You make a valid point about the quotation so I went back and re-read sections of the post and I see quite a lot of ‘he and she said’s that are not followed by quotation marks. I also found at least one example of a traditionally quoted remark. I am not sure of the distinction Mary is intending but I was reading remarks that follow ‘he said’ as something that person actually said.

How else can one interpret… John said the sky was blue. (a hypothetical John, of course)

Also please note that whenever I pull from another’s writing I put that in quotes to distinguish it from my remarks; as I have done to you below. So I was not trying to overly attach Ms. Briggs to the comment. I was simply quoting Mary’s writing.

You wrote, “It’s perfectly reasonable and rationale to ask whether the solution to the current energy usage is throwing more infrastructure at the problem. “

Yes I think it is rational to ask but I do not think this kind of system should be on the margins. This proposal is not speculative; it is being reported that we have a 26 megawatt deficit. So if this is correct doesn’t DTE need to fill the void in this utility system?

You also wrote, “Spending more money on infrastructure isn’t going to help anyone long-term if you don’t address the underlying demands on the system.”

I am not sure I agree. These kinds of systems need to be invested in and need to have some redundancy in the event of an emergency. So ignoring a system that is undersized in the hopes that you will conserve your way out of it does not strike me as a good overall approach. Certainly we should all be working to use less but I am not fond of knowingly leaving a system with a deficiency.

I think dieting should be about eating less and exercising more which will require will-power, understanding and time. But there are other ways to weight less. One diet I heard about has the dieter heavily sedated so they sleep for 3 or 4 days at a time; you can’t eat if you’re in a coma. They basically stop you from living while the calories get used up. I don’t like that approach. Rolling blackouts strike me as being similar to sedation.

Giving attention to floodplain issues while ignoring climate stability issues is an example of why I worked for so long to develop comprehensive environmental goals for the city–doing good in one area isn’t enough.

Another brilliant bon mot from someone who has no place on the Planning Commission and yet another example of why we need a new Mayor to prevent future appointments of similar people to City commissions.

There are somethings that you do not over build for the once a year event. We do not build houses for everyone who visits at Christmas to stay in their own bedroom suites. We do not (should not) build parking lots to easily fit all of the Black Friday shoppers. And we do not (should not) build roads to accommodate all of the football traffic to arrive just in time to get your seat. All of these systems are basically designed for ‘normal’ use as we also have ways to accommodate more demand on an occasional basis.

However there are things, like utility delivery systems, that we may not want working undersized, or even at the edge of their capacity. Would we be content with a water supply system that was undersized; after all we also want to conserve water? I think the fire department might have something to say about that. Would we want our gas lines to be undersized so we heat and cook less saving fossil fuel? I think the insurance industry would want to chime in about the kind of damage burst plumbing causes. Maybe less phone capacity would save some energy; that 911 call can wait for the service to come back online.

“Maybe a few blackouts will make people recognize that they have a responsibility to do something about it.”

Maybe a few blackouts… Really? Blackouts are dangerous and costly.

Regarding the Speedway easement, why rezone if the easement will remain? Who will maintain this easement, shoveling the snow in winter and repairing the pavement?