Although it hasn’t gotten as much attention as races for governor and Congress, the Environmental Bond Act on New York’s ballot Tuesday could have a longer-term impact on the state. Proposition One is a $4.2 billion dollar bond, meant to address a variety of environmental concerns and investments. Opponents say it’s too expensive, but advocates for the measure say it would be more costly not to address the changing climate. For analysis, WAMC’s North Country Bureau Chief Pat Bradley spoke with one supporter — John Sheehan of the Adirondack Council. He says the region has pressing water infrastructure needs:
Really the best way to get this done is cooperatively. Money can be made available if the state is willing to do so and we think that this is an excellent opportunity to solve a local problem with some help from the state.
The bond act would increase DEC capital funding.
Yes.
What would you want to see it spent for? Why is that important?
Well, one reason is the Whitney Estate. Thirty-three thousand acres has been placed on the market with a subdivision plan by John Hendrickson the widower of Marylou Whitney. We think the state has an obligation to protect that property. We don’t think it all has to go into the Forest Preserve. There may be some opportunity for historic preservation there with some of the buildings and there may be some recreational opportunities as well that would not be conducive to the Forest Preserve in that location. But we think the bond act presents an opportunity for the land owner, the state and perhaps a third party to work out an agreement that helps both the town and conserves the most important portions of that property long term as Forest Preserve. But that’s going to be very difficult without a large influx of cash. The property is on the market for something in the neighborhood of $300 million, which seems a little high. But when negotiations occur, I’m sure we’ll get a more realistic view of what the actual market value might be at this point. I’m happy to say that it hasn’t sold over the last couple of years. But we’re hopeful that the state will be a party in protecting that. We’d also like to see DEC make progress on cleaning up emissions from a variety of sources, including the bond act would replace school buses that burn fossil fuels with non-fossil fuel burning school buses. So, we’d see electric school buses being used. That’s important given the fact that kids’ lungs are more sensitive than adults’ lungs. School buses and schools that have fossil fuel as their main heating source and fuel source are causing problems for kids that we can avoid. Having ozone from exhaust pipes, having essentially smog being produced by the very things that we’re taking our kids to school in, is a bad idea and one that we can fix relatively easily. It’ll also help to put some people to work. The Inflation Reduction Act on the federal level contains money for new transit buses, for example, that would be electrified. There just happens to be a transit bus manufacturer in the Plattsburgh area who will benefit from that. The school bus, while it does not make school buses, we will see new school buses being made and produced for New York state as a result of this. And as New York reduces its emissions that will spur additional states to do the same thing. We’re a huge portion of the automobile market because we have so many people. And the school bus market as well. Once the transition is made by the manufacturer to produce for New York’s market, it’s going to be a lot cheaper for New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and other states to buy electric school buses too. So this will have a benefit throughout the Northeast and one that you’ll be able to tell just by going outside when the bus is going by because it’s going to smell different!
Well, John Sheehan, you’ve talked about a lot of things that the bond act could do and if you read about it, they will outline $1.5 billion would be dedicated for climate change mitigation, $1.1 billion for flood risk reduction and waterway restoration, $650 million for water quality and infrastructure, $650 million for open space conservation, $300 million unallocated for I guess whatever comes up. But with everything that you’ve been talking about are we being a bit too broad in what we want the money to be used for, you know, our vision is way too wide for the pool of money that we’re asking for?
Oh, well, there is a greater need than we can fill with this amount, yes, that’s true. This is probably the amount that we can realistically spend over 20 years and keep track of it well and I think that that’s an important consideration here.
