Daily Archives: February 12, 2021

Pitchers and catchers will begin reporting to camps in Arizona and Florida next week to kick of 2021 MLB spring training. The end of the offseason is near, then, meaning that it's time for free-agent stragglers to find a home.

With a few notable exceptions (Justin Turner, Jackie Bradley Jr., James Paxton), most of the unsigned players who ranked on our top 60 are relievers. Take a look:

In theory, it should be easier for relievers than any other type of player to find gainful employment. Most teams carry seven or eight of them at all times, and these specific players are unlikely to be in a position where they can haggle over their role. Add in how contenders are always seeking one more reliable bullpen arm, and you would think agreements would be a fait accompli.

In practice, there is one other thing to consider: roster construction, and specifically optionality -- or, the ability to send down a player without requiring waivers.

Having some optionable relievers in the bullpen is always a plus, as it allows teams to swap out pitchers as performance and circumstances deem necessary. Have a rough stretch where your relievers have had to rack up a lot of innings? You can sub in a fresh arm or two easy enough. That luxury isn't afforded to teams with inflexible option situations. Further, it limits the ability to upgrade through free agency, trades, waivers, or promotions since teams are always reluctant to shed depth.

That means clubs who have bullpens staffed with out-of-option players are less likely to make a move than those who can send down a reliever to make room. Which contenders are which? Let's break it down, using the forecasted rosters hosted at FanGraphs. (Note that we used a liberal definition of "contender," and if your team isn't listed here, it's because they're in the cozy middle.)

The Reds are the perfect example of what we're talking about when it comes to inflexible bullpen situations. With the Sean Doolittle signing, the Reds have seven relievers who cannot be optioned to the minors without being exposed to waivers: Doolittle, Amir Garrett, Lucas Sims, Noe Ramirez, Jeff Hoffman, Sal Romano, and Jose De Leon. Even if the Reds are willing to shed Romano or De Leon, they're going to be stuck with a rigid bullpen situation for the foreseeable future.

The Mets are another team with a largely inflexible situation, as they could enter the spring with six unoptionable pitchers: Trevor May, Miguel Castro, Dellin Betances, Jeurys Familia, Aaron Loup, and Brad Brach. Closer Edwin Diaz and utility arm Seth Lugo each have options, but neither is likely to get sent down anytime soon. That means the Mets might have to cut bait with Brach to make room at some point.

The Yankees, Braves, Padres, and Nationals are the contenders with five immovable relievers each. Your mileage may vary on how attached those teams are to some of the pitchers (e.g. the Yankees and Albert Abreu; the Nationals and Austin Voth). The Marlins technically have only three pitchers who cannot be optioned, but that's without including their two Rule 5 picks (Zach Pop and Paul Campbell).

In an amusing twist, the teams best positioned to welcome a veteran reliever into the fold are the teams who appear least likely to make it happen for other reasons.

The Brewers (Ray Black) and Cleveland' (Adam Plutko) have only one reliever apiece who is immovable. Both are working under tight, self-imposed budget restraints, however. Besides, they're of the progressive, iconoclastic cloth that could see them value their flexibility more whatever (if any) performance uptick they would receive from slotting in a veteran instead.

Elsewhere, the Rays and White Sox each have two relievers without options. The Rays have continued to sniff around free-agent and trade targets, per league sources, suggesting they will be taking advantage of their situation. The White Sox, meanwhile, might prefer to stand pat given their plethora of talented, unheralded arms and the money they've already spent this winter in adding Liam Hendriks.

It stands to reason at least one of those teams will join the likes of the Blue Jays and the Giants, each of whom has signed a veteran reliever (Jake McGee, David Phelps) in the past few days.

See original here:

MLB free agency: Many veteran relievers remain unsigned; here are the teams best positioned to land them - CBS Sports

WA Liberals leader Zak Kirkup has unveiled the parties visionary plan to build the biggest jobs, renewable energy and export project in the nation, if elected next month.

Kirkup believes the plan will lay the foundation for the next 50 years of Western Australian jobs, economic activity and prosperity.

The Liberals WA have partneredwith industry to create this project which the party believewill future-proof WAs energy network, deliver fuel security, and deliver cheaper energy to businesses and households.

What comes next for WA, after COVID-19, when we start to build back? Liberal Leader Zak Kirkup said.

We need a jobs plan to take WA forward. The Liberals New Energy Jobs Plan is the biggest jobs plan for WA in generations and will lead us forward into a post-COVID recovery.

Its a mega-project, building the largest renewable energy project in Australias history, with wind, solar and large-scale batteries that will transform Western Australias energy system for the next 50-years and give WA fuel security and energy independence.

Importantly, the Liberals New Energy Jobs Plan will deliver net zero emissions for the WA Government by 2030, an important milestone on Australias path of zero emissions by 2050.

I want to make it perfectly clear that this will not impact the private sector. This is about the State Governments emissions and leading by example, Kirkup said.

Our plan will assist companies transition to green exports and independent clean energy operations if they choose.

Key elements of the New Energy Jobs Plan include:

See more here:

WA Liberal promise: To build the biggest jobs, renewable energy project in the nation - 91.7 The Wave

It seems everyone has an opinion on aquaculture.

That includes the Liberal federal government, which made a campaign promise during the 2019 federal election that if elected it would remove salmon farms from B.C. waters by 2025.

The first manifestation of that promise happened in December, when, after consultations with area First Nations, federal fisheries minister Bernadette Jordan announced 19 salmon farms in the Discovery Islands near Campbell River would be shut down in 18 months.

Aquaculture businesses and workers are now in the lurch wondering just what the future will hold for the industry.

RELATED: Discovery Island salmon farms to be shut down

The North Island Gazette interviewed John Paul Fraser, executive director of the BC Salmon Farmers Association, about the political climate surrounding this decision.

What are your thoughts on Tahsis mayor Martin Davis saying salmon farms need to be moved on land?

From what I understand, Tahsis has always had a closed containment or land-based policy position for some time. Some of the problem I had with it was the reporting. They said Tahsis broke away from the other communities, but I dont really think they were ever a part of those communities in the first place.

RELATED: Tahsis mayor breaks ranks

Were working very closely with mayors of the North Island, Port Hardy, Sayward, Port McNeill, Gold River and Campbell River, and thats going to continue. The mayors were very clear in the letter we drafted with them that the Discovery Islands decision will have a very real significant economic impact that the government didnt adequately consider.

RELATED: North Island mayors back salmon farms

Would moving fish farms on land cost Vancouver Island the aquaculture industry entirely?

This government continues to create so much uncertainty by making decisions without plans, without information, and are creating the wrong kind of environment to even consider transitioning to land-based, or any other new forms of aquaculture. Its almost as if people havent realized that land-based aquaculture has its own challenges that have yet to be overcome, and would need to be, if it was ever going to become a serious part of aquaculture.

What the government is saying makes no sense, because what we are currently doing is working. It is meeting, or meets, all of the environmental requirements, and we are successfully producing healthy food that is in demand all over the world.

What does minimal risk mean to the BC Salmon Farmers Association?

Independent scientific analysis over nine years concluded the salmon farms presence in the Discovery Islands posed no more than minimal risk to wild salmon. The science met the standards that the Cohen Commission demanded, but ultimately that ended up not being good enough.

What do you say to the activists who disagree with DFOs minimal risk assessment?

There is no amount of science, and there is no scientific process, that will satisfy certain people, and we all know who they are.

Do you feel salmon farms operating in traditional territories are a part of Indigenous reconciliation?

Our companies must work hand-in-hand with local Indigenous communities. There are lots of examples of where that is working and working really well. Its our hope that more of that can happen

If you look at the decision made in the Broughton Archipelago to relocate, move, or close the farms, that decision didnt get made with an arbitrary time frame, because everyone understood the best way to do it is to set an objective. It may be difficult and it may be challenging, but you bring everyone together with the purpose of understanding how to get there that is reconciliation. Reconciliation is where you bring people together to resolve past grievances with a clear desire to emerge more united than when you enter the process.

What kind of impacts will be felt from this decision?

Without the trajectory of this decision (Discovery Islands) being altered so it can be more carefully and properly implemented or executed, there will be a significant amount of job loss and a significant amount of animal loss Were looking at 1,500 hundred families who work in the Discovery Islands whose careers and livelihoods are either directly or indirectly impacted. Its not just the farms, its the people on the farms that are on the line here.

This is quite possibly the most impactful, careless, reckless, thoughtless, decision that I have ever seen. The federal government has provided zero plans for how this impact is to be mitigated. They have not reached out, and they do not care. These arent communities the Government of Canada thinks will help them win an election.

Could all salmon farms be moved on land by 2025?

I want to make this abundantly clear, we would never talk bad about land-based aquaculture, we know a thing or two about how it is done, where it can be done and when it can be done The problem is you have government who doesnt know any of those three things saying what can happen, as opposed to the people who are actually doing it. They are putting promises ahead of policy

Youre not going to see the entire industry picked up from the ocean and moved on land in five years. It is not going to happen. People need to stop thinking that it can. We can work towards alternate forms of ocean-based production to build and grow aquaculture

Ultimately how the sector evolves is going to be between the Nations and the companies.

RELATED: The future of fish farms in the North Island

RELATED: First Nation council denounces attempt to challenge fish farm ban

RELATED: First Nation Chief says judicial review a challenge to Aboriginal rights

@NIGazetteeditor@northislandgazette.comLike us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter

BC politicsFish Farms

See the article here:

Salmon farming exec says feds left the North Island on the hook with no safety net Campbell River Mirror - Campbell River Mirror

In mere days, some of us will head to the polling stations to cast our ballots for a new House of Assembly. The Liberals will vote Liberal, the Progressive Conservatives will vote PC and NDP loyalists will vote NDP. The Independent members may (or may not) retain their seats, and the NL Alliance may pick up some votes with their interesting platform of electoral reform.

So, what will be accomplished? Very little, if anything, unless the undecided voters turn out in their anger of having to vote in a harsh winter election hastily called to precede the impending interim report of the Premiers Economic Recovery Team (PERT). That protest could turn our minority government into a PC-led legislature instead of a Liberal-led one. Either way, the NDP and Independents would be essential to the process of governing.

Given the critical point in history that we are all facing, another minority government may be the best we could hope for. Whoever becomes premier after Feb. 13 will have to deal with the interim PERT report on Feb. 28 and presumably share it with the legislature and the people of the province. Although it is interim (the final report is due on April 30) the information forthcoming will indicate the findings concerning the position of our financially challenged province within the Canadian Confederation. Many voters believe the current rush to the polls is because recommendations which may be made to government will not be popular. Indeed, the resignation from PERT of labour leader Mary Shortall is concerning, if not foreboding. And of course, the report will influence the 2021 budget, which could nullify many of the promises now being made by all parties and their candidates.

Given the critical point in history that we are all facing, another minority government may be the best we could hope for.

It may well be that we are facing a historic turning-point similar to 1934 when we had to abandon self-rule for a Commission of Government, and 1949 when we became a province of Canada. Such major challenges must, as a matter of principle, be dealt with by the people, and not by a premier and cabinet with a mandate from their own party to govern. It demands intensive public consultation regardless of political partisanship.

Commentary seems to be once again transfixed on cutting costs, like a corporation dealing with financial challenges by laying off employees or replacing them with machines. The problem with this focus is that it is a Band-Aid approach. The root problem remains, but is ignored like the proverbial elephant in the room.

We have a lot of geography, but little demography. The land mass of Newfoundland and Labrador (370,514 square kilometres) is equivalent to the entire United Kingdom (241,390 square kms) plus Nova Scotia (52,942 square kms), New Brunswick (71,388 square kms ), and 85 per cent of P.E.I.s 5,686 square kms.

The combined population of the U.K. and Atlantic provinces is 70 million. The N.L. population is less than 520,000, equivalent to the city of Surrey, B.C. And this tiny tax base is spread all over the land mass from Nain to St. Shotts and from Port aux Basques to Labrador City, and everywhere in between. We have more than 400 communities with over 9,000 kms of roads, scores of hospitals and health-care centres, hundreds of schools, a university complex and regional post-secondary colleges.

So, if we sharpen our pencils for cost-cutting, which hospitals do we close? Which roads do we maintain? How do we give our children the education they deserve in the 21st century? How many communities must become abandoned, as in centralization? Surely what is necessary is a new status within Canada if we are ever to become financially viable.

Perhaps Dame Moya Greene and her PERT members will address this vital question. The problem is that we dont know. And we should have known before we vote on Feb.13.

Edsel Bonnell

Mount Pearl

RELATED:

Excerpt from:

LETTER: Politics before principles and people, once again - TheChronicleHerald.ca

BLM crucial to protection of conservation areas

President Biden has established the commendable goal of protecting 30 percent of our nations lands and waters by 2030. This could be a significant response to the mounting climate and extinction crises. However, achievement of this goal is questionable given the failure of federal agencies to protect some lands that should already be protected under existing laws.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages the most federal lands. It could play a crucial role in meeting this goal. Unfortunately, the BLM cannot do so because it has repeatedly proven unwilling to provide required protection.

The BLM continues to allow harmful commercial livestock grazing and other uses in many of its national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness areas, and areas of critical environmental concern. Indeed, the BLM recently approved a controversial Northern Corridor Highway through its Red Cliffs National Conservation Area in southwest Utah. This approval goes against the statutory conservation purposes of this area, degrades lands acquired for permanent protection, jeopardizes Mojave desert tortoises, and destroys their legally designated critical habitat.

The BLMs dominant management culture is regressive, biased, and secretive. I know because I worked for them from 2002-2017. This culture persists, including during the eight Obama administration years. Managers tend to be most afraid of commercial interests, angry ranchers, and the politicians who support them. They allow political expediency to supersede the law, science, and public interest. Protection can be a mere word in legal documents when it is not effectively implemented.

To help achieve his important conservation goals, President Biden should fundamentally reform the BLMs dominant management culture.

Richard Spotts

Great Reset to address worlds biggest problems

Few people have heard or are aware of whats being called the Great Reset. Its not really new and has been renewed and added changes and upgrades for many years, including new apostles. It was conducted in Davos, Switzerland by worldwide commerce leaders and world political leaders or by their representatives, including the USA.

They plan to address, what they feel, are the most pressing problems the world faces today.

First and foremost is global warming, next is inequity around the world. Theyre not interested in correcting these things through individual governments or individual international corporations, their plans resemble copying certain government action taken by various governments throughout history (even recent history) on a worldwide scale that all countries will need to conform to.

They realize they must gain a level of worldwide support, which can be accomplished by sprinkling some free stuff to various people in need along with a plethora of promises of the more good things to come. Some will regard these leaders as saints and saviors, a tactic that is seen through the pages of history, by sincere believers and tyrants alike. No doubt there will remain democratic practices such as voting, but true power will be in the international power structure. The results will not only affect small business by controlling their growth through regulations and tax policies that may be seen as competitive threats to the members dominance, but down to the individual by controlling one of the cornerstones of the free enterprise system, to which they have already declared Capitalism is dead. Chances are this would start out violently like the many times before in history, it will happen legally through things like increased property tax rates, or failure to comply with standards of energy compliance, not have the properly approved appliances. Which naturally you can only buy from members if this internal cabal.

Some of these things have taken place and are still taking place, the National Socialist Workers Party (the NAZIS), a refined form of the Communist Chinese Party, well know how successful it can be to have government and commerce work together for mutual benefits of each other in particular, as long as youre able to keep the masses under control. Its no different than George Orwells Animal Farm except on a world scale when after all the animals revolted against Farmer Jones and ousted him, all the animals were equal, some just more equal than others.

David Jaronik

Election a good example of you cant fix stupid

Liberal progressives, in lockstep with one another, have an uncanny ability to not concede there might be an other side to an issue. It is not coincidence that this cadre of mostly Democrats access and speak from a set of talking points that repeated over and over again, eventually replace truth and reasoning.

I recently opined on the stolen election, and yes, it was stolen, but since the reasoning offered did not fit the legal standard of the left, it was with left-handed eloquence dismissed as, well, pretty much drivel.

Someone with much more word prowess than I once described a fool, and I am paraphrasing, as someone who does the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. That said, I wont reiterate the very solid evidence supporting the fact that the election was a total sham. As another person of great wit said, you cant fix stupid.

David Perlman

Fascism could come to America in the name of liberalism

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross, is a quote that is dubiously attributed to Sinclair Lewis, author of It Cant Happen Here. Written in 1935 at a time when fascist regimes were consolidating their power in Germany, Italy, and Spain. Lewis basically envisions a scenario where the United States becomes an authoritarian state through a president coming into power by embracing patriotism, traditional values, and economic and social transformation; and buttressed by a base of ultranationalist, religious fanatics, and xenophobes. He furthers his hold on power by suppressing a free and liberal press, and supporting a paramilitary that enforces the policies of the president and terrorizes all opposition. As prophetic aspects of this novel are in light of the January 6th attack on our Capitol and our democracy, we are not fully holding everybody who contributed to the big lie(s) accountable and reforming the infrastructure that breeds the big lies.

After challenges to the presidential election have been reviewed ad nauseum (repeated to the point of nausea) it would take a long stretch of the imagination to claim that the election was fraudulent, and all of our institutions and officials were complicit in a grand scheme. Thankfully, our courts, election officials and security experts did a remarkable job objectively calling the election. Either the adherers of fraud are choosing not to accept above any reasonable doubt the results because their man did not get enough votes and they are so distressed of the new administration that they will not accept the majoritys decision and jeopardize our democracy or they are mesmerized diehards that are completely entrenched in their beliefs and trust in Trump that nothing will enlighten them.

If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism (60 Minutes December 1975), is a quote that is attributed to President Ronald Reagan. Although by liberalism he did not mean to liberate as Trump and his supporters of patriots promoted in the Save America rally, he has ironically identified a key tenet of Trumps supporters. It is a liberalism, under almost all circumstances that gives people the right to do whatever they chose, freedom without limits. Patriots apparently think it is alright to liberate states (by kidnapping governors), have freedom to not wear masks (as you endanger others), and now protest the steal (by violently attacking and murdering). Save America by destroying it is oxymoronic or just moronic if anything is.

President Ronald Reagan spent World War II as an Army captain in the first motion picture unit fighting fascism. In 1946 he began making speeches condemning fascism and communism. His speeches against fascism focused on the atrocities of World War II, Americas growing fascist movement, and the need to protect against racism and all forms of intolerance. President Reagans battle against communism coincided with the Cold War, his presentations exposed the oppressive character of communist regimes.

Scholars view fascism as capitalism run amok and communism as socialism run amok. Both are dictatorial, both engage in a high degree of propaganda, falsely elevating their leaders as saviors and protectors from an enemy that is not part of their group or an enemy that is foreign or an enemy that has opposite political views. Consensus among economists is that a mixed economy where capitalism plays its part and socialism plays its part is best, but neither has dictatorial power and both exist within the confines of a democratic state.

The Trump brand of fascism fits Sinclair Lewis characterization to a large degree. He is viewed as larger than life leader who for some has been sent by God, he is a strong man who is protecting his followers from non-Christian cultures, socialists, fake news, government intrusion, Second Amendment restrictions, satanical Democrats, and the list goes on. Fear-mongering and scapegoating are classic tools of fascists. Lies and exaggerations are basic.

On August 22 (1939), Adolf Hitler told his generals: I will provide a propagandistic casus belli (provocation used to justify war). Its credibility doesnt matter. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth. (Wikipedia Propaganda in Nazi Germany) Thereby, justifying the invasion of Poland that led to the Second World War.

Trumps lies and exaggerations have led to our present state of pandemic denial and violent mobs.

Trump is no Rambo, no strong man or has he been sent by God. Inciting a mob, promising (a promise unfulfilled) to lead it to Congress and then condemning its action as heinous is duplicitous to say the least.

Media personalities, equivocal and unscrupulous politicians, and a biased mindset contribute to the Big Lies. Solutions to complex problems are made simple, or better yet, problems are denied that they exist. Willingness to propagate and accept unsubstantiated and false narratives, obviously, magnifies their existence. A proportion of the populace distressed economically and one that perceives to be threatened unrealistically by multiculturalism, socialism, government, mainstream media, poor immigrants etc. are easily swayed to scapegoat, demonize and accept conspiracies promoted by biased media and self-serving politicians.

Freedom of speech has a responsibility to be truthful. Just as it is illegal to create panic by falsely yelling fire in a theater, it should be illegal to stoke chaos and political polarity by spewing lies. Genuine policy disagreements are essential in our democracy and should be encouraged. Unfortunately, Hitlers view that credibility doesnt matter has taken hold in the American political and media spheres. Unfortunately, the only remedy to this, is restricting and regulating, coupled with litigation (Dominion threatening to sue Fox News for false stories) In England, a regulatory entity enforces rules on impartiality and accuracy. We may need something similar to assure that we do not radicalize but inform, to give us an unbiased and comprehensive presentation of news and issues.

The attack on Congress and our democracy has revealed a better insight and appreciation of what motivated Union soldiers, especially immigrants during the American Civil War after the siege of Fort Sumter. They had left tyrannical systems of government, fought against these systems and were not going to let attacks by insurrectionists on democracy and self-government be unanswered.

In a Times article history professor Don H. Doyle, author of The Cause of All Nations: An International History of the American Civil War writes: So it was civil war, but for many foreign-born soldiers and citizens, this was much more than Americas war. It was an epic contest for the future of free labor against slavery, for equal opportunity against privilege and aristocracy, for freedom of thought and expression against oppressive government, and for democratic self-government against dynastic rule. Foreigners joined the war to wage the same battles that had been lost in the Old World. Theirs was the cause not only of America, but of all nations. (Times magazine-The Civil War Was Won by Immigrant Soldiers Doyle, Don H, Dec. 23, 2019)

Those of us that came here as refugees because of repressive and totalitarian states and those of who inherited this democracy will not concede and have our vote discounted. We will defend the decision of our court system, and the majority of voters.

To quote President Reagan: Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means. (Brainy Quotes, Quotes of Ronald Reagan online).

The opposite of that is: War is not absence of conflict, it is the inability to handle conflict by peaceful means.

War has casualties. Those who support violence and armed insurrection need to assess the risk and benefit of their actions. We are all mortal, our lives are tenuous and war against the majority is likely to be futile and the consequences catastrophic.

Our vote, whether we are in the majority or in the minority, is sacrosanct, and is our connectedness to self-government. It is the majority vote that makes the final decision, and we, if are in the minority, are obliged to respect and defend.

George Peretsky

Read more here:

Thinkstock More letters to the editor can be seen at pvtimes.com - pvtimes.com

Some 16,000 years ago, one theory holds, Homo sapiens crossed the Bering Strait and swiftly migrated down the West Coast of North America. Eventually, descendants of those early humans found their way to Texas, encountering camels, ancient bison, and giant armadillos. Californians! the critters probably grumbled. There goes the neighborhood.

The latest flash point in the seemingly never-ending conflict between Texas natives and new arrivals comes courtesy of another coterie of Californians, most notable among them superstar podcaster Joe Rogan and eccentric billionaire Elon Musk. Rogan relocated last August, saying he felt Los Angeles had become overcrowded, though he might also have been induced to move by Texass lack of a state income tax. (He had recently inked a $100 million deal with Spotify.) Musk, who in January briefly seized the title of richest man on the planet, had threatened to move Tesla out of the Bay Area in the early months of the pandemic, following a dispute with county officials over his refusal to keep its Fremont factory closed as a COVID-19 precaution. Just a few months after announcing that Austin had won the bidding for a new Tesla facility, he revealed in December that he had moved to Texas to be closer to it and his other prominent enterprise, SpaceX, in Boca Chica.

Around the time of Musks splashy declaration, tech giant Oracle unveiled plans to relocate its headquarters from Redwood City, California, to a new campus in Austin, and IT hardware and services company Hewlett Packard Enterprise announced a move from San Jose, California, to Houston. Then, in January, financial services multinational corporation Charles Schwab designated its Denton County facility as its headquarters, a shift from its former San Francisco location. Folks from all across the country have been moving to Texas, of course. But the Californian trend seems to be accelerating, as does local anxiety about it.

The nearly 700,000 Californians who have relocated here since 2010 loom large in the Texan imagination because they come from the only state richer and more populous than Texas, and the only one next to whom the Lone Star State can play the underdog. And many of the Californian transplants who grab headlines do so because they are loudalmost as loud as the powerful Texans boasting of their arrival. Prominent Silicon Valley departees describe their exodus in urgent, ideological terms. Joe Lonsdale, the cofounder of the surveillance behemoth Palantir, who recently moved with his smaller venture firm to Austin, declared that like-minded others must make a stand together for a free society after years of suffering in closed-minded, groupthinking California. (There are, however, some categories in which Texas cannot compete: Oracle chair Larry Ellison wont be relocating with his company, instead remaining on the Hawaiian island of Lanai, where he owns 98 percent of the land.)

Though they may use the novel corporate-speak endemic to Silicon Valley, these tech refugees are part of a long tradition of iconoclasts and misfits seeking an idealized future in Texas. The state has long been a canvas upon which outsiders project their hopes and dreams. Davy Crockett and other Americans were gone to Texas in the early nineteenth century; in the middle of that century, German forty-eighters sought to build a liberal future in the Hill Country, and European socialists set up camp at La Runion, near Dallas.

In time, the Californian newcomers may find, as many have, that this land and those they share it with have other plans. So far, Governor Greg Abbott has trumpeted the arrivals of Rogan and Oracle as proof the Texas dream is alive and well, even as hes continued to lambaste Austin, the city that drew them, as a crime-ridden, dysfunctional failure where the smell of freedom cant be detected.

For other leaders, though, the growth has brought mostly trepidation. At an event in Southlake last August, the volatile state GOP chair Allen West, who moved here from Florida in 2014, recommended that Texas conservatives greet their new neighbors with a pecan pie before asking, Now, why are you here? Should migrs respond in a way West felt out of keeping with traditional Texas values, he urged a firm rebuke: Go back to where you came from.

By December, after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Texas lawsuit to overturn the results of the election, West was calling for Texans to form a new union of law-abiding statesthough after this comment caused a (presumably intended) ruckus, he clarified that he was against secession. State representative Kyle Biedermann, a Fredericksburg Republican, took up the cause in late January, filing legislation to offer Texans a ballot referendum in 2021 on leaving the United States. While secession talk is principally about the fears some Texans have about the direction the nation is taking, it is also tied to the belief that Texas is being changed from withinthat the latest flood of outsiders represents a kind of fifth column. (After seceding, the state could at least force Californians to apply for visas.)

Abbott, for his part, has tried to assuage fears that Texas is being invaded. In December, he made a comical appearance on Tucker Carlsons popular Fox News show. Carlson, a San Franciscoborn, San Diegoraised pundit, congratulated Abbott, who grew up in Wichita Falls and Longview, on Texass population growth. But why, Carlson wondered, had Abbott let in so many coastal elites?

Above a characteristically calm chyronThe Next California: Onlookers Horrified by Recent Texas TrendsCarlson argued that Californians would be the death of Texas. Weve seen this across the country, where people flee a collapsing, crummy state and then wreck the state they go to, he said. Are you worried that all these Californians will bring their values and degrade the state of Texas?

Abbott, who in 2018 campaigned on the slogan Dont California My Texas, was ready with an answer. This is the number one question I get from fellow Texans all the time, the governor said. He countered with internal polling from his reelection bid that suggested that Californians who relocated to Texas were more conservative than Texans as a whole. Americans were self-sorting, he claimed: Texas liberals moved to the West Coast, and California Republicans moved here. Indeed, a 2018 CNN exit poll found that a majority of native-born Texans had voted for Beto ORourke for Senate, while transplants had voted by a 15-point margin for his ultimately victorious opponent Ted Cruzdata likely skewed by the fact that transplants tend to be an older population group.

Carlson wasnt buying it. Underneath him, the chyron had changed: Watch Out, Texas: Intolerant Silicon Valley Snobs Heading Your Way. There were massive cultural differences between Californians and Texans, he said. Once you allowed the scourge of progressivism to take root, it couldnt be stopped. Theyve already completely wrecked Austin, as you well know. Abbott wasnt worried. He had met thousands of Californians, and they seemed like perfectly decent, God-fearing folksthe types youd take home to Mom.

This meeting of the minds illustrated the persistently poor quality of the debate Texans have long had about growth and what to do about it. Is a speedily rising population good? If so, who deserves credit? If its bad, at whom should we direct the pitchforks? In either case, the argument manifests in crude partisan terms: Will newcomers make the state more conservative or more liberal?

When the conversation focuses on these questions, it stalls out, and Texans dont make it to a much more important question: How can we best meet the many challenges population growth bringsincluding rising housing prices, traffic, and a native population less affluent and advantaged than the newcomers?

Governor Greg Abbott and Elon Musk at the Capitol, in Austin, in 2020, flashing the Hook em, Horns sign.

Courtesy of the Office of the Governor

Growthand anxiety about growthhas always been the norm here. The first U.S. census taken in the state, in 1850, recorded a population of little more than 200,000. In no decade since has Texass rate of growth dropped below 10percent; in fact, its typically approached or surpassed a dizzying 20percent. Other large states, including New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, have seen growth rates in the single digits, at most, each decade since 1970.

In the seventies, Texas contained three of the countrys fifteen largest cities. Now it has five of them. Austin has roughly doubled in size every twenty years for the past century. One projection holds that the DallasFort Worth Metroplex will add 1.4 million residents by 2029, the equivalent of swallowing Oklahoma City twice; another predicts that Greater Houston will add 1.3 million.

The way the states politicians talk about growth isnt new either. The boosterism Abbott and others are exhibiting today is a rehash of the messaging Governor Rick Perry used a decade ago as he prepared for a presidential run, down to such details as citing the sky-high U-Haul rental prices for those moving to the state as proof of Texass desirability. (Not coincidentally, Abbott is flirting with a presidential run himself, with the support of some of Perrys former advisers.) Wests secession bluster is also a remix of Perrys from the early tea party period, in the aftermath of a previous Democratic presidential win.

Unfortunately, the rhetoric is filled with contradictions and holes. Heres one: Texas politicians love to characterize California as a failed state. But a major reason for the emigration from California, in addition to high taxes, is high housing prices. Expensive real estate is in part an effect of bad land-use policies, but its mainly the result of so many Americans wanting to live in California to begin with. (Though the Golden States population growth has tapered off in recent years, it was much greater than Texass over the past century. From 1920 to 2020, Californias population exploded from 3.4 million to almost 40 million. Texas, which has about 65 percent more land area than California, grew from 4.6 million to 29 million.) Calling California a failed state is a bit like saying of a restaurant, as the philosopher Yogi Berra once did, that nobody goes there anymore because its too crowded.

The primary advantages Texas has historically had over its competitors are its cheap housing and even cheaper cost of living. But those advantages are slipping. When Californians leave the Bay Area in large numbers for Austin and Dallas, the cost of living goes up here, and overpriced housing markets on the West Coast relax a bit. Texas cities are already struggling with rapidly rising rents and housing prices as well as an uptick in homelessness, and more and more natives are being pushed into outlying areas. Texas is going through all these same issues that California and New York have had, says Steven Pedigo, the director of the Urban Lab at the LyndonB.Johnson School of Public Affairs, at the University of Texas at Austin. Were just late to the party.

In the Austin metro area, the median rent increased 45percent from 2010 to 2020. In metro Dallas, it jumped 49percent; in Houston, 34percent. For Californians and people from New York, Texas is quite affordable, Pedigo says. But for people who grew up in Texas and for immigrant populations, this is an increasingly unaffordable place. The result is a growing wealth gap between tech transplants and their native neighbors. The state is taking in highly paid workers from elsewhere in the country while underinvesting in its Texas-born workforce, which is, on average, poorer, less educated, and less healthy than the new arrivals.

Avoiding the inequalities that have afflicted California will require forward-thinking policies and leadership. The need is urgent, and the checklist is long: more affordable housing, improved regional transportation planning, better mass transit in urban cores, a coordinated and well-funded campaign to mitigate homelessness, revised regional land-use plans, and expanded access to health care and education so that longtime Texans dont fall behind. But state officials arent putting such plans forward.

That work has largely been left to those outside government. With colleagues from the George W. Bush Institute, at Dallass Southern Methodist University, and the Kinder Institute for Urban Research, at Rice University, in Houston, Pedigo has been working on the Texas Blueprint for Urban Policy, a proposed master plan for how the state can address its prodigious growth. Another effort, the Dallas-based think tank Texas 2036, has proposed a legislative agenda for the state to enact before its bicentennial, by which time the population is expected to have grown by 10 million.

The Legislature bears a lot of blame for the lack of public-sector action. Democrats hold the majority of urban districts, while Republicans disproportionately represent rural and suburban ones. Mayors and county leaders who seek aid from the Legewho are dumbass enough to come meet with me, as former speaker Dennis Bonnen was secretly recorded saying in 2019are seen as the enemy. In recent years, lawmakers have acted to curtail the powers of local elected officials and nullify the ability of cities and counties to set their own rules about issues such as limits on plastic grocery bags and the felling of historic trees. This session, they will consider a raft of proposals to further strangle the autonomy of city officials.

Statewide leaders, for their part, are too busy either taking credit for population growth, fretting about what it means for the political balance of power, or attempting to soothe anxieties about it to do much of anything practical to deal with it. A couple weeks after his tte--tte with Carlson, Abbott urged the Legislature to take up the cause of creating a new civics course, to be taught in Texas schools, that would focus on Texas values, patriotism, the U.S. Constitutionthe core values that make Texas Texas.

Theres nothing wrong with being proud of Texas, of course. But if leaders sincerely believe that keeping Texas great requires nothing more than dictating the content of civics classes, the state is in trouble. That kind of blithe confidence that the future will be a smooth, uninterrupted upward ramp is a West Coast trait, not a Gulf Coast one.

Perhaps these leaders are hoping that eventually the sort of Californians they dont want as their neighbors will become disillusioned and simply head home. In January, a repentant Californian published an article for Insider about briefly joining the influx but deciding Texas wasnt worth it. Austin, he wrote, wasnt much cheaper than San Diego. The summer was miserable. There was no ocean and no redwood forest, and all the land seemed to be privately owned. Furthermore, some Texans were rude: at his childs flag football game, another dad had worn a shirt that read, Dont Move to Austin.

Like Abbott, the Californian evidently couldnt detect the smell of freedom here. But perhaps it was just because, as he complained, there was too much cedar pollen.

This article originally appeared in the March 2021 issue ofTexas Monthlywith the headline California Leavin.Subscribe today.

More here:

Californians Could Ruin TexasBut Not the Way You Might Think - Texas Monthly

Unforgivable allegiance

To the Editor:

What Lee Zeldin did to us, his constituency, should not be forgotten.

He has been and continues to be totally out of sync with democracy and the Constitution he swore to uphold.

He has continuously voted against liberal causes for which he continues to supply disinformation. What is he doing by helping to destroy our country? Is it only power he seeks?

Yes, I appreciate his advocacy for local issues, but isnt that just the job that he was elected to do?

I plead with voters to find a strong candidate to oppose him in 2022. I will personally do everything I can to organize voters who oppose his unforgivable allegiance to the most extreme voices in his party.

NORMA SLOANE, Shelter Island

Lack of curiosity?

To the Editor:

My heart sank when I read the article in the Reporter entitled, Comprehensive Plan advisers prepare survey, public forums.

Even at this exceedingly early date, it appears that the Comprehensive Plan Committee members think they know better than the consultants theyve hired.

Evidently, the consultants wanted a survey of residents to include questions about race and ethnicity. According to the story, Take out questions about race, [Member John] Kerr said, insisting it serves no purpose. He speculated that the couple of questions on race and ethnicity could be off-putting for many people. (Mr. Kerr was not alone in objecting to the questions inclusion. He merely led the opposition.)

Given that the Comprehensive Plan will deal with such subjects as housing, Island institutions, education, quality of life, history, community services, etc., answers to the survey, fortified with demographic information, might be illuminating and, in the long run, help make Shelter Island an even better place to live and workfor everyone, but especially for the less than 10% of the population that is not Caucasian.

I find the Comprehensive Plan Committees lack of curiosity regarding race and ethnicity exceedingly to borrow Mr. Kerrs words off-putting.

Perhaps Im missing something. I, for one, would appreciate the Committee explaining to the community in a Shelter Island Reporter op-ed piece, perhaps what exactly is off-putting about extracting pertinent information from a survey that might help the Island learn a little bit more about itself and, as a result, enact changes for the betterment of all.

SCOTT A. ROBBINS, Shelter Island

Dont know what youve got till its gone

To the Editor:

Im disheartened to see how The Land Trust has cleared the property on the corner of West Neck and Nostrand Parkway.

This natural preserve was a special and unique habitat for deer, fox, wild turkeys, rabbits, red-tailed hawks and other wildlife.

Its a shame that our taxes are going to deforest the very land that the Land Trust is entrusted to save and it seems the plan is to pave paradise and put up a parking lot.

KRISTIN KEHRBERG, Shelter Island

Hold Preservation Board accountable

To the Editor:

Im a resident on Tarkettle Road and have been dismayed at the roughshod way the Dickerson Creek Preservation lot has been cleared without any consideration for wildlife habitat or aesthetics.

When the bulkhead project began last summer I assumed at least some of the lot would be left in a wild state, or at least artfully manicured, to balance public access with preservation, consistent with the towns mandate under the Community Preservation Fund.

I was already concerned in November when half the lot was cleared, including native shrubs and grasses that were home to many birds and other wildlife. I now see the area all the way to Tarkettle Road and up to the Dickerson property line has been clear cut, leaving only a handful of sparsely-spaced trees. This project has not been managed in keeping with Section 50-6 A of the Town Code. The Community Preservation Fund Advisory Board (CPFAB) needs to restore the native habitat that was decimated in keeping with the codes mandate, which states:

Lands acquired under [the Community Preservation Fund] shall be administered and managed in a manner which: (1) Allows public use and enjoyment in a manner compatible with the natural, scenic, historic and open space character of such lands. (2) Preserves the native biological diversity of such lands; (3) With regard to open spaces, limits improvements to enhancing access for passive use provided that such improvements do not degrade the ecological value of the land or threaten essential wildlife habitat [].

Turkems Rest and other projects have achieved this balance. But what happened in the case of Dickerson Creek? I invite the CPFAB members to address the following:

What processes are in place to ensure that the development adheres to 50-6 A and improvements dont degrade the ecological value of the land or threaten essential wildlife habitat?

Is there oversight during the clearing process to ensure whoever does it (e.g. the Highway Dept) does so in keeping with 50-6 A?

One of the purposes of preserving open spaces is maintaining their natural beauty. Otherwise, we would clear cut places to make them accessible and lose much of the purpose of having them preserved in the first place. The Town Code clearly recognizes that, and we need to hold the CPFAB accountable.

The Dickerson Creek land needs to be restored to a natural space in which the native biological diversity is preserved, including restoring essential wildlife habitat, while allowing for reasonable access and enjoyment of the waterfront.

CRISTINA ROIG, Shelter Island

Around the Island

To the Editor:

The OConnor Wildlife Park is going to mirror Dickerson Park, once the pond is established, a no-brainer and natural run off, with much wildlife. This park is beautiful already.

Dickerson Creek Park is not to be believed the photo ops there are endless.

We had the opportunity to observe the sunset from afar, down to Bootleggers Alley, as there were too, too many cars to get near the water. But what a sunset.

We went around the other way so the sun was not in our eyes and caught a little bit of the sunset at Louies Beach and then turned around to check out Dawn Lane. What happened there? Its in really bad shape.

Then we mosied over to Congdon Dock. What can I say except the tide is a rising.

As a taxpayer for over 50 years here on Fantasy Island, I really would like to see a breakdown of the cost factors of all these projects. Im sure I am not the only taxpayer who would like to see these numbers.

Stay safe, mask up!

GEORGIANA KETCHAM, Shelter Island

Read more:

Shelter Island Reporter Letters to the Editor: Feb. 3-10 - Shelter Island Reporter

With a business model based on an oversupply of losing gamblers, Crown has been on a winning streak since the 1990s.

But when the Bergin Inquiry report was tabled in NSW Parliament this week, the company's directors got an insight into what it was like to end a night at the casino with the arse out of your trousers and no cab fare home.

Few public inquiries have skewered a corporate giant like Bergin has done to Crown, and the pain is not over yet.

When the NSW Independent Liquor & Gaming Authority (ILGA) meets on Friday it will consider the report it commissioned and start weighing up whether Crown Resorts is a fit and proper company in its current form to run a high-roller casino in Sydney's shiny new Barangaroo precinct.

Invariably, regulators in Victoria and Western Australia will be asked questions about Crown-run casinos in those states. Like why has Crown been considered fit to operate in marvellous Melbourne, yet is seemingly too hot for sinful Sydney?

But there's another sector of Australia's all-powerful gambling industry that might start drawing some unwanted attention as well.

Buried like a land mine on page 620 of the report was a finding by Commissioner Patricia Bergin that could cause grief for the pubs and clubs in NSW that are home to more than 90,000 poker machines.

In October last year, the NSW minister responsible for gambling, Victor Dominello, said he was considering introducing a government-issued gambling card for all poker machine players.

Damning evidence was presented at a public inquiry into Crown's operations. Is this a new era of accountability for the gaming sector?

The idea was that gamblers would pre-load their card with the amount of money they were prepared to lose. Because the card would be linked to an individual's ID, the minister argued, it would not just minimise harm to problem gamblers but reduce money laundering as well.

In her report, Commissioner Bergin made it clear she thought Mr Dominello's proposal would help address one of the key issues she wanted dealt with money laundering by organised criminals.

"The proposal has been the subject of some public debate and is not free from controversy," she wrote. "However, it appears that the very significant utility of the card to assist the problem gambler could not be in issue. It is also obvious that it would be a powerful mechanism to assist in combatting money laundering."

Since the publication of the Bergin report, Phillip Crawford, the chair of the NSW regulator, ILGA, has urged the Government to back the gambling card.

"It's a terrific way in which to shore up the issue of money laundering by organised crime," he said.

Mr Crawford is concerned that if the focus is just on casinos laundering money, the practice will continue to flourish elsewhere.

"We don't want it washing into the suburban pubs and clubs because it is a big industry. You've seen the numbers in Bergin and its massive, so it's something we want to attack as a regulator."

"We think it's legitimate and we've got a minister who is committed to it. The stars are aligning. Let's use the opportunity and the momentum for some really good change."

Australians lose close to $13 billion a year through poker machines. Previous attempts to introduce harm minimisation measures such as mandatory pre-commitment and maximum $1 bets have been killed off after aggressive campaigning by the powerful lobby groups ClubsNSW and the Australian Hotels Association (AHA).

ClubsNSW has already been lobbying ministers and backbenchers to overturn Mr Dominello's proposed reforms and the industry group has friends in high places. One senior Liberal MP told ABC Investigations that some members of the NSW Liberal and National party rooms were "captured" by the gambling industry.

When asked about the gambling card, a spokesman for ClubsNSW said in a statement: "Commissioner Bergin made a passing reference to the controversial concept of a mandatory, government-issued gambling card in her 800-page report on Crown. While it might sound to some like a harmless regulatory intervention, a mandatory gambling card would present considerable unintended consequences."

ABC Investigations wants your help to find out more about what happens behind the scenes of Australia's gambling industry; to hear from people who have worked inside the industry and those who have lost money. Fill out our tips form here.

While in the past it might have been easier for lobby groups to see off harm-minimisation proposals, killing off a policy that Commissioner Bergin and Mr Crawford think will help combat money laundering by organised crime figures might be more difficult. What politician wants to open themselves up to the accusation they are soft on crime?

You can bet Mr Dominello will be using the Bergin Inquiry findings and Mr Crawford's backing to garner support inside Cabinet to support his gambling card. He will need every argument at his disposal to convince his colleagues, and money laundering will be his strongest hand.

The minister is taking on one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country, in the state with the most poker machines, bringing in a reform that no other state has been game to try, and he has to get it past colleagues who believe pubs and clubs make a significant social and economic contribution to the state off the back of poker machine money.

Because there has been no trial of a mandatory card in Australia, it's hard to weigh up whether it would work. The stakes are high.

In the past 12 months concerns have been raised about the scale of money laundering in gaming rooms across the country.

Troy Stolz, a former ClubsNSW anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism compliance auditor, told ABC Investigations the scale of the problem was "massive" and "alarming".

"The crooks are going [into pubs and clubs] with their drug money and putting it in the machines and the crooks are cleaning it," he said.

Mr Stolz is currently involved in a series of legal disputes with ClubsNSW including over claims he leaked a 2019 ClubsNSW board paper that disclosed that 95 per cent of relevant registered clubs were not meeting anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism-financing obligations.

Please fill out the ABC Investigations gambling story tips form, or text message the team via the WhatsApp or Signal mobile apps on 0418 347 462.

Neil Jeans, a consultant in anti-money-laundering compliance, has previously estimated around $65-75 billion worth of cash goes through poker machines in Australia every year. That poses plenty of opportunities for dirty money to be washed through pubs and clubs if it's only the casinos that face tougher monitoring.

Commissioner Bergin noted in her report there needed to be a greater focus on money laundering as it had become increasingly sophisticated and corporatised over recent years.

Victor Dominello will be hoping those arguments help sway his colleagues about the benefits of a gambling card when it's discussed at Cabinet.

View post:

Crown inquiry could also spell trouble for NSW pubs and clubs and their 90,000 poker machines - ABC News