2011 Sept. 29: AK Fairbanks: RAWSEP View: “Funding sources very different on two sides of Proposition 2 wood stove debate.” That’s the real story. RE: Funding is about equal on bothsides of the Proposition 2 wood stove debate & COMMENTS

2011 Sept. 29: AK Fairbanks: RAWSEP View: “Funding sources very different on two sides of Proposition 2 wood stove debate.” That’s the real story. RE: Funding is about equal on bothsides of the Proposition 2 wood stove debate & COMMENTS
Fairbanks Daily News Miner
Excerpt:
latest financial reports released this week show the groups battling over Proposition 2 are even when it comes to fundraising.

Both Healthy Air Now for Prop. 2, the group that authored the air-quality measure, and Interior Alaskans Opposed to Prop. 2 have netted about $18,000. But differences emerge when comparing the number of contributors — opponents have drawn from 10 donors; supporters raised money from well over a hundred small contributions.

Healthy Air Now has been active since this summer, while Interior Alaskans Opposed to Prop. 2 has been around for a little more than a month.

Since it filed its last financial disclosure earlier this month, Healthy Air Now for Prop. 2 has raised $6,204 from 48 donors in mostly small donations between $25 and $100, bringing its campaign total to $18,008.32. There were two $1,000 contributions from unions: the Fairbanks Building and Construction Trades Council and the Fairbanks Central Labor Council.

Interior Alaskans Opposed to Prop. 2 has had a busier fundraising period, taking in all but $500 of its $18,455 total since the 30-day reports were filed earlier this month. Unlike Healthy Air Now, the opposition has raised most of its $17,955 through a handful of big-ticket funders. Virginia-based Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association and North Pole-based OIT Properties LLC each gave $5,000. North Pole Gravel Products and Auto Trim Design, which sell coal and other items that would be banned by Proposition 2, gave $3,235 and $2,920 respectively. In all, the group had nine contributors this reporting period.
spending, Interior Alaskans Opposed to Prop. 2 outpaced its opposition by about $3,000. Opponents spent $9,852.66 since the last report on radio ads, mailers and online advertising. Healthy Air Now spent $6,574.78 during the last reporting period, with most of the expenses coming from television and online ads and yard signs.
each side has about $8,000 in the bank for last-minute bids to snare the public’s attention.
 

comments

« childofsol wrote on Friday, Sep 30 at 07:04 AM »
The title of this article is very misleading. This would be more accurate: “Funding sources very different on two sides of Proposition 2 wood stove debate.” That’s the real story.

« TheAlaskaCurmudgeon wrote on Thursday, Sep 29 at 08:45 PM »
Interesting. The proponents of Prop 2 have gathered money from a number of local residents. Meanwhile, the opponents, who claim that this is all about Outsiders trying to tell Alaskans how to do things, went running straight out of the state for more than a quarter of their funding.

Tells you who represents local values and who is beholden to Outside interests. But that should come as no surprise. The leaders of the crowd opposed to Prop 2 (Carpetbagger Wilson, Schaeffer Dukes, and the appropriately named Slicker) have never been favorable toward normal Alaskans.

« OneDad wrote on Thursday, Sep 29 at 06:09 PM »

1AhHa, check before you type.

The EPA has pulled highway funds from states at least twice. They’ve imposed other sanctions 16 other times. (Usually, the threat that they will, which they have made 100s of times, is usually sufficient to get the State to clean up!)

http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/transportation/trans-29.cfm

Fairbanks now has the 7th worst air in the country – we need our local solution now.

We’re number 7!

« laxel wrote on Thursday, Sep 29 at 02:31 PM »
TIME Magazine just voted FAIRBANKS as the #7 MOST AIR-POLLUTED CITY IN THE U.S. due to our PM2.5 problem!!

MJEofFairbanks:

Prop. 2 DOES target the problem causers (OWBs and coal smokers). If you have over 30% opacity for more than 15 minutes on the hour, you are either using an OWB or a coal smoker, or burning something that you clearly shouldn’t burn. Prop. 2 does not impact woodstove owners. On the other hand, if we don’t come into compliance there is a chance that the EPA would mandate burn bans for all wood appliances. As a wood burner, I am voting YES on Prop 2 to protect the rights of responsible people to burn wood AND to protect the rights of our neighbors to avoid the multitude of heart and lung ailments associated with PM2.5 pollution (including death).

akcold:

What $400,000 are you talking about? Is the questionable industry-based “research” that Tammy Wilson pushed through the legislature? The money that Dermot Cole exposed in an article this week? First, I don’t see why there needs to be any more research – There are OWB bans in 20 other states, primarily due to conclusive research over the last 15-20 years on PM2.5 and OWBs. True scientific consensus has been established, and that is why PM2.5 is one of only 7 pollutants in the EPA NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standard). Second, what is your basis for accusing “the Prop. 2 people” of holding up the research? and who are “the Prop. 2 people”, besides concerned parents, asthmatics, elders and neighbors who’ve seen their property value drop due to a nearby OWB?

AK_First:

the trade unions also have an interest in Prop. 2, because the alternative solution to bring FNSB back into compliance with EPA standards could be a moratorium of federal funds for highway projects. That’s why it’s so important for us to solve this problem locally by voting YES on Prop. 2.

BullMooseParty – Consider me the 4th participant in the JustABoycott. I’ve seen the plumes travel more than a 1/2 mile down the road.

« OneDad wrote on Thursday, Sep 29 at 12:00 PM »
Marksanford,

First off, it is against the UA to make commercial posts on this forum, so cut out the “Come on down to our showroom… Get yourself a coal burner! The exhaust smells like roses!”

Second, when Dublin outlawed the sale of coal, the death rate went down by 359 people a year.

Third, the PM2.5 from coal can be either primary (right out of the stack) or secondary (formed in the air after the gas has left the stack.) There is no way that you are eliminating the secondary PM2.5 from sulfates and nitrates that your “clean exhaust” is producing. And what about the lead, mercury, and other heavy metals we know is in that coal?

Stop lying to the public about the “clean” coal you claim to be peddling.

Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner – Funding is about equal on both sides of the Proposition 2 wood stove debate AK_First wrote on Thursday, Sep 29 at 10:20 AM »
sonofchulio, my guess as to why Building Trades or Central Labor Council would donate money to passing Prop 2 is that bad air drives people from our community, making us all less well off economically (excepting Mr. Sanford of course). Highly skilled workers have a choice of where to live. Why would they build a house in a town that will poison them?

« AK_First wrote on Thursday, Sep 29 at 10:17 AM »
Interesting. Outside money made up more than a quarter of the opposition’s funding. That in and of itself tells me that voting yes for 2 is what’s best for this community. Companies in Virginia certainly don’t have our best interests in mind when they make these kind of donations.

« blue_eyes wrote on Thursday, Sep 29 at 07:15 AM »
So, for the last month, you’ve heard opponents to prop 2 saying that prop 2 was being pushed by a few numbers of out of state big pocket environmental groups.

The APOC reports don’t bear it out. Prop 2 is your friends and neighbors – more than 100 individuals, giving small amounts.

It’s the opponents to Prop 2 that are big special interests or out of state big pockets. Only 10 donors, and two of those are the same guy. And Virginia-based Hearth, Patio, and BBQ association? People in Virginia should say how we heat and what we breathe?

These groups that sell coal aren’t looking out for our health – they’re looking at their own wallets.

YES on Prop 2.

« kroy wrote on Thursday, Sep 29 at 06:33 AM »
with the cost of fuel oil, I understand why folks NEED to heat with wood stove. It’s a no brainer folks.

« NRAforlife wrote on Thursday, Sep 29 at 06:32 AM »
Mark Sanford owns both OIT Properties and North Pole Gravel. Small wonder that the guy who brings coal to your neighborhood would want Prop 2 to fail.

That Healy coal has high moisture content, lead, and mercury. Works fine in the power plants, since they have bag houses. But it doesn’t burn cleanly in stoves at peoples houses. Or like the boilers at Dog’s Bar, Mr. Pawn, Wood River School, or that apartment at 20th and Turner. Everybody near those places is getting smoked out.

And Mr. May, if you read the article, you would see that the 48 donors was just in the last month. The total for the group in favor has “well over 100 small donations.”

So, 10 big donations from businesses and owners who profit from selling or using coal and boilers vs. over 100 small donations from citizens who are concerned with the health of our community.

Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner – Funding is about equal on both sides of the Proposition 2 wood stove debate

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 1. Take Action, 3. Meetings about wood smoke pollution, Comments against wood burning, Opinion, OWB ordinance discussion (local), OWB regulations, Wood stove ordinance discussion (local), Wood Stove regulations. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s