's demise.

    Since this mouse is protected by the Endangered Species Act, the government has a legal requirement to help it, and in the process a 1,990 acre ecosystem benefits as well. The ecosystem in question was originally 164,000 acres, but if something isn't done asap there won't even be anything to restore.
    I understand that it is not your responsibility to defend this project and you have made a good case for what you consider to be an important project. The question at hand is whether this project is an economic stimulus project.

    It is difficult for me to grasp the "shovel ready" aspect of this project based on your comments. Based on Perry Gayaldo's comments, it would appear this project is still in the planning phase.

    But set all of that aside. Consider an annual salary of $150,000 for a man-year of work plus $75,000 for benefits, that is a total of $225,000. So $16Million represents 64 man-years of salary for workers on real "shovel ready" projects.

    So that is the choice that has been made: Additional planning/feasability by hydrological engineers and fishery biologists or 64 man-years of salary for a "shovel-ready" infrastructure project.

    Based on the needs of the economy and the intent of the Stimulus bill, I would favor the later over the former. You seem to disagree with my choice.

    Finally, I would be interested in knowing who you think is accountable for a 164,000 acre ecosystem (for which someone had to be responsible) shrinking to 1,990 acre ecosystem with no properly allocated monies to sustain it? Will the persons/institutions responsible for this unfortunate state of affairs also be responsible for overseeing the $16Million grant?

    Sorry if I offended you, I look forward to your response.

  2. #42
    Advisor tumbleweed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    08-29-16 @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    341

    Re: GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds

    Quote Originally Posted by atomsNvoid View Post
    Hi tumbleweed,
    Sorry if I offended you, I look forward to your response.
    You don't have anything to apologize for, and I wasn't offended . Sometimes these posts sounds to the reader a bit different than what their intention was. I realize I don't always chose the right wording at times, which could have been the case also.

    My frustration is with the politicians who have used the project to score points in a debate intended to discredit it's importance, and not being truthful about it. It's really not just about 1 little mouse.

    It's an issue I find interesting, but one I had very little knowledge of until we started discussing it. I'm actually learning more about the project when my point of view is challenged.

    The project hasn't started yet so it's a best guess on my part about how many jobs it will create. Another obstacle I ran into was I can't find much info about long term use or planning for these sites.

    But set all of that aside. Consider an annual salary of $150,000 for a man-year of work plus $75,000 for benefits, that is a total of $225,000. So $16Million represents 64 man-years of salary for workers on real "shovel ready" projects.
    That's looks like a reasonable formula. If I can find some long term planing for the project I might be able to expand on it.

    Finally, I would be interested in knowing who you think is accountable for a 164,000 acre ecosystem (for which someone had to be responsible) shrinking to 1,990 acre ecosystem with no properly allocated monies to sustain it? Will the persons/institutions responsible for this unfortunate state of affairs also be responsible for overseeing the $16Million grant?
    If the project site is managed similar to wetland areas in my state the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife oversee it, with funding from the state licencing fees, user fees in parks, special licence plates, federal grants, etc. There are at least 2 endangered species in this project that I know of so I would think it would qualify for federal funding of some sort.

    I believe the state will responsible for it once the project is completed . Given their track record so far in letting this take place isn't reassuring, but having endangered species relying on it for their habitat might be enough to ensure it's preservation.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •