Tim Sumner

Political wind, Support our troops

Vets out $4 billion; Feinstein preserved Hollyweirds’ scenic view instead

by  • 

Writing in the Wall Street Journal this morning, Kimberley Strassel exposes Senator Diane Feinstein’s support for her troops, the ones we see in the movies that heavily contributed to her reelection:

The senator’s $4 billion handout (yes, you read that right) to wealthy West L.A. (yes, you read that right, too) is the ultimate example of how powerful members use earmarks to put their own parochial interests above national ones — in this case the needs of veterans. It’s a case study in how Congress uses the appropriations process to substitute its petty wants for the considered judgments of agency professionals. And it’s just the latest proof that, no matter how much outrage the American public might display over these deals — and no matter how often Congress promises to clean up its act — the elected have no intention of reforming the process.
…
…when the Department of Veteran’s Affairs set up a process in 2002 to study its infrastructure and rationalize its facilities, it designated the West L.A. center as one of 18 sites that might be downsized, any extra land being used to produce more revenue for veterans’ needs. Under law, 108 acres of the L.A. site can’t be touched, but the remaining 200-plus acres sit in the middle of a highly desirable real estate area and could yield significant financial gain. The VA has yet to make any decisions, but according to government estimates, even a modest reuse of the property — say leasing out excess acreage — could result in an extraordinary $4 billion for better care for veterans everywhere.
…
The area has in fact revved up a powerful lobby machine to ensure America’s veterans don’t get anything extra at the expense of their backyard. Ms. Feinstein, California Congressman Henry Waxman and other luminaries have united to publicly bash the VA’s plans, and instead demand the “preservation” of the ground for local use. An overwrought Los Angeles Times weighed in, bemoaning that so few L.A. children live within “walking distance of a public place to play,” and demanding this “treasured resource” not be ruined by “thoughtless” development. Word is that some Hollywood luminaries who live in Mr. Stallone’s neck of the woods have also complained that any changes would impede views from their 15,000-square-foot manses.

Ms. Feinstein, who in the last election received some of her largest donations from the rich area, has been only too happy to come to its defense. She honed in on the military construction and veterans affairs bill — a sensitive spending vehicle that few Republicans would dare vote against, and that President Bush would be loath to veto. She then slipped in an earmark provision that would bar the VA from disposing or leasing any of the ground. Thus a potential $4 billion worth of help and aid for our nation’s veterans goes bye-bye in the name of preserving a view for those Hollywood actors who play veterans in the movies.

9/11, Political wind

The ‘Toxic’ Tower

by  • 

In the Wall Street Journal this morning, Daniel Henninger shed some light on why the Deutsche Bank Building at Ground Zero is still standing:

As part of the demolition plan, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) is obliged to monitor the air inside the building, on the ground and on nearby buildings. These 12 monitoring stations take readings every hour seven days a week. The results are published daily on the LMDC Web site.

The samples measure the presence in the air of the following toxins: asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, respirable particulate, crystalline silica, dioxins/furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the following metals: antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury (gaseous and particulate-bound), manganese, nickel and zinc. Anything evil missing in that list?

Test results: Effectively zero. From April 2005 until now, the 12 monitoring stations have picked up virtually no measurements that exceed levels set by EPA for any of these substances. The cost of these tests is several hundred thousand dollars–a month. What this suggests is that the ambient air in and around this building is clean.

Many other damaged buildings nearby were similarly penetrated by these 9/11 clouds, and they’re inhabited now. So why not ratchet back the regulations to permit a more normal abatement and get this killer building out of sight in Manhattan?

The reasons why not add up to a case study in the routine paralysis we have imposed on ourselves, even as we claim to be living in a modern society. As litigation and publicity inflamed public fear of asbestos and other “toxic” chemicals, the relevance of science fell. “Air quality” has little to do with hourly measurements below scientifically safe limits. The standard now is the air quality in the Garden of Eden. One can overvalue rationality, but eliminate it altogether and what fills the vacuum is expediency. And for regulators and politicians, expediency translates into: Spend the money.

Good point yet I can’t quite figure out his lead. He started by writing about 9/11 commemorations at Ground Zero, “Arguments have finally broken out over whether the clock has run on commemorating the events of September 11, with year No. 6 arriving next Tuesday…,” and never came back to the subject.

Maybe next time.