What Is It About Senator Inhofe?
Uncle Jerry
Could it be that he thinks it's too soon for such a move?
After all, it's only been thirty years that folks have been living on
top of the worst 'EPA Superfund Site' in the nation. Well those that
haven't died, from doing so. Maybe they ought to give it a little
more time.
Could it be that he thinks the issue hasn't been studied properly?
After all, Tar Creek has been the subject of only 200 or so studies
and reports, many centering on the grave harm done to children that
have spent their entire lives living with lead levels which if found
in the US Capitol would have resulted in its immediate closure and
demolition.
Could it be that he feels the cost of a buy out is too great?
After all, the taxpayers have already spent $100 million on numerous
studies, failed remediation efforts and propaganda campaigns involving
Tar Creek. Possibly Inhofe's proposed new $45 million study by OU,
while OU only requested $10 million for the study, will provide the
'final solution' for the folks of Tar Creek.
Or, could it possibly be that Senator Inhofe feels that the residents
of the Tar Creek area actually like living atop the biggest
environmental disaster in the US?
And could it be that he's doing everything within his power to insure
they continue to live there, for whatever amount of life they have
left?
Who knows?
However it is vividly clear that the biggest obstacle to resolving the
environmental, human and governmental issues of Tar Creek is none
other than Okie Senator James Mountain Inhofe.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2003/Final/A_1_7_9_2003.PDF
D.S.
"Uncle Jerry" <bubba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:beh121$rtj$0...@pita.alt.net...
One thought I agree with not having a buyout is, how would it help the
citizens that are renting. If I understand something I read it said most
living in the area are renters. I suppose they could pitch tents or
cardboard boxes and see if the goverment will by them out too....
It has taken to long to get this issue solved but it will be longer now
that it's turning into a political event.
Boomerlake
>> Or, could it possibly be that Senator Inhofe feels that the residents
>> of the Tar Creek area actually like living atop the biggest
>> environmental disaster in the US?
>>
>> And could it be that he's doing everything within his power to insure
>> they continue to live there, for whatever amount of life they have
>> left?
I go with that. Sounds like a stand a conservative would take. To
conservatives it's important to keep the status quo preserved.
Bill
I don't know what the Senator's position is in detail on this issue, but
he may be concerned about the cost. That's all I can figure. There are
no good choices, but it is time to bite be bullet and get this mess
fixed. The price will not get any cheaper.
--
Surf...@cs.invalid
Replace invalid with com to reply by email.
Uncle Jerry
<snip>
> Why is it looking more like Democrates vs. Republicans on the issue.
It really isn't.
It's basically Senator Inhofe vs. everyone.
Even Senator Nickles initially came out in favor of the buyout idea.
Now politics have forced him to back track a bit and he only
acknowledges the buy out idea is still an 'open option'.
Of course Senator Inhofe maintains a buy out is not an option.
Also the Bush administration, the EPA, the University of Oklahoma, as
well as numerous environmental and scientific groups including the AMA
have come out in favor of relocation of the towns/residents of Picher
and Cardin as the best means available to protect the children of the
towns from the environmental dangers of the area.
> One thought I agree with not having a buyout is, how would it help the
>citizens that are renting. If I understand something I read it said most
>living in the area are renters. I suppose they could pitch tents or
>cardboard boxes and see if the goverment will by them out too....
Renters that want to remain in the general vicinity will likely go
where housing is available. If the towns are relocated, odds are most
renters could be accommodated in the vicinity. There would be a
mini-building boom of new housing.
> It has taken to long to get this issue solved but it will be longer now
>that it's turning into a political event.
Tar Creek has always been a political event.
One must always remember that the Tar Creek disaster did not occur the
result of 'Mother Nature' but rather the result of the actions of
various mining companies. Companies and successors of those companies
all of which had a vested interest at one time or the other in
insuring the tax payers rather than they got the tab for the clean up
of the disaster of their making.
Also keep in mind there's a hell of a lot more money to be made
remediating an environmental disaster while businesses, homes and
people are still in the 'danger zone'. I strongly *suspect* that
this is the motivation behind Senator Inhofe's absolute refusal to
even consider the relocation option.
Anyhow, here it is 30 years and $100 million bucks later and the
problem still exists and if anything is getting worse, especially when
it rains.
And all Senator Inhofe wants to do is give OU $45 million dollars to
conduct another study, study number 201 IIRC, a study which OU
President David Boren is on record as estimating would cost about $10
million. I guess Senator Inhofe is trying to 'sweeten the pot' in
hopes of having OU determine that 'lead really isn't that bad for
kids' and that 'no harm will be done by having the Kids of Tar
Creek(tm) wait', maybe another 30 years or so...
Uncle Jerry
wrote:
Actually conservatives, liberals and 'middle of the roaders' are
pretty much in agreement that the last thing the residents of Tar
Creek need is *another damned study*.
They need action and they and the environment need it now.
As a matter of fact there's only one person involved in the Tar Creek
Debate(tm) that is adamantly opposed to even discussing the
relocation/buyout idea and that's Senator Inhofe, who just happens to
have made his way into a position of control over the EPA Super Fund.
IMHO, Inhofe has a vested interest in making sure that the towns of
Picher and Cardin are not relocated. Also, IMHO, someone is counting
on making a shit-pot-o-money in yet another half-assed clean up
effort, while the towns' residents are 'in the way'. It pays a lot
more to have business, homes and people in the disaster clean up area
than to have all of them moved out of danger and out of the way.
IOW, this just about has to be another of those 'Follow the Money
Deals'(tm)...
Uncle Jerry
<snip>
>I don't know what the Senator's position is in detail on this issue, but
>he may be concerned about the cost. That's all I can figure. There are
>no good choices, but it is time to bite be bullet and get this mess
>fixed. The price will not get any cheaper.
It's really easy to understand using a simple analogy.
Call up a home painting company and get them out to give an estimate
on painting the living room. Get three estimates, actually.
Estimate #1: Home owner removes all furniture from living room and
painter then comes in does the painting work and leaves with the home
owner to put back all the furniture. Price 1X.
Estimate #2: Home owner does nothing, painter must remove all
furniture, do the painting and put the furniture back once the job is
complete. Price 3X.
Estimate #3: Home owner demands that no furniture be removed from the
living room and that the painter 'work around protect it from paint'.
Price 5X.
Now rather than a living room, consider an environmental disaster
area.
The business and homes equate to the furniture in the above example,
they are not to be moved. Toss in the residents as an extra problem
and you have a scenario where the costs of performing the work are
going well beyond 5X, more likely to around 20X what they would be if
there was no buildings or people present in the disaster area while
the work is on-going...
Now consider this:
in a buyout scenario most of the taxpayer money for the entire project
would go to the property owners, each getting a 'fair price', not fair
market value, as property on top of a disaster area has no 'market
value'. The former property owners, each with their money could do
with it as they pleased, with most opting to build a new business,
home or whatever elsewhere. The money would spread around, passing
through many hands.
if the buyout scenario is rejected, a large company is going to get a
contract to remediate the disaster area, *again*, while the
businesses, homes and residents are in-place. The property owners
rights will have to be respected and their property and lives will
have to be protected. Therefore remediation efforts will go at a much
slower place, as a result. This will of course entail lots more time,
effort and man-hours to complete the project which will of course
increase the remediation costs. Cost increases that will go into the
cash register of the contractor. Under the buyout plan the
contractors revenue from the project will be 1X. Under the no buyout
plan the contractor's revenue from the project will likely be 10 to
20X.
If you were the contractor would it really be a tough decision as to
which scenario you would prefer?
Now how about if you were the parent of a child that every day of
their life breathed the lead dust from the Chat Piles of Tar
Creek(tm), which scenario would you prefer?
Now if you were a pol that had been bought more times than the only
hooker at the preachers' convention, which scenario would appear to be
likely to put money in *your pocket*?
Boomerlake
>Now if you were a pol that had been bought more times than the only
>hooker at the preachers' convention, which scenario would appear to be
>likely to put money in *your pocket*?
The NO Buyout Plan. Gee, I glad I wasn't one of the fools who ever voted for
Inhofe.
D.S.
See some more Gov't waste or should I say corruption www.homemyhome.com
Bàidh Stidean
I just love these assholes - excuse me, but did you not notice
there's a giant damn airport there when you bought your house? It's
only been there since 1928 and has had jet traffic since the
1950's...duh... And now these bozos want taxpayers to pay for their
lack of research into the neighborhood before buying. Look up,
geniuses - when that plane overhead looks really, really, big - you're
probably near an airport!
Uncle Jerry
<snip>
> See some more Gov't waste or should I say corruption www.homemyhome.com
Rip off is the word that comes to my mind upon viewing the pictures.
I really got a hoot out of the one with the air conditioner unit
perched atop a pile of concrete blocks.
Hopefully that sucker doesn't vibrate much, least it take a tumble...
In looking through many of the pictures I came away with the
impression that the 'work', if you can call it that, was done by a
bunch of 'do it yourselfers' that have been spending way too much time
watching 'DIY', 'HGTV' and similar fare.
While there are arguments 'pro and con' as to whether government
should engage in such remediation projects in the first place there
can be little argument that this project, as depicted on your web
site, is a total fiasco and a blatant rip off that probably should be
investigated by a federal grand jury.
Uncle Jerry
<krist...@SPAM.nine-eye.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:52:18 GMT, "D.S." <bam...@swhell.net> wrote:
>
>>
<snip>
>> See some more Gov't waste or should I say corruption www.homemyhome.com
>
> I just love these assholes - excuse me, but did you not notice
>there's a giant damn airport there when you bought your house? It's
>only been there since 1928 and has had jet traffic since the
>1950's...duh... And now these bozos want taxpayers to pay for their
>lack of research into the neighborhood before buying. Look up,
>geniuses - when that plane overhead looks really, really, big - you're
>probably near an airport!
There are reasons people own houses near airports.
Possibly they grew up there and inherited the place or have some other
'attachment' to the location, area or whatever. Possibly it's all
they can afford and prefer owning where they can, as opposed to
renting elsewhere.
And there's always that matter of the federal government *encouraging*
such home purchases, not only with HUD guaranteed loans but various
other programs targeted at 'first time buyers' or 'low income buyers',
with special financing and such.
Many years ago I lived in that area for a shot while and the noise
from air traffic wasn't 'that bad'. Something must have changed, for
years later while visiting friends in the area I noticed that the
noise had become much worse and that you could actually feel the
vibrations through the floor and the window glass vibrated.
The 'something' that had changed was really several things, more air
traffic into and out of the airport, 'heavier' aircraft and increased
activity from the 'Weekend Jet Jocks' that had become 'Just About Any
Day of the Week/Time of the Day Jet Jocks', as they were practicing
for Operation Get Saddam v 1.0(tm) at the time and the noise level
even inside the house was almost painful when they were taking off,
four at a time.
Should folks considering buying a house in the area take these issues
into consideration?
Certainly.
And I suspect most of them do and those that decide to purchase in
spite of the airport do so within their current 'tolerance level'.
Who knows what will happen in five, ten or more years that might
result in conditions outside their 'tolerance level'?
It's a crap shoot and one *encouraged* by government with home loans
for properties near airports and therein resides the problem at the
very center of the debate over whether government, i.e. all taxpayers,
are responsible for 'fixing' problems inflicted upon some taxpayers
that were lured into purchasing homes near airports and lured by
government.
For all involved it's a no-win scenario.
D.S.
years ago. For the noise the jets don't bother me what bothered me was when
they held meetings the counsaltants for the airport keeped stressing the
damage done to hearing in the decibel area we lived in. This is the main
reason I opted for the program and hoping it would stop the boom-box noise
invaded the neighbor hoods now days.
Everyone has their reasons that was mine. With my finances now I doubht I
could sell and qualify for a house elsewhere that wasn't considered a crime
zone.Which with all the section 8 houses increasing everyear around here,
this area is not much to brag about now.
MH
>After all, it's only been thirty years that folks have been living on
> top of the worst 'EPA Superfund Site' in the nation. Well those that
> haven't died, from doing so. Maybe they ought to give it a little
> more time.
> However it is vividly clear that the biggest obstacle to resolving the
> environmental, human and governmental issues of Tar Creek is none
> other than Okie Senator James Mountain Inhofe.
>
While I don't think Sen. Inhofe is handling Tar Creek problems well, there
is plenty of blame to go around for the 30 years of incompetence. I remember
taking photos of the area for the Oklahoma Wildlife Federation 20 years ago
and not sure any real progress has been made since then. A buyout may not be
the best solution for the entire (very large) area.
Bàidh Stidean
Actually, with the retirement of the DC-10 by American, the "heavy"
aircraft operating into TUL are all Stage III compliant, making them
among the quietest in the skies. The real noise at most airports like
OKC and TUL is generated by pre-Stage II narrowbodies, like the
first-generation 737s, a handful of which are still in use by
Southwest. Here in OKC, we also have Champion Air's 727s and the
"Con-Air" birds, also older 727s - these do make quite a bit of noise.
However, operations by these aircarft are limited to probably no more
than 10 on any given day - contrast that to 25 years ago, when these
aircraft flew more than 80 flights each day at the airport.
The latest generation of aircraft, which account for the at least
half of all fights at both TUL and OKC are regional jets. These
aircraft have a noise signature on takeoff less than a semi driving by
at 70.
The real culpit is the military. I have seen the ANG F-16s roar out
of TUL with afterburners on, something that is not necessary at all.
The military, however, is exempt from most noise regulations and thus
does whatever the hell they want. Granted, you simply cannot make a
supersonic fighter Stage II compliant, but you can control operations
so the impact is minimal.
>Should folks considering buying a house in the area take these issues
>into consideration?
>
>Certainly.
>
>And I suspect most of them do and those that decide to purchase in
>spite of the airport do so within their current 'tolerance level'.
>Who knows what will happen in five, ten or more years that might
>result in conditions outside their 'tolerance level'?
Stage III regulations have made aircraft quieter, so the noise from
airliners is actually on the decrease. Aircraft that do not meet
these requirements will soon not be allowed to fly - unless they are
military.
>It's a crap shoot and one *encouraged* by government with home loans
>for properties near airports and therein resides the problem at the
>very center of the debate over whether government, i.e. all taxpayers,
>are responsible for 'fixing' problems inflicted upon some taxpayers
>that were lured into purchasing homes near airports and lured by
>government.
Well, to hear Mark Shannon tell it, all the Section 8 housing is in
Edmond, which is nowhere near an airport...
>For all involved it's a no-win scenario.
To an extent, but I don't think that the lure of government loans
can excuse personal responsibility, it's still a "buyer beware"
situation like anything else.
Bàidh Stidean
Now *that* I would sign on for as well. Aircraft noise is a steady
frequency, for the most part, not a rhythmic "thump" Plus,
bassmobiles serve no public purpose, an airliner does. An airliner is
an instrument of commerce, a bassmobile is just someone being an
asshole. Don't get me wrong, I didn't put a 50-watt Alpine CD player
in my car because I want to listen to Mantovani on 2. However, I
usually only turn it up on the freeway, where it doesn't bother anyone
- hell, I've even been known to turn it down when pulling to a stop.
These idiots with trunks full of kickers really make me wish that
South Park's "brown noise" really did exist...
> Everyone has their reasons that was mine. With my finances now I doubht I
>could sell and qualify for a house elsewhere that wasn't considered a crime
>zone.Which with all the section 8 houses increasing everyear around here,
>this area is not much to brag about now.
Oh, but it will get better if American leaves, Ivan said so...
Uncle Jerry
wrote:
Even those of us that have *never* voted for Jim Inhofe are stuck with
him for 5 and a half more years.
Unfortunately, those that have voted for him have inflicted him upon
the Civilized States(tm) also. If there was ever a 'crime against
humanity', that has to be it...
Uncle Jerry
<snip>
> For myself I rented in this area for years and bought the house I'm now 15
>years ago. For the noise the jets don't bother me what bothered me was when
>they held meetings the counsaltants for the airport keeped stressing the
>damage done to hearing in the decibel area we lived in. This is the main
>reason I opted for the program and hoping it would stop the boom-box noise
>invaded the neighbor hoods now days.
>
I know the local 'media', both print and broadcast, were all over the
noise issue there for a while. I recall a couple of local 'talking
heads' doing reports centering on structural damage blamed on
prolonged exposure to the high noise levels in the area.
Maybe they missed the boom-box noise and mistakenly blamed air
traffic. ;-)
> Everyone has their reasons that was mine. With my finances now I doubht I
>could sell and qualify for a house elsewhere that wasn't considered a crime
>zone.Which with all the section 8 houses increasing everyear around here,
>this area is not much to brag about now.
>
I suspect the only way that homeowners in the area bounded by I-244
and Pine and Memorial and Sheridan will ever manage to sell their
property for a reasonable price is if the entire area is re-zoned to
commercial and designated as an 'industrial area' and the current
owners band together to sell in 'blocks' or larger parcels.
What with all the transportation infrastructure already in place in
the area it just might make an attractive 'industrial park' and at the
same time permit area residents an opportunity to 'bail out' with
enough money to afford to purchase elsewhere.
Uncle Jerry
<krist...@SPAM.nine-eye.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:27:44 -0500, Uncle Jerry
><bubba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>The 'something' that had changed was really several things, more air
>>traffic into and out of the airport, 'heavier' aircraft and increased
>>activity from the 'Weekend Jet Jocks' that had become 'Just About Any
>>Day of the Week/Time of the Day Jet Jocks', as they were practicing
>>for Operation Get Saddam v 1.0(tm) at the time and the noise level
>>even inside the house was almost painful when they were taking off,
>>four at a time.
>
<snip>
> The real culpit is the military. I have seen the ANG F-16s roar out
>of TUL with afterburners on, something that is not necessary at all.
>The military, however, is exempt from most noise regulations and thus
>does whatever the hell they want. Granted, you simply cannot make a
>supersonic fighter Stage II compliant, but you can control operations
>so the impact is minimal.
I agree.
And this goes a long way toward explaining if not justifying
government, i.e. taxpayer, funding of projects to make life more
bearable for those upon whom the noise is inflicted.
>>Should folks considering buying a house in the area take these issues
>>into consideration?
>>
>>Certainly.
>>
>>And I suspect most of them do and those that decide to purchase in
>>spite of the airport do so within their current 'tolerance level'.
>>Who knows what will happen in five, ten or more years that might
>>result in conditions outside their 'tolerance level'?
>
> Stage III regulations have made aircraft quieter, so the noise from
>airliners is actually on the decrease. Aircraft that do not meet
>these requirements will soon not be allowed to fly - unless they are
>military.
>
And therein comes the rub.
Military operations, particularly aircraft operations in Tulsa, are
unpredictable at best. I recall when 'Weekend Jet Jocks'(tm) were
just that, you hardly ever saw or heard them except on weekends and
then just a few flights occurred.
As the US became the World's Policeman(tm) military flight operations
out of Tulsa increased. Just prior to Operation Get Saddam v 2.0(tm)
the local 'jet jocks' were conducting training operations daily and
throughout the course of the day. The noise level throughout the
Tulsa area increased greatly.
>>It's a crap shoot and one *encouraged* by government with home loans
>>for properties near airports and therein resides the problem at the
>>very center of the debate over whether government, i.e. all taxpayers,
>>are responsible for 'fixing' problems inflicted upon some taxpayers
>>that were lured into purchasing homes near airports and lured by
>>government.
>
> Well, to hear Mark Shannon tell it, all the Section 8 housing is in
>Edmond, which is nowhere near an airport...
I hear ya'.
Those with an agenda have a knack for fiction it seems.
>>For all involved it's a no-win scenario.
>
> To an extent, but I don't think that the lure of government loans
>can excuse personal responsibility, it's still a "buyer beware"
>situation like anything else.
Of course it is.
However we should take into account that some, perhaps many, potential
home buyers don't take into account that government itself would 'con
them' into purchasing a property that suffers adversely as the result
of government operations near the home.
I have no doubt that tomorrow one can find HUD listings for homes
available in the area under discussion, homes that have *not* been
subject to the remediation project under discussion. Homes that the
government is 'pushing' to those that can not afford to purchase in
more desirable areas.
Why?
Because a 'HUD home' is a *liability* on the federal government books
until it has a purchaser. The instant the sale is 'closed', the
property ceases being a federal liability and becomes a revenue asset
for local government as well as a revenue generator for the mortgage
company making the *federally insured loan*.
When it comes to 'HUD housing' the federal government is in the role
of 'used car salesman', willing to at least *imply* that all is well
and the purchaser is getting a good deal even when the feds know there
are problems associated with the property.
Bàidh Stidean
<bubba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have a reply, mostly in agreement, but I'm too scatterbrained from
a shitty weekend to write that much right now :-)
Uncle Jerry
Well, let's see.
Over the last 30 years Tar Creek and it's implications for Life As We
Know It(tm) has been studied, debated, remediated, remediated again,
studied some more, debated some more and remediated some more and now
it's being debated some more.
And what do the residents of the area have to show for it other than
what is *still* the worst environmental disaster in the nation?
It's time to cut the losses, both human and economic and dispose of
the issue once and for all. The only way to bring this fiasco to an
end is a 'buy out' which totally eliminates the 'human factor' from
the equation. Then the land can be cleaned up and returned to as
close to 'natural state' as possible.