The East RiverWholesale nike dunks Waterfront Esplanade and Piers Project was conceived in 2002 as part of Mayor Bloomberg’s Vision for Lower Manhattan and incorporates the Downtown East River Waterfront Concept Plan developed by Community Board 1 and the Alliance for Downtown New York, and ideas from Community Board 3’s East River Greenway Community Design Workshop. Wholesale nike jordans The first phase of the project will improve the existing esplanade from the Battery Maritime Building to Pier 35 to safely accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists. It will feature new plantings, seating and lighting, a dedicated bikeway and visitor-friendly designs.The esplanade between the Battery Maritime Building and Old Slip will be extended out over the water, allowing for safe passage along a widened sidewalk and bikeway. Wholesale nike jordan Pier 15 at Maiden Lane, which was demolished in 2001, will be reconstructed as a two-level pier reminiscent of the two-level piers that used to line the East River in the late 19th century. It will feature maritime uses on the lower level with boat docking facilities on three sides and a maritime educational component. Wholesale nike shox The upper level will feature lawns and seating for passive recreation. Pier 35 at Rutgers Slip will be renovated and open to the public to provide much-needed landscaped space along the waterfront. Pier 35 will also an innovative habitat restoration park, funded by a grant from the New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources, which will recreate the native plants and wildlife of the East River. WaterfrontWholesale air force 1 steps will be created at Wall Street, Pike Slip, and Rutgers Slip to provide visitors the opportunity to get closer to the water’s edge. To create vital nodes of activity and attract local residents and visitors to the waterfront, several enclosed pavilions will be constructed at strategic locations in the plan area for commercial, food, recreation-related, communityWholesale air force 1 shoes or other innovative uses. It is anticipated that the tenants for these pavilions will be selected through a competitive Request for Proposals process. In keeping with the City’s PlaNYC initiatives, sustainability goals have been set to reduce energy demand and consumption, conserve natural resources, improve air qualitynike air force 1, and catch and reuse rain water to reduce the storm water runoff into the existing system.The second phase of the plan calls for the construction of the Battery Maritime Plaza, conversion of Pier 42 at Montgomery Street to public use as an urban beach and boat launch, and completion of the widening of the esplanade from Peck Slip to Pike Slip. When complete, the East River Esplanade will be a critical link in the continuation of the Manhattanair force 1 shoes Greenway.The plan for the East River Esplanade project was developed over a period of years in close consultation with New York City Economic Development Corporation, Department of City Planning, Department of Park and Recreation, Department of Transportation, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, local elected officials, and representatives of Community Boards 1 and 3 in Lower Manhattan and the Lower East Side.

Dear Administrator Enck: As you are aware, the pending proposal to advance hydraulic fracturing - a highly industrial process to drill gas in New York State, is awaiting final approval. I am writing to tell you of my deep concerns about implementing this process under the proposed regulations that have been put forth by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The catastrophe in the Gulf has unfortunately shown us the very real dangers of proceeding with gas drilling using hydrofracking until we can put in place regulations that will protect our land, air, water and the health of our people. We know that "Drilling Isn't Safe" as it is being currently proposed. The tragedy in the Gulf was precipitated by insufficient regulations, lax enforcement and a government bureaucracy that was too cozy with industry. We cannot afford to make the same mistake in New York. Drilling for gas using hydraulic fracturing has the potential to contaminate our air, our water and our land. We need clean water, clean air and healthy land to ensure ecological sustainability in the future. I urge you to take the following steps to protect New Yorkers from the potential catastrophic results of drilling that is not properly regulated: First, I ask you to use your influence to end the New York DEC's fast-track review of the current DSGEIS and put the safety of New Yorkers as top priority by including strong protections based on a comprehensive environmental review of the hydraulic fracturing process and potential threats. Second, I urge you to suggest that no permits to drill gas using hydraulic fracturing be issued until the issues addressed by the recommendations of the recently mandated EPA study to offer sufficient protection of this practice are incorporated. I believe that the current DSGEIS does not provide sufficient protections for the water resources and people of New York State. Attempting to oversee this industry in New York through the current DEC proposal will be nothing less than disastrous. I ask that the EPA study carefully study the DEC's DSGEIS report and recommend regulations that will adequately safeguard our state's irreplaceable natural resources.

Dear Commissioner Grannis, As you are aware, the pending proposal to advance hydraulic fracturing - a highly industrial process to drill gas in New York State, is awaiting final approval. I am writing to tell you of my deep concerns about implementing this process under the proposed regulations that have been put forth by the DEC. The catastrophe in the Gulf has unfortunately shown us the very real dangers of proceeding with gas drilling using hydrofracking until we can put in place regulations that will protect our land, air, water and the health of our people. We know that "Drilling Isn't Safe" as it is being currently proposed. The tragedy in the Gulf was precipitated by insufficient regulations, lax enforcement and a government bureaucracy that was too cozy with industry. We cannot afford to make the same mistake in New York. Drilling for gas using hydraulic fracturing has the potential to contaminate our air, our water and our land. We need clean water, clean air and healthy land to ensure ecological sustainability in the future. I urge you to take the following steps to protect New Yorkers from the potential catastrophic results of drilling that is not properly regulated: First, I ask the DEC to end its fast-track review of the current DSGEIS and put the safety of New Yorkers as top priority by including strong protections based on a comprehensive environmental review of the hydraulic fracturing process and potential threats. Second, I request that no permits to drill gas using hydraulic fracturing be issued until the issues addressed by the recommendations of the recently-mandated EPA study to offer sufficient protection of this practice are incorporated. Third, I advocate that further reviews of the hydraulic fracturing process be conducted to include all appropriate analyses. I believe that the current DSGEIS does not provide sufficient protections for the water resources and people of New York State. Attempting to oversee this industry in New York through the current DEC proposal will be nothing less than disastrous. I ask that you reassess the regulations and design them to adequately safeguard our state's irreplaceable natural resources.

Dear Governor Paterson, As you are aware, the pending proposal to advance hydraulic fracturing - a highly industrial process to drill gas in New York State, is awaiting final approval. I am writing to tell you of my deep concerns about implementing this process under the proposed regulations that have been put forth by the State Department of Environmental Conservation. The catastrophe in the Gulf has unfortunately shown us the very real dangers of proceeding with gas drilling using hydrofracking until we can put in place regulations that will protect our land, air, water and the health of our people. We know that "Drilling Isn't Safe" as it is being currently proposed. The tragedy in the Gulf was precipitated by insufficient regulations, lax enforcement and a government bureaucracy that was too cozy with industry. We cannot afford to make the same mistake in New York. Drilling for gas using hydraulic fracturing has the potential to contaminate our air, our water and our land. We need clean water, clean air and healthy land to ensure ecological sustainability in the future. I urge you to take the following steps to protect New Yorkers from the potential catastrophic results of drilling that is not properly regulated: First, I ask you to direct the State Department of Environmental Conservation to end its fast-track review of the current DSGEIS and put the safety of New Yorkers as top priority by including strong protections based on a comprehensive environmental review of the hydraulic fracturing process and potential threats. Second, I request that no permits to drill gas using hydraulic fracturing be issued until the issues addressed by the recommendations of the recently-mandated EPA study to offer sufficient protection of this practice are incorporated. Third, I advocate that further reviews of the hydraulic fracturing process be conducted to include all appropriate analyses. I believe that the current DSGEIS does not provide sufficient protections for the water resources and people of New York State. Attempting to oversee this industry in New York through the current DEC proposal will be nothing less than disastrous. I ask that you direct the DEC to reassess the regulations and design them to adequately safeguard our state's irreplaceable natural resources.

Dear Representative, Thank you for taking a strong stand for Rhode Island's working families and small businesses by voting for Rep. Guthrie's amendment to freeze the alternative flat tax in the supplemental budget. This amendment would have begun to fix one of Rhode Island's most unfair and unaffordable tax policies. As you know, Rhode Island is severely over-dependent on property taxes, the foundation of our upside-down tax system where the less you earn, the more of your income goes to local and state taxes. The best start to fixing Rhode Island's tax structure is for our elected leaders to repeal the alternative flat tax. This year, Rhode Island is scheduled to lose $56.2 million dollars in revenues from this tax break for less than 1% of Rhode Island's taxpayers, two-thirds of whom live out of state! In this most difficult year, with harmful cuts to cities, towns and education, the burden is falling to those least able to bear it. The Rhode Island Division of Taxation reports that by the end of next year the flat tax will have cost our state $220 million. I hope that in the 2011 budget, you will do what's best for Rhode Island again by supporting the elimination of the alternative flat tax. This will lower our state's over-dependence on the regressive property tax, and allow Rhode Island to make the investments in our communities that create the opportunities for economic success, including to our schools and higher education, public safety and services, and our future -- so that Rhode Island will be a great place to live, work, and raise a family.

Support the highway 93 berm test message

Dear President Obama, I am writing to you because I believe it is a great mistake for you to give $54 billion loan guarantees to nuclear energy industries. You have been promoting "clean nuclear energy" but the only nuclear power I've heard of that is truly clean, renewable and safe is located 93 million miles away from earth. It is called the sun. Why not invest in harnessing the power of this fusion reactor through photovoltaics, solar, thermal, wind and biofuels? Nuclear power plants are expensive to build and operate, fraught with waste, potential litigations, public health and environmental problems for generations to come. In addition, nuclear power plants are a national security risk because they are tempting terrorist targets. Who wants a nuclear power plant or nuclear waste in their backyard or on their highways? Even the Congressional Budget Office considers the "risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -- well above 50%." Given the recent financial meltdown, don't you think we should be staying away from risky investments that jeopardize our tax dollars? President Obama, please bring on the change we can really believe in. Nuclear power is not clean. Invest in truly safe, clean and renewable energy and help create green jobs. It's common sense! Sincerely,

Dear Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee Member, I am writing to ask you to approve the update to the Massachusetts Bottle Bill (H3515/S1480). Right now in Massachusetts, more than 1 BILLION bottles end up in our landfills, littered or incinerated each year. That's enough to fill Fenway Park! (1) However, if the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee approves this bill immediately, we will dramatically reduce this waste by simply expanding the Bill's 5-cent refund program from only beer and soda bottles to include water, juices and sports drinks. So far, 133 towns and cities have signed resolutions in support of the bill, demonstrating widespread public support for the Update. The Bill also has the support of Governor Patrick, Mayor Menino, over 80 legislative supporters, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and over 20 major civic organizations. Maine, New York and Connecticut have all recently expanded their deposit laws beyond carbonated soda and beer. It is well past the time for Massachusetts to follow suit. The 5-cent refund program is a powerful incentive: in 1983 the bill gave a five cent refund on recycled bottles from carbonated beverages, and recycling rates shot up from 12% to more than 70%. (1) But today, a third of all beverages consumed in Massachusetts are **non-carbonated**. These "new age" drinks, like bottled water and sports drinks, are excluded from the refund program, even though they are the fastest growing segment of the beverage industry. Only 20% are recycled and municipalities are forced to spend millions of our tax dollars to manage the rest as litter and waste. (1) The Updated Bottle Bill will save municipalities between $3.7 million and $6.5 million each year by reducing collection, disposal and litter clean up costs. (1) And with our current fiscal crunch and widening deficit, we can't afford to miss out on millions of extra dollars in self-sustainable revenue. Source: (1) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (2009) "Municipal Benefits of an Expanded Bottle Bill." Further information: http://www.massbottlebill.org I am asking you to take immediate action to approve this crucial bill. Sincerely,

I strongly oppose both the Stone Energy application to withdraw up to 700,000 gallons / day from the West Branch Lackawaxen River and its application to drill the Matoushek well. I live downstream, in the Philadelphia area; please hold a downstream hearing! Please do NOT give out any permits to Stone Energy, which previously drilled with no permit in our watershed, before a cumulative environmental impact study has been done in our watershed, before downstream voices have been heard, and before adequate state and federal regulations are in place. Please protect us from the shale gas drilling companies. Don't let them mix clean water from the pristine West Branch Lackawaxen River (the Lackawaxen is our 2010 River of the Year in Pennsylvania!) with their toxic cocktail. Furthermore, I urge you to ban shale gas drilling in our watershed, because: Toxic contaminants travel hundreds of miles. People are already getting sick and getting cancer from fracking fluids. We want clean, safe drinking water. Philadelphia Water Department says the deforestation and soil compaction from this heavy industry would create long-term water quality degradation. Air quality is at risk; people living near natural gas operations breathe in carcinogens and neurotoxins at wildly escalated levels. Please protect our air. Aquatic life is even more sensitive to poisons in the water than people are. Fracking is exempt from every federal environmental law that matters, due to an amendment Halliburton got inserted in the 2005 Energy Bill. That is scary. Democracy matters. How dare you give permits to shale gas drillers who will reap huge profits, before ordinary Philadelphia residents have had any say? Methane emitted from natural gas operations is a significant and increasing contributor to global warming. Also, diesel fumes would increase exponentially. The Stone Energy water withdrawal would result in trucks transporting up to 1,277,500,000 gallons of clean water from the West Branch Lackawaxen to drilling sites, and then again to waste treatment/disposal sites. We want justice, and not for just us: domestic animals, wildlife, birds, fish and future generations ALL need clean water and air. Do not frack with our future! Sincerely,

Dear Mayor Euille, Members of City Council, and City Manager Hartmann, The Eisenhower Public/Private Partnership recently met with members of the City General Services Administration, Fire Department, and Police Department on March 24, 2010 to discuss the design-build solicitation for a proposed low-rise facility that incorporates a new fire station, shooting range, and impound lot on the City’s property at 5249 Eisenhower Avenue. Given this property’s walking proximity to the Van Dorn Metro Station, we believe that the City is clearing a path that would perpetually foreclose the economic development potential of this property as a high-density mixed-use development. Building this facility across the street from Metro would be a highly inefficient use of taxpayer assets (in a challenging budget year), as it would not capture the full economic development value of the property. Additionally, it would blunt the City’s efforts to capitalize on fiscal opportunities that will follow a successful lease-up of Victory Center. In December 2007 City Council unanimously passed the Recommendations of the Mayor’s Economic Sustainability Work Group, which recognized that: * “Metrorail is the most underutilized asset in which the City has made a substantial investment and has not received a full return” and that the City should focus on “captur[ing] the full economic development potential of the City’s Metrorail Stations.” * The City should “make economics part of [the] land use decision process.” * “Model density on best practices such as the retail/office/residential redeveloped Clarendon area in Arlington County...” * “The City should look to determine if the current uses planned for properties it owns represents the most efficient utilization of the property” and “parcels the City owns in commercial areas or high land value areas should receive special focus.” * “The City should sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of properties… after determining the highest-and-best-use of those properties.” While we don’t disagree that there’s a need for a fire station in the western end of the City, building a low-rise 40,000 square foot non-Metro dependent facility on this three-acre property represents a density of 0.30 FAR, and a very inefficient utilization of taxpayer assets for a property that is one block from the Van Dorn Metro Station. The most efficient use would be to sell the property for development of a high-rise mixed-use or commercial building, with a 4.0 FAR density reflective of its mass-transit location. At such a density the property could accommodate about 525,000 SF of taxable real estate for the City of Alexandria. Assuming the tax benefit per square foot to the City is $2.50/SF on such a mixed-use development, then it could generate $1.313 million in annual income to the City, over and above whatever proceeds would be earned from its sale value today. For comparison (assuming the same $2.50/SF), a lower zoned 0.30 FAR property of the same acreage would only generate about $100,000 in yearly tax income. Over the course of 20 years, this difference would represent a net opportunity loss of $24.25 million in taxes for the City (non-inflation-adjusted basis). Building a low-rise fire station on this property would place a non-Metro-dependent use within a Metro station area, using up vital and limited station area land for an extended period of time, for a use that has no requirement for Metro proximity. Using up land near mass-transit for low intensity uses, will in turn force high-density Metro-dependent uses to locate further away from mass transit. We think it’s imperative that City Council change the direction of this effort, so as not to be stuck with a “reverse misfortune” of what happened with BRAC 133 locating to Mark Center, whereby metro-dependent uses are located outside our station areas, and non-Metro-dependent uses inside our Station areas. I would impress upon you to consider selling the 5249 Eisenhower Avenue property for its highest and best use, and then using the proceeds to fund the construction of a fire station on a lower-value property outside of the Metro Station area. Furthermore, the location of a new fire station in the west end should not be dependent upon being able to incorporate room for a police firing range and impound lot, as these uses are not codependent and could go elsewhere within the City (for example on Wheeler Avenue near the new Police Department Facility). Sincerely,