Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Staff Contacts | Affiliates | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Dispose of power plant?

Escanaba voters to be asked to approve that option in May 6 election

February 7, 2014

ESCANABA — While Escanaba continues to wait for its power plant to be sold, voters will be asked to allow the city to dispose of the facility if the pending sale falls through and current operationa......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(18)

frogleggs

Feb-11-14 12:07 PM

A real yooper,

Mr. O’toole isn’t the cause of the power plants demise .

Mr. O’toole,

perhaps,

has gone above and beyond, to make this doggie hunt,

but maybe doggie was made to point to hunt in the “wrong direction”.

Mr. O’toole has advised and received advice from many people,

and these people with the many past city council(s)

are the people you should be addressing concerning your platter and diet.

It is with an on-going MENTALITY, that derived it’s beginning years ago,

and regained a potency with too many layers of consultants and advisors

over the intervening years, all with their own peculiar pecuniary (?) interests.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Feb-11-14 12:05 PM

Who or what is responsible for the ultimate plant failure,

has it’s roots beginning with the fact that the plant was directly under control of

- city council(s), and

- various city managers,

During a period when “management of the plant” and

“living was easy”,

which made such city manager/council arrangement

relatively easy, possible and profitable.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Feb-11-14 12:04 PM

Perhaps, the job of oversight became onerous for any one person or council, over the years ...

especially in light of wrong-headed federal government mandates regarding coal as a fuel ...

City tinkers (perhaps) began to think that the job of plant

“OVERSIGHT”

required

“too much” administrative time,

concentration, money, and

ultimately the allocation of scarce resources ...

and was beyond all of their COMBINED capacity, capability, and

ultimately needed to dispose of the so-called

“troubles”

(time, effort and money)

involved with the plants’ operation,

ONCE AND FOR ALL !

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Feb-11-14 12:00 PM

A better solution would have been to create an

“ELECTRICAL AUTHORITY”,

which would have removed the facility from the hands and left-brained city council(s).

Such an “authority” would have been charged specifically

with the sole responsibility of the plant operation, and would able to devote

FULL-TIME TINKERS,

to cover all the bases of operation, and with only one thought in mind:

“Make this thing work.”

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Feb-11-14 11:59 AM

The question remains, and begs public answer from the press,

while the press’ main “interest” was only to pass along and pay

“lip-service“ of the then

“in vogue city thinking“,

in the form of press-release “handouts“ supplied by the city.

Perhaps, it was more expedient for the press

not to do any real public service with investigative reporting and writing.

Rather than perform a public service for city residents,take a position, and

present clearly both sides of the issue,

knowing there “could be two-sides” to any story . . .

- the press just published what was handed to them by the city.

Nothing more than a ONE-SIDED, LEFT-BRAIN APPROACH to the "news"!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Feb-11-14 11:57 AM

The question remains, and begs public answer and clarification,

1) “How and Why have other bio-mass facilities been built (some nearby), and,

2) how and why are they still operational,

when so many “consultants” have proselytized "failure" for such a bio-mass conversion?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Feb-11-14 11:56 AM

Most people with a modicum of intelligence would agree,

- given the circumstances,

Mr. O’toole has had a lot on his “plate” and

his should not be the “only head” on someone else’s lunch “plate”,

- there are too many other delicacies and fine organic turkey heads

to be marinated for this foul fowl ‘feast”.

And then,

who of us, could successfully negotiate a “loan” for $34 MILLION DOLLARS ?

Assuredly, given Mr. O’tooles single-minded dedication…

Mr. O’toole has spent considerable time and effort,

to make the plant sale work . . .

- in light of wrong-headed thinking and direction from city advisor’s, city councils, and from the city’s voters‘ “mandates“?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Feb-11-14 11:54 AM

Hindsight is 20/20.

But overall,

the idea of running the plant should have been put in the hands of an

“ELECTRICAL AUTHORITY”,

whose job would have been “charged” with generating electricity as it’s

SOUL RESPONSIBILITY.

MARQUETTE’S electrical authority seems to have worked well over the years.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Feb-07-14 6:04 PM

Where are

THEY NOW?

ALL

the “advisor’s”, consultants, the myriad of local’s

who “advised” ‘the city’ ?

They’re about as scarce as the proverbial

‘hen’s ‘TEETh’!

Where’s “the money”?

Soon it will

literally and figuratively

returned and reduced to ashes ?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Feb-07-14 6:02 PM

If history is recalled correctly,

the power plant facility had positive balances

upwards of $30 MILLION DOLLARS,

that consumer’s of the plant’s electrical energy

paid for

to the NET BENEFIT of the whole operation, and of course,

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Feb-07-14 6:01 PM

. . . the many times city council was ‘advised’ to rob the fund to pay for the city’s

MANY OTHER

ILL - considered,

OVER - indulgences,

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Feb-07-14 6:01 PM

On the surface,

it looks as though too many people might

have given, and

too many people might have taken

the WRONG ADVICE.

The construction and operation of the electrical plant was the only

VENTURE that has had a PROVEN history of SUCCESS for the city,

UNTIL - SOMEONE

USING WILDLY ERRONEOUS ELECTRICAL COST FIGURES WITH OTHER U.P. CITIES...

thought they could buy electricity cheaper. . .

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Feb-07-14 5:59 PM

How cheap is electrical energy today,

when comparison is taken into consideration

of the net residual balances “generated” by the plant

and available to improve our city?

What other source of revenue has brought to the “city” such a return on investment?

The question always remains,

why didn’t the “city” keep up with improvements of electrical generation over time?

Other bio-mass plants have started and continue to operate ever since the “city” and its

slew of “advisor’s”

dibbled around with dreams of a 500 MEGAWATT plant…

Someone dropped the dribble and the ball!

NOW WHAT ?

WERE’S THAT DIVIDEND TODAY ?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Feb-07-14 5:57 PM

And…

Where are

ALL THOSE ADVOCATES AND ADVISOR’S

that urged the sale of the electrical plant...

WHERE ARE THEY TODAY ?

Come out form under your rock’s and other hiding places,

- slither into the limelight of the a day !

Clearly,

if wiser thinkers and doer’s had prevailed,

we would have been long on our way with the conversion of the electrical plant

USING OUR FUND BALANCE TO CREATE ELECTRICITY

instead of using those funds to rip the plant apart and tear it asunder.

Importantly,

were is the daily press today,

that provided public tacit approval of our city tinkers, and

provided no real journalistic journalism ?

Had they the fortitude to research and question "back then" instead of taking the "handouts" the city proffered...

maybe things would be different today ?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

arealyooper

Feb-07-14 5:46 PM

I am very happy I do not live in the goofy little town of Escanaba, but if I did I would want to have City Manager Jim O'Tooles head on a platter !! Can"t you people see this guy is worthless!!!!!

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

skibum66

Feb-07-14 5:34 PM

Once again we need to vote no.... If they sell it before a vote fine. But if this vote is just to idle and tear it down Vote NO!!!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EStacey

Feb-07-14 12:47 PM

And by voting "NO" and having the MISO bail-out of the project "We the people" will see a RATE increase of at least 10 percent, but might even see 30 percent! So, We'd better vote "YES" now - without further hesitation or anticipation..

I wager that within hours of voting "YES" the plan to sell the Plant will fail, and the deconstruction will begin.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EStacey

Feb-07-14 12:31 PM

Just had a 'Flash Back' to 2009 - when this city voted "NO" don't sell the Power Plant (for the umpteenth time) - and the Council pushed for a RE-VOTE on the sale of the Plant.. And WON! - Now, we're being asked to vote again on simply 'Shutting it down and tearing it down' ? You know, of course, if we vote "NO", we'll simply "Re-Vote" until this Council gets the answer it wants. While Coal is a nasty word on the Obama table, it doesn't look like it's as HOT as it was back in 2009 - prices have remained pretty stable over the years and in fact, seem to have dropped. eia. gov / coal/ So, no talk of Electrical Production again, just TEAR IT DOWN?!!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 18 of 18 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web