Annapolis Capital Punishment

Josh Cohen's ambitious environmental plan has a lot of substance and positive points but I could not pass up the chance to make some substantive points of my own. First, go ahead and read Cohen's statement at green cohen then return here for some analysis.

Okay-did you read it? The first thing that impresses me is that it sets clear and strong goals. On the other hand, he said nothing about reviewing the programs and positions already in place.

He says that we face a choice "to reverse course and elect a mayor for whom the environment is not a priority; or, to elect a mayor who will prioritize the environment, set ambitious goals and take bold action." He assumes that we are on a good course, and while he will not mention Ellen "O" it is clear from the start that he wants to praise her. And he adds "Some obvious actions are left out of this 10-point plan because the City is already committed to them. For instance, tree planting is omitted because the City is already pledged to achieve 50% tree canopy coverage by 2030. This 10-point plan should be viewed as a supplement to, not a substitute for, existing commitments and actions." Right. We don't want to offend Ellen "O".

I wish he would have included something about reviewing all the various plans, pronouncements, commitments, expenditures and staff positions--contracted and civil service that are in place, mainly because of the current administration. What have we accomplished? What do all these people do? It should also be noted that Cohen's treasurer, Chris Trumbauer, is the West/Rhode RiverKeeper and so it would not be unreasonable to suggest that much of what Cohen has included reflects the concerns and experience of Trumbauer.

He begins by making a commitment to reduce use of water, and while I've never clearly understood what is the big deal about supposedly "wasting water" "or "conserving" it, he makes it clear that we use 25% of our energy on pumping water. If that is true, it is a hugely important thing to conserve.

However, there is not a word about our potentially catastrophic, crumbling and aging water infrastructure. Also, what about sewage plant upgrades? Do we have state of the art water treatment? That seems to be a big omission. Designating the city as a no-discharge zone is positive and welcome, but how will we enforce this?

Preserving 100 acres of open space is a fine goal, but are there 100 acres available for conservation in town? Living shorelines is an admirable goal, but why only 2000 feet? We have miles and miles of shoreline, so what is the big deal with 1/3 of a mile? And curiously, there is not a mention of the Naval Academy which controls a huge amount of land and shoreline. Should we not be engaging that institution in innovative ways to protect our waters?

His fifth promise that will "require that new development treat 100% of stormwater onsite" is probably the most admirable and far-reaching goal of all. If he or any mayor could make that happen, it would be a great day in Annapolis. His sixth promise to "reduce impervious surfaces and double the number of rain gardens" is also very positive, but it's not the number of rain gardens that is most important, it is the acreage of them and the amount of water they filter that counts. Are 80 tiny rain gardens scattered about as effective as 5 or 1o big ones in strategic locations?

His goal to "enhance the city’s 'Scoop the Poop' program" could be quite important and might be a simple and low-cost way to make a positive impact. His plan to implement rigorous water quality monitoring might be redundant. I'd like to first see an analysis of what kind of monitoring already takes place and determine needs before simply launching into an expansion. Certainly we could enlist the help of the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office and the NOAA Chesapeake Bay offices located in Eastport. His goal to "create and implement an integrated signage plan and virtual map of each watershed" may not seem too exciting at first glance, but I believe it is extremely important for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it engages citizens and residents in potentially profound ways. His goal to "leverage volunteer efforts as part of a coordinated strategy" is also to be applauded, but again I ask, where is the plan to review the programs and positions already funded and/or in place? That should come first.

Having found much to be pleased with in his plan, there is one hugely glaring disappointment. There is not a word about transportation which is responsible for using a huge amount of energy, emitting enormous pollutants, necessitating a vast use of space for all its needs (parking, garages, car lots, service stations, etc.) not to mention the noise and the alienation it creates from our natural and social environment. I think that by neglecting transportation, Cohen has shown that he is not really tuned into the relationship between walking, bicycling and public transit and environmental concerns.

I also think that despite many positive aspects of our municipal recycling and composting plans, I think there is much more that can and should be done. Again, it starts with a complete review of all our existing environmental programs, policies and positions. It is not until his last sentence that he says "the Cohen Administration will designate an environmental coordinator to eliminate wasteful duplication of efforts and to prioritize public and private actions that will produce the greatest impact." What about the big plans for the energy center at Waterworks Park?

I have to ask, don't we already have a handful of people with titles that would suggest they already coordinate environmental programs? So the big question is do they do this and are we getting green results for the green it is costing us?

I await the environmental plans from the other candidates.

Please send comments, subscribe, share with your friends, and support our sponsors. Join us every Thursday morning from 8-9 am for our Sip N' Blogs usually held at Ahh, Coffee! in Eastport.