Showing posts with label Environmentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environmentalism. Show all posts

Friday, October 20, 2023

In Memoriam: Green Party of Lake County, Illinois Announces Passing of Chairman Ethan Winnett

Dear Fellow Greens:


   It is with heavy hearts today that we announce the sad and untimely passing of Ethan Winnett (a/k/a Ethan Windmillsky), who served as the interim chairman of our Lake County chapter since the mid-2010s.
     Ethan August Winnett was 38 years old.


   Ethan was a dedicated chairman, keeping the chapter open and populated through difficult years of low attendance, and drawing more people into the chapter and party.

     He was a busy activist, assisting the Waukegan area; including through preparing free meals for the homeless (despite struggling on-and-off with homelessness himself), and with neighborhood trash clean-up, and community gardening.

     He was also a veteran of the United States Army, and a tireless advocate for veterans’ rights, and for achieving peace worldwide.

 

     Ethan’s penchant for poetry, his love of music, and his fun-loving attitude touched the lives of everyone around him, and helped keep us in good spirits. His outspoken nature and his righteous indignation at the powers-that-be helped inspire us and guide us through years of oppression and antagonism. And for that, he will be sorely missed, and not soon forgotten.

     He is survived by his mother Lana; his sister Elanna, and was preceded in death by his father and hero, Buddy Winnett, Sr., who passed in 2019.


     As a lover of science and technology, Ethan was not religiously observant; so in his memory - in lieu of prayers - mourners are encouraged to do the things that Ethan loved; singing songs, sharing poetry, doing something to be close to nature (such as planting a tree), eating Ethan's favorite food (jap-chae / jap-che), or simply reminding someone they care about that they love them.

     Anyone wishing to be kept updated about memorial services should contact Ethan's sister Ela (by e-mailing earth2ela@gmail.com).

     Anyone wishing to make a donation in Ethan's memory can contact Clean Power Lake County, or the Green Party of Illinois.

     In solidarity,

 

Green Party Co-Chair Anna Schiefelbein

and

Joseph W. Kopsick











Ethan August Winnett

(January 31st, 1985 - October 19th, 2023)








Post-Script:

     [Caution: The following information, and articles, contain information which may be upsetting to sensitive and grieving readers.]

     The official cause of Mr. Winnett's death was provided, by the Lake County Coroner's Office, as smoke inhalation.

     Readers wishing to learn more regarding the circumstances surrounding Mr. Winnett's death can click on the following links to read articles.

     http://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/2023/10/man-found-dead-in-apartment-house-fire-on-grand-ave-waukegan/

     http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/ct-lns-fatal-waukegan-fire-st-1021-20231020-fpyys2b64rfyfgy2petocw6lly-story.html

     http://www.firemapchicago.net/2023/10/fatal-fire-at-apartment-house-on-grand.html

     http://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2023/10/19/firefighters-find-man-dead-rescue-2nd-victim-after-fire-breaks-out-in-apartment-building-in-waukegan/




Elanna Winnett contributed to the content and editing of this article.

Written and published on October 20th, 2023.

Originally published under the title
"Green Party of Lake County, Illinois Announces Passing of Interim Chairman Ethan Winnett".
Title changed several times since original publication.

Edited and expanded on October 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 31st, 2023.
Post-Script added on October 20th, 2023.

Photo added on October 22nd, 2023.
Two more photos added on November 3rd, 2023.

Edited on November 14th, 2023.

Monday, August 31, 2020

Message to Progressives and Environmentalists in Lake County, Illinois Regarding My Campaign


     What follows are excerpts from posts which I made to the Facebook Groups “Lake County IL Environmentalists”, “Clean Air Lake County Community Support”, “Northern Illinois Progressive Candidates, Electeds, and Activists”, and “Illinois Against the TPP” on August 29th, 2020.


     Hi everyone. I'm running as a write-in candidate for U.S. Representative from Illinois's 10th district (the northeast corner of the state).
     I support peace, a fair and free economy, taxing destruction and waste instead of harmless productive activity, and balancing budgets through reducing unnecessary military expenditures not necessary to our defense.
     I also support promoting local solutions to environmental problems, to guard against the risk that the E.P.A. could continue to be put up for sale to corporate and pro-pollution interests.
     Furthermore, fixing our economy will make it easier to decrease our national debt. I also support amending the 13th Amendment to get rid of as many forms of involuntary servitude (i.e., slavery) as possible, both within the criminal justice system and outside of it.

     I want to reform taxes so that they focus on environmental issues. I will promote Land Value Taxation, one of the two revenue sourcing systems which Howie Hawkins has proposed for funding the Green New Deal. The other revenue sourcing system, the Negative Income Tax, is also a step in the right direction as far as improving income taxes goes, but I'd eventually like to eliminate all taxes on earned income (unearned income is a different issue though).
     With Land Value Taxation, local governments would be urged to increase natural resource extraction fees, and increase taxes on land degradation and blight (as well as vacant land, abandoned properties, land hoarding), while reducing taxes on income, sales, consumption, and building value).
     Additionally, I support Community Land Trusts (C.L.T.s) as well as community air trusts and community water trusts. C.L.T.s should be created, in each county in America, as voluntary associations which are non-profit and untaxed. They would be untaxed because they would be the entities doing the taxing of land; charging land occupancy fees and land degradation fees. C.L.T.s would help align each community's economic future with its future need for ecological sustainability. 
     I believe in dual federalism, triple federalism, and subsidiarism: the most local authority possible, should handle environmental issues, as long as that authority is competent enough to handle the issue. Not all environmental problems are nationwide issues; some of them are local. Furthermore, no county would willingly allow itself to be polluted. That is why we must ensure that the federal government never has the right to determine which areas may be polluted, or have nuclear materials stored, without that community's consent, and without proper compensation for the adverse health effects. Federal environmental standards can help, but having environmental standards is not SO important, that such standards should OVERRIDE local and state environmental regulations, if those regulations can be better than the nationwide standard. That is why localities must be free to set higher environmental standards than the national standard.
     For each community to have a C.L.T. (a non-profit, untaxed voluntary association which help guard against the risk of the E.P.A. continuing to be bought and sold by pro-pollution interests. I would align myself with environmental conservationists, and also the decentralists within the Green Party, but I would also promote C.L.T.s as a quasi-"private", somewhat property-rights-oriented solution to environmental problems (because they would be non-profit and untaxed, and therefore unaffiliated with the state and federal governments).

     I also support bioregionalism, the idea behind the Cascadia independence project. I believe that bioregionalism will help prevent unnecessary federal intrusion into local environmental problems, and restore local rights without allowing states to use states' rights as a justification to dismantle environmental protections.
     If I am elected to Congress, I will spread awareness of Land Value Taxation, Community Land Trusts, and bioregionalism on a national level. This will help the current generation of environmental law students, and other voters, get a free education about these little-known ideas, and start a conversation about what needs to become an important topic in American political discourse: ENVIRONMENTAL TAXATION.
     These ideas are important because they could reduce unemployment, reduce waste of land, decrease economic inequality, and reduce environmental degradation, all at the same time.

     I want to help create a free and fair economy by building a Mutualist Party, while offering new and unique alternatives to traditional neo-liberal policies like those of my opponent Brad Schneider, like re-orienting taxation to focus on environmental issues (such as the need to tax blight and land degradation).
     On trade issues, I support "alter-globalization", in which we would have 1) localized social safety nets, alongside 2) open and fair trade, not unregulated free trade, and 3) free movement of people. We would also have 4) cultural and economic globalization, but not global government; and 5 & 6) the consumer would have the right to fully boycott (and unionize) and refuse to purchase all products (repeal Taft-Hartley).
      Please consider writing-me in against Democrat Brad Schneider and Republican Valerie Ramirez-Mukherjee. Read sections 13 and 14 of my platform to learn more about my views on the environment and Land Value Taxation (which is also part of my plan to balance budgets, lower prices on goods, and increase the purchasing power of the dollar).




     See this link to learn more: http://www.facebook.com/groups/586988188625917/






Written as separate posts on August 29th, 2020

Edited together and published on August 31st, 2020

Sunday, October 24, 2010

On Public Planning Departments


 In June or July 2008, I wrote the following essay for a university course on public planning and natural resources. It is an exercise based on a hypothetical situation in which a candidate for mayor were to advocate for the elimination of a city public planning department. Its original title was “Loss of Public Planning Department Would Impact Influence of Public Will, Slow Development."

It should be noted that I do not hold many of the opinions defended in this essay today. I explain why at the end of the essay. The essay reads thus:






I am concerned about the misleading rhetoric espoused by the conservative candidate for mayor regarding her plan to eliminate the public planning department.

To eliminate this department would leave a hole in our local government. It would dramatically diminish our city’s ability to engage in sustainable development with minimal detriment to the safety of our citizens, natural resources, and wildlife.

Were our local government to attempt to exist effectively without the public planning department, decisions regarding important public concerns such as unlimited pollution and inefficient or faulty transportation systems [would be left] up to individual people and businesses, meaning that a majority of the public could be affected without their knowledge, consent, or ability to voice their objections or suggestions.

Although the efficiency of the functioning of markets is a legitimate concern, it would not be correct to suggest that government interference in markets will decrease efficiency. Unlimited pollution would not interfere with the efficiency of the market in the short term, but it would be terribly inefficient to suspend the actions of a body created to handle problems affecting the public until a private investor with enough money and interest to fix the problem comes along, causing the delay of projects which may prevent further exposure to poorly-maintained roads and hazardous chemicals, thus creating several other problems such as rising health care costs and dissatisfaction with local government.

It would be more efficient for the progress of society as a whole, and to the specific community, to take some effort to ensure that groups of citizens who may not be able to invest time and money to fix problems affecting the public have a method to ensure that their concerns have a chance of being heard and addressed, rather than to eliminate the public planning department and allow the possibility that cheap, shoddy materials could be used to build infrastructure, or that decisions on improving transportation systems and protecting against damage by pollution could be left to the lowest bidder, whom cannot always be counted on to put the public interest ahead of his own desire to make profit.

The conservative candidate’s claim that “buyers and sellers know what is best for them, and the greater public interest will result from their decisions” is false. We cannot assume that any particular rational market actor will do what is in the public interest any more than we can assume that any particular person will know what the public interest is, or that he will understand how to implement decisions to best serve the public interest, or even that he can be relied on to ensure the safety and security of himself, his family, and his property.

To suggest that individuals and markets can be counted on to bring about the public good eliminates the purpose of democracy: the ability of citizens to be represented in lawmaking and to engage in discourse with their elected representatives so that they may hear the complaints and suggestions of their constituents, better understand the public interest and good, and be held accountable for any failures to serve the public.

While it is true that ownership of private property is a condition for freedom, since ownership gives rights to the owner, and thus gives the owner freedom from infringement upon those rights, it is not, however, true that ownership of private property is a necessary condition for democracy. Even citizens whom do not own any private property have voting rights and are entitled to representation, so democracy can exist even if some of those citizens who participate in the democracy do not own private property.

The conservative candidate has not provided sufficient justification for the elimination of the public planning department. Although she is correct to warn against unjustifiable takings without compensation, she does not adequately explain why such cases represent a threat to democracy or to democratic values. She has used concerns for the efficiency of the economy and the endurance of democratic values to mislead the public to support a candidate whose reforms would drastically alter the structure and ability of the local government, which would cause layoffs and slow progress in issues of public concern.





I will next explain with which opinions contained in the above essay I no longer agree, and why. This text was written on October 24th, 2010.


First, while I believe that there is an important place for democracy in local government, I also believe that such democracy can only be protective of private property and individual rights so long as the authority of the democratic government in question is submitted to voluntarily.

But I would add that once such a government is constituted legitimately – that is, with the consent of all parties involved – it should have the right to make rules about which people and businesses may be permitted to reside and operate within the territory administered by the government (that is, if that government operates as a territorial government, rather than as a confederation of individuals, or some other formulation of a jurisdictionally-aterritorial confederation of governments and autonomous individuals).

     Second, I reject my previous claims that government interference in markets will increase efficiency. Being that our current government is centralized, exclusive, monopolistic, and has coercion as its main premise, I would now argue the opinion espoused by the Austrian School, which is that it becomes impossible for an optimally efficient balance to be found through the actions of the sum of freely acting participants in any given market over which some right to plan – especially in a centralized manner – is claimed and exercised by a monopoly government.

Third, while it is true that without a monopolistic central planning department, decisions could be left to the lowest bidder, it is not necessarily true that the lowest bidder would always provide for the goods which are desired by the community.

Although I did not overtly say this in the essay, I did reject the claim that “buyers and sellers know what is best for them, and the greater public interest will result from their decisions”, and I also said that “we cannot assume that any particular rational market actor… will understand how to implement decisions to best serve the public interest”.

While I believe that this claim is consistent with Adam Smith’s idea that “every individual… generally… neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it”, it would appear that the implication of these two statements is that we can also not assume that any particular rational market actor who has been elected to serve in government will understand how to implement decisions to best serve the public interest.

While it would seem appropriate to note that this idea could be easily used to argue against democracy, it would take a bit more to use it to argue in favor of the free market. To do this, I would again invoke catallaxy, a term which is essentially identical with Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”, and which Austrian School economist Friedrich Hayek used to refer to “the order brought about by the mutual adjustment of many individual economies in a market”.

To invoke catallaxy in this argument is to defend the idea that as long as participants in the marketplace do not coerce, manipulate, or defraud one another, and act with deference to the mutual desire of all parties to economic agreements to make decisions which each party deems to be in its own best interest, the result will always be not only the most optimally efficient result possible (as judged by the parties), but also the most moral result possible, being that the consent of no party was ignored in the decision-making process.

    In attempting to understand this argument, it would also be helpful to note that in a free market of governance which rejected monopolistic economic planning, there would be nothing preventing an individual or a group thereof from seeking justiciable restitution in the event that their property were to be damaged as a result of decision-making by individuals unknown to the person or persons claiming that some damage has occurred.



Original Essay Written in June or July 2008 for a college course
Correction Written on October 24th, 2010
Originally Published on October 24th, 2010






For more entries on enterprise, business, business alliance, and markets, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/enlightened-catallaxy-reciprocally.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/agorist-protection-agencies-and.html

For more entries on social services, public planning, and welfare, please visit:

A Case Examination of Policy for Natural Resource Management

 Westerlo County, New York
 
    Residents of Westerlo have shown concern over the growing problems of air and water pollution, soil erosion, destruction of wildlife habitats, rapid population growth, the fragmentation of the rural landscape, the impact of the proliferation of cars on the physical and social environment, dissatisfaction with greater-than-local governmental controls on natural resource management, lack of social infrastructure, and threats to the property rights and property values of landowners.

I believe that, in order to best manage growth and protect natural resources, the town of Westerlo should use public money to purchase the development rights of any lands which it deems most important to allocate specific uses. The town should also employ a system of differential property taxation in order to delay rapid land conversion and development, and to give the town an opportunity to come up with a comprehensive plan for the uses that will be allowed in each area of the town.

Purchasing the development rights of valuable areas such as the reservoir, or any lands in low-lying areas that may be prone to flooding, would allow the town to protect water quality by limiting public access to it. Were the town to then sell those development rights to a private investor interested in constructing a water purification and treatment facility on the site of the reservoir, human pollution, pollution from automobiles, animal pollution, soil erosion, and pollution from runoff could  be greatly decreased,  thus ensuring a high level  of water quality for the residents of Albany County.

The town should first use state enabling legislation to purchase development rights to those lands it deems most necessary to protect, such as wetlands or farmlands with rich soils. Then, it should appropriate funds to establish an administrative agency to operate the program. Next, the agency would draft program regulations for the purchase of development rights, including a method for preserving farmland. The agency would then consider applications to sell development rights, hire an independent appraiser to appraise the development rights value of each farm, negotiate the conservation easement price with the landowner, purchase the development rights, and monitor and enforce the terms of the easement.

This plan would largely prevent land use conversion and development. It is not typically difficult to implement, and when used correctly, it can achieve strict, permanent regulatory action in the district from which land rights are purchased. Purchasing the development rights of certain areas would be less expensive than if the town were to purchase the land itself. The plan would not allow takings to be claimed, as the town would make compensation in exchange for regulatory action. It would not make it impossible for landowners in the transfer district to sell their land; the landowner retains the right to stay on the land, and any other rights he might have, besides the right to develop the land for uses of which the city disapproves.

The town should also employ a system of differential property taxation for agricultural and forestlands. The town should value highest those lands that it would most like to see developed into uses that maximize the productive potential of the land. With this method, it can do so without compromising the quality of adjacent lands or wildlife habitats, and without forcing career or hobby agriculturalists or foresters to sell their land.

Differential property taxation is perceived as a helpful tool for preventing fragmentation of the rural landscape. It would give the town the opportunity to take time to decide what uses are preferential in each area of the town. This plan would likely delay land development and conversion, although it would not prevent it entirely.

In differential property taxation, the town enters into contracts with landowners for several years at a time, and agrees to keep the property tax rates low for those landowners who are using their lands in ways the town finds conducive to the protection of the physical environment. The town can raise property taxes on owners who reside on large plots of land and are not using the land to its full agricultural potential, which would eventually lead to the sale of the land to an investor who will develop the land to a more intensive agricultural use.

Under this system, the difference in assessed value between the most productive use and the agricultural use multiplied by the local tax rate determines the size of the tax break. This would mean that those farmers who own land with the greatest difference between the value of the most productive use and the value of the agricultural use would save the most money in property taxes. It also means that there would be a small increase in the taxes of landowners who use their land for purposes not preferred by the city.

To ensure that land use in the future will be conducive to productivity and environmental health, the town should pass an ordinance requiring that any investor who buys certain plots of land after a specified date should have to develop the land in a way the town would prefer. This is especially important for the many agricultural lands with steep slopes in the area. The town should give tax incentives for landowners who convert these lands into terraced agriculture, which would  save moisture,  prevent soil erosion,  and allow for  the maximum  use of space for farming.

The town could cut air pollution and prevent further encroachment on wildlife habitats by passing ordinances restricting the location of roads to places where runoff and car exhaust are unlikely to damage agricultural and forestlands. Another approach would be to design road systems that encourage people to carpool. The town should also consider using public funds to buy development rights and sell them to investors interested in locating depots for energy-efficient public transportation systems, such as bus and taxicab companies, in downtown Westerlo, and/or a light rail system along the highway to Albany. This would promote population growth in Westerlo, and the zoning and differential property taxation ordinances that the town will have put in place by the time public transportation systems become necessary will promote sustainable development, providing the town funding for social infrastructure such as police and fire stations, schools, libraries, and improvements to roads. The town would also do well to ensure a mixture of residential and commercial uses near the center of the town and other areas of highly-concentrated population, so as to lower the number of people who would require motor transportation to get to and from commercial and residential areas.

I do not believe that a transfer of development rights program would be in Westerlo’s best interest because such a programs are difficult to implement, especially considering the expected cost to the public bank to buy development rights if no private investors are interested in purchasing properties the town wants to conserve. Given the small population of the town compared to the size of the agriculture and forestry lands the citizens want to preserve, this would be difficult for the town to afford. Also, transfer of development rights programs are not as effective as purchase of development rights programs are in making sure that lands in which the town wants to prohibit or delay development or conversion are successfully protected. TDRs (Transfer-of-Development Rights) would occasionally only allow the town to relocate development rights to elsewhere on the parcels.


Written in Summer 2008
Originally Published on October 24th, 2010






For more entries on energy and natural resources, please visit:

Links to Documentaries About Covid-19, Vaccine Hesitancy, A.Z.T., and Terrain Theory vs. Germ Theory

      Below is a list of links to documentaries regarding various topics related to Covid-19.      Topics addressed in these documentaries i...