Okay, so I had kind of come to terms with the plan until I finally got around to the City Pulse article, today. I think I need some basic things answered to understand the plan. Okay, first off, is the existing substation to be replaced the one down at Eckert? I've taken the River Trail alot and there is a substation on the grounds. The high-voltage lines and their towers then go northeast across the coal fields, to a tower just north of the railroad tracks and then travels due north to the south edge of Scott Park. Then it goes over the park northeast to a tower located at Malcolm X and Capitol Avenue where from there I'm not sure exactly where it directly feeds into downtown.
If the point is to get the substation closer to downtown, how much of a difference would it make to move it a few blocks to the north? That's what I'm not sure I get. We're talking moving from Island Avenue up to Malcolm X and Washington. I'm not much familiar with energy production, but is that move nearly enough of an upgrade to justify paving over a literal oasis? Doesn't sound like it to me, but maybe it is. Or, maybe they are moving the substation because once Eckert shuts down it wouldn't make sense and they plan to connect this new substation up to the REO Town Plant? If that's the case, what is the route of those high-voltage lines to get to and from this new substation? That seems to be another big question. Are they going to run them along Washington?
As for the choosing of the location, they talk of two GM sites, which I assume mean the parking lot directly to the south and then one to the west. They simply say that GM said no. I'm with the commissioner asking to see the documents concerning site location. It sounds like since they can't produce any documentation that they are probably lying. With there literally already being a BWL pump house in the lot to the south of Scott Park, you can not tell me that they couldn't work out something with GM to expand that site.
After reading that article, I've gone from resignation about the plan to being completely against it. There are other options, and I want to see the board fight this in any way they can. I'd suggest any of you who oppose this to write the board and the general manager (rrp@lbwl.com).
For those who live in the city of Lansing, I'd suggest writing both your ward commissioner and the at-large commissioners. Also, here's the mayor's email address:
Lansing.Mayor@lansingmi.gov
This HAS to be slowed down. I'm not going to support this until the general manager can supply the board with documentation that they exhausted all other options. Until the general manager shows this, I'm just going to assume he's not telling the truth. I've always said of parkland in Lansing that you better show a major upgrade of the area if you're going to change its use. I've supported just about all the transfer thus far; that this is giving me major pause should tell folks something. I feel we're being taken for fools. There is so much I realize now I didn't realize in the first few days
Thanks for your thoughts Mich.. I was hoping I did not sound too tree huggy about this issue. I do live right next door and see the trees that arch out over the side walk from my balcony, the one pine perhaps a white pine or western pine reminds of California. There is a carpet of snow bells waiting to come back out from under the snow, and the rock walled paths of the old garden by the river are outlined in snow and easy to pick out. I really try to take it all in and take pictures, it is a place from my childhood, a little corner of what was once a beautiful neighborhood. What a sad day it will be when it is gone.
BTW, since I'm figuring the land won't be sold for BWL's use, it would mean much like the zip line the city council will have to sign off on any lease. In that case, it's probably good to pre-empt this before it even gets to them, so write the council invididual:
The Lansing Board of Water & Light is reconsidering the option it had previously rejected of locating a new substation adjacent to the Eckert Power Plant.
Although it prefers to build a new substation at the Scott Center city park, at the corner of Washington Avenue and Malcolm X Drive, the utility acknowledged this week that Eckert was a viable, though more costly, location for the facility needed to wheel power into the Lansing business district. Preservationists are fighting BWL's plans for building the Central Substation at the park because it would mean tearing down or relocating a 98-year-old house and moving the park's sunken gardens.
The district is served by a substation located at the Eckert station, which is expected to be closed by 2020. Officials have said plans post decommissioning include five power substations throughout the service region.
When BWL spokeswoman was asked if Eckert was back on the table as a possible location for the substation, she answered, “Yes.” Earlier, BWL had said the Eckert site, among seven or eight others, had been rejected in favor of the Scott Center.
What I still don't get is why it's so difficult to simply locate this thing on the GM parking lot where their current pumping station is. This seems like a no-brainer if the goal is to 1.) clear Eckert's grounds, 2.) get the substation closer to downtown and 3.) also save the gardens.
Now, this is far from over. The BWL says the article that the Scott is still their preferred site, but it looks like community opposition is pushing them back a bit. I hope the pressure remains strong on them to reconsider. It appears that opposition faction on the Parks Board is standing firm against this plan.
This is encouraging news. I guess we need to keep up the pressure. I agree that the GM parking lot is the best place for an industrial facility like a power substation. They keep saying that the Eckhert station is in the flood plan, but I can not remember the plant ever being shut down because of flooding. It would seem like some of GM and the CN rail tracks are also in the flood plan, maybe the whole town next to the rivers is in a flood plan, yet we are planning huge developments on a flood plan. Which says to me that these things can be built with a plan that provides for flooding.
I saw a blue bird at the sunken garden the other day, it was the first blue bird I have ever seen. How did this plan ever even come about? I don't think that person has ever been there.
The 100-year flood zone/plain is a real thing that effects insurance and federal regulation on properties built on these lands. The city has been a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) community since 1981, which means there are certain restrictions on what can and can't be developed in the future on these flood plains and for good reason. Lansing has an extra layer of discouraging building on the flood plain with an oridnance that requires anything over 1/2 acre to go through an additional special land use review. Map of 100-year flood plain: null. Lansing has a whole plan as we discussed a bit on another thread where the city has slowly been buying out property owners over in Urbandale in particular to get folks and businesses out of the flood plain.
So, so the utility is smart to expediate the shutdown of Eckert and move the substation. That's never been my problem; in fact, they should be commended for it. It's just that there are far more suitable locations for the relocated substation than Scott Gardens.
I know about flood plains and insurance from living on the East coast.
I agree that some where outside of the flood plain is the best solution. The Eckert site is still a solution if not the best. I hope we never see the day that area is flooded but of course we have to plan for it, I was just thinking that we have come up with plans to develop the Red Cedar golf course were it does flood. Why couldn't we come up with a plan for the substation that includes the possibility of flooding. If the plant is going to be closed maybe they could build the substation inside one of the buildings there. The article in the City Pulse points out that the park is not free land, someone paid for that land and donated it to the city.
The LSJ is reporting that the parks board is voting on this, tomorrow. They are an advisory body, but their opinion carries quite a bit of weight with the city council. After the parks board, this goes back to the city planning board and then to the city council. They've also included a new rendering from BWL of the relocated sunken gardens:
The BWL put out a statement going into more detail about their considerations, though, I remember hearing the cost increase for using the Eckert site not being nearly as high as they originally claimed, or maybe I'm just not remembering correctly.
"Because of its location to the underground circuits that emanate from the current Eckert substation, which is located next to Eckert power station and runs adjacent to Scott Park, this was one of our choices," Serkaian said. "This is a new substation that will serve the downtown area and tapping into those underground circuits at Scott Park is the most economically feasible of all the sites we looked at."
Of the eight sites considered, Serkaian said, the only one that remains a viable alternative is the current location of the Eckert substation.
But putting the project there would take the cost from $26 million to nearly $40 million, requiring a rate increase of about 3 percent, he said, and BWL isn't considering it seriously.
"You have to fortify the location because it's in a 100-year floodplain," Serkaian said. "Additionally, we would have to replace the underground duct banks through which the circuits go beneath the railroad tracks. All of that is extremely costly."
What's more, he said, it would "remove the Eckert power station from any future economic development projects similar to the Accident Fund development of the Ottawa Power Station. Because, it would extend the life of Eckert beyond 2020."
Funny (read: convenient) that it's taken them this long to come up with a more detailed excuse. And then there is this ridiculousness showing that they won't even do something as commit to the height of the walls for the proposed substation:
The substation walls could be between 20 and 25 feet tall, but could be as low as 10 feet. No final decision has been made because the BWL is still working with the community on the design of the walls, he said. The actual substation equipment could be as high as 50 feet tall.
Which, to Schrader, sounds horrible.
"All the historic stuff aside, consider what we're putting there," he said. "These are anywhere between 20 foot and above walls from what I've heard. And a metal frame. You know what a substation looks like. It's 50 feet tall. These numbers are from BWL themselves. It's going to actually be above the wall, and you'll see it. It's just awful. The land inside that park, inside the walls, it's just cut off from the public forever."
I learned after the city market redevelopment not to trust the city or its vision on much of anything. I'm usually a fairly big defender of the administration, but I no longer trust them further than I can throw them when it comes to redevelopment of redevelopment of public lands for other public use, since they always seem to half-ass the design of the new use.
Comments
If the point is to get the substation closer to downtown, how much of a difference would it make to move it a few blocks to the north? That's what I'm not sure I get. We're talking moving from Island Avenue up to Malcolm X and Washington. I'm not much familiar with energy production, but is that move nearly enough of an upgrade to justify paving over a literal oasis? Doesn't sound like it to me, but maybe it is. Or, maybe they are moving the substation because once Eckert shuts down it wouldn't make sense and they plan to connect this new substation up to the REO Town Plant? If that's the case, what is the route of those high-voltage lines to get to and from this new substation? That seems to be another big question. Are they going to run them along Washington?
As for the choosing of the location, they talk of two GM sites, which I assume mean the parking lot directly to the south and then one to the west. They simply say that GM said no. I'm with the commissioner asking to see the documents concerning site location. It sounds like since they can't produce any documentation that they are probably lying. With there literally already being a BWL pump house in the lot to the south of Scott Park, you can not tell me that they couldn't work out something with GM to expand that site.
After reading that article, I've gone from resignation about the plan to being completely against it. There are other options, and I want to see the board fight this in any way they can. I'd suggest any of you who oppose this to write the board and the general manager (rrp@lbwl.com).
https://www.lbwl.com/E-mail_BWL_Commissioners/
If you live in the BWL service area, here is who you commissioners are depending on where you live:
https://www.lbwl.com/BWL-Governance/
For those who live in the city of Lansing, I'd suggest writing both your ward commissioner and the at-large commissioners. Also, here's the mayor's email address:
Lansing.Mayor@lansingmi.gov
This HAS to be slowed down. I'm not going to support this until the general manager can supply the board with documentation that they exhausted all other options. Until the general manager shows this, I'm just going to assume he's not telling the truth. I've always said of parkland in Lansing that you better show a major upgrade of the area if you're going to change its use. I've supported just about all the transfer thus far; that this is giving me major pause should tell folks something. I feel we're being taken for fools. There is so much I realize now I didn't realize in the first few days
http://www.lansingmi.gov/Council_Members
Of all together:
council@lansingmi.gov
Might even help to contact the Parks & Rec. Director to see if he's gotten behind the mayor on this one:
brett.kaschinske@lansingmi.gov
http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-12997-Maybe-not-Scott.html
What I still don't get is why it's so difficult to simply locate this thing on the GM parking lot where their current pumping station is. This seems like a no-brainer if the goal is to 1.) clear Eckert's grounds, 2.) get the substation closer to downtown and 3.) also save the gardens.
Now, this is far from over. The BWL says the article that the Scott is still their preferred site, but it looks like community opposition is pushing them back a bit. I hope the pressure remains strong on them to reconsider. It appears that opposition faction on the Parks Board is standing firm against this plan.
I saw a blue bird at the sunken garden the other day, it was the first blue bird I have ever seen. How did this plan ever even come about? I don't think that person has ever been there.
So, so the utility is smart to expediate the shutdown of Eckert and move the substation. That's never been my problem; in fact, they should be commended for it. It's just that there are far more suitable locations for the relocated substation than Scott Gardens.
I agree that some where outside of the flood plain is the best solution. The Eckert site is still a solution if not the best. I hope we never see the day that area is flooded but of course we have to plan for it, I was just thinking that we have come up with plans to develop the Red Cedar golf course were it does flood. Why couldn't we come up with a plan for the substation that includes the possibility of flooding. If the plant is going to be closed maybe they could build the substation inside one of the buildings there. The article in the City Pulse points out that the park is not free land, someone paid for that land and donated it to the city.
The BWL put out a statement going into more detail about their considerations, though, I remember hearing the cost increase for using the Eckert site not being nearly as high as they originally claimed, or maybe I'm just not remembering correctly.
Funny (read: convenient) that it's taken them this long to come up with a more detailed excuse. And then there is this ridiculousness showing that they won't even do something as commit to the height of the walls for the proposed substation:
I learned after the city market redevelopment not to trust the city or its vision on much of anything. I'm usually a fairly big defender of the administration, but I no longer trust them further than I can throw them when it comes to redevelopment of redevelopment of public lands for other public use, since they always seem to half-ass the design of the new use.