Part 2 - FB Doodlings: Fearmongering by the Portsmouth City Planning Staff??? - Granite Grok

Part 2 – FB Doodlings: Fearmongering by the Portsmouth City Planning Staff???

PortsmouthThe original post is here – the relevant background (reformatted):

That would be city planner Peter Britz. Nice to not scare people – and in the same article, decides to do exactly that: City planning staff has estimated that Portsmouth will see sea water rise 2 feet by 2050 and 6 feet by 2100, Britz said.

Right – that would be 0.75? per year for the next 32 years.  Scary numbers, eh?  Being that I can’t help myself, I decided to bring up a couple numbers of my own:

Methinks Peter Britz needs to go back to 3rd grade for a remedial class in simple arithmetic.  NOAA is reporting that the Atlantic Coast off NH is rising at a whole 0-3mm / year. Let’s take the worst case of 3mm / year. Over 32 years (2050, where he says that the rise will be TWO FEET!), that translates to…..drum roll please…….3 inches. 3mm = 0.11811?.

By 2100, that would be almost 10 inches. Yep, I guess that close enough 6 feet (72?), by golly! Start screaming “WE’RE DOOMED!”

And then I issued a RSA 91-A (Right To Know or RTK) request to them (the relevant parts):

City planning staff has estimated that Portsmouth will see sea water rise 2 feet by 2050 and 6 feet by 2100, Britz said.

Given that this is already 2018, on what basis did Peter Britz / the Portsmouth Planning department determine that the Portsmouth sea level will rise from its average norm now to an additional 2 feet in 32 years?

Please supply all materials leading up to this conclusion and any and all communications involved in giving permission for Britz to state what he did about rising sea levels as this utterance has major political and financial ramifications both at the local and State levels.

Remember, the text of RSA 91-A can be reviewed here.  And I did get a response:

From: “Raeline O’Neil” <raoneil@cityofportsmouth.com>
To: “‘skip@granitegrok.com'” <skip@granitegrok.com>
Sent: 2/15/2018 12:16:12 PM
Subject: Right-to-Know Request

Mr. Murphy,

Attached please find a pdf response of City Attorney Sullivan to your Right-to-Know request dated 2/12/18.

Raeline A. O’Neil
City of Portsmouth
1 Junkins Avenue
Portsmouth, NH  03801

(603) 610-7204 (Direct Dial)
(603) 427-1577 (Fax)

raoneil@cityofportsmouth.com

The PDF abstract (just the relevant text – they decided to “lock it up” which was expected – full PDF here):

By a copy of this letter and your e-mail which I have forwarded to Planning Director Juliet Walker and Peter Brit of the Planning Department I am requesting that the Planning Department begin to assemble the records which you seek to review.  Subsequent to the assemblage of those records it will be necessary for this office to then review them to determine which documents are governmental records subject to production under RSA 91-A

I would anticipate that it will take at least thirty (30) days to complete the phase of production described above.  I will contact you  when the legal review of the documents has been completed.  If you wish copies of the documents there will be a nominal cost which will be provided to you at that time.

With regard to the actual production of documents, please be advised that the City will not respond to a Right-to-Know law request by e-mail.  Our reasons for this policy are that e-mails introduce unreliability into the process for a number of reasons, including the fact that e-mails might be too large to received [sic] and there is no way for the City to confirm the receipt of the entirely of the e-mails which it might send.  Additionally, email communications may pose a cyber security risk, however large or small, especially when there are repeated e-mail exchanges with multiple parties making Right-to-Know law requests.  For example, the recipient of a public record might respond to an e-mail from the City and forward an attachment to a City administrator stating that the recipient fails to understand whether the attached email is what the City intended to forward.  This back and forth exchange of e-mails  greatly enhances the risk.

Accordingly, our policy will be that public records may be reviewed in City Hall by a prior arrangement at no cost.  uther, documents will be produced by paper copies utilizing the City’s normal copying charge of $2.00 for the first page and $0.50 for each page thereafter.  Finally, at the request of the recipient of public records, these records will be provided by a sealed USB thumb drive which will be handed over in City Hall.  The thumb drive will be provided by the City at a nominal cost based on the size requested.

Really, it will take them 30 whole days to determine a single number? And there certainly is a bunch more to fisk on this later on.  I just replied to Ms. O’Neil:

From: “skipdcm” <Skip@GraniteGrok.com>
To: “Raeline O’Neil” <raoneil@cityofportsmouth.com>
Sent: 3/7/2018 3:12:14 PM
Subject: Re: Right-to-Know Request

Good afternoon Ms. O’Neil,

From the PDF:

“…it will take at least thirty (30) days to complete the phase of production described above.”

How is this proceeding? Will you meet your deadline of 30 days? Are there some materials that have already been assembled.

Please also let me state that the last paragraph is absolutely hysterical and laughable. Do I need to issue yet another RTK request for materials on which Mr. Sullivan bases his studied retort concerning email transmissions?

I will not be needing copies created by the City; the law provides that I may review such materials in person and make copies as the law provides:

91-A:4 Minutes and Records Available for Public Inspection. –
I. Every citizen during the regular or business hours of all public bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such public bodies or agencies, has the right to inspect all governmental records in the possession, custody, or control of such public bodies or agencies, including minutes of meetings of the public bodies, and to copy and make memoranda or abstracts of the records or minutes so inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5. In this section, “to copy” means the reproduction of original records by whatever method, including but not limited to photography, photostatic copy, printing, or electronic or tape recording.

IV. …No fee shall be charged for the inspection or delivery, without copying, of governmental records, whether in paper, electronic, or other form….

– Mr. Murphy

I’ll just bring my bulk scanner!

To be continued, I’m sure.

>