Letters to the Editor - Jan. 27


Published: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 1:38 p.m.

Biomass to sell?

Gainesville residents who check out GRU's biomass generator application on the Public Service Commission Web site will be surprised to find that the $500 million monster is needed chiefly to continue selling electricity to Alachua and Clay Electric Cooperative through 2044.

If GRU discontinued these sales at the end of their current contracts in 2012, they would immediately reduce needed capacity by 68 MW (including the required 15 percent reserve).

By 2032, the savings would be about 73MW, almost three quarters of the 100 MW GRU says it needs from the biomass generator.

GRU has generators to handle our current load now, but wants the new generator in 2023, because old generators that supply 150 MW will be retired. But if we stopped selling power to Alachua and Clay we wouldn't need any new capacity until after 2025, and even then the added need will fall far short of 50 MW for many years.

Would city commissioners have approved the biomass generator if they had known they could drastically reduce our capacity requirements just by dropping the sales to Alachua and Clay?

Dian Deevey,

Gainesville

America's problems from a Brit's view

It seems to me, a resident alien Brit living here for 13 years and not able to vote, that there are four problems in the U.S.

First, we have professional politicians, most of whom behave in a manner that is self-serving and venal with a view to their own re-election, rather than promoting the prosperity and good fortune of their electorate.

Second, we have a very authoritarian dual party system that does not allow any independent and/or liberal opposition to the party dogma of either stripe.

Third we have a Supreme Court whose judges are so biased that individual rights are going to possibly disappear completely within a generation, unless we are very lucky.

Last, we have a legal system that is so corrupted in its ideas and operation that even when people end up on death row there is no certainty that they actually are guilty of the crime for which they are about to pay the ultimate price.

No doubt many will say "just go back to your own country," but I would rather see an improvement here that benefits the whole population, not just for me personally.

Robert Rashbrooke,

Branford

Justice soiled again

The Supreme Court has soiled itself again. Some of the same activist justices who appointed Bush president in 2000 have bestowed personhood upon corporations.

This is very much like the Dred Scott decision, which denied personhood to generations of African Americans.

Only the stupidest people can't envision what this means beyond the biggest corporations owning the government. Worst of course, foreign corporations wishing to do this nation harm are now free to do so with full rights thanks to the incompetent Republican-appointed justices.

M. L. Stein,

Williston

Democracy in peril

On Jan. 21, the Supreme Court overturned a century-old ban on corporate spending in federal elections. This unlimited corporate spending will severely undermine our democracy.

This decision allows for corporations to monopolize elections. These companies, presumably large enough to fund massive amounts of advertising, will all have similar economic standpoints. These corporations, undoubtedly, will be working in their own economic interests.

Politicians, aware of the influence corporations can exert, will work to please these corporations in order to gain sponsorship for their upcoming re-election campaigns. That is the definition of corruption.

While proponents of this decision argue that corporations have to right to "free speech," this decision stamps out the free speech of other voices that wish to be heard but do not have the economic resources.

Corporations are made up of individuals, restricting their spending does not take away their right to free speech. The only way to lessen the effect of this atrocity is for Congress to limit the extent of this decision by limiting the spending of corporations.

Lanya Olmsted,

Karen Li,

Gainesville

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.

▲ Return to Top