Tuesday Edition ...
According to the S-T today, the Fairhaven BOH will be asking the state to conduct a sound study on the turbines. Hopefully, and I do mean hopefully, it gets done and with due speed.
Why?
If the turbines are in violation of the sound levels, than the turbines must either be immediately be brought into compliance or shut down. No ifs, and or buts.
The project was sold and continues to be defended as being within the appropriate sound levels. It either is or isn't. It either complies or it doesn't.
Right off the bat, let's everyone acknowledge that this particular study isn't going to end the debate. If the audible sound is within the state allowable level, they will be those who will pick apart the test as faulty, not extensive enough, fixed and I am sure many more things, including the infrasound issue.
If the noise level exceeds the state standards, be prepared for attempts to find a way to "fix" it; and, I am just as sure we should prepare ourselves for those who will attempt to pick apart the tests as faulty, etc.
Monday Night ...
Watching the selectmen's meeting last night one was able to see how they dealt with the issue of relocating tourism. Well one of them was, the other two were doing everything they could to avoid the move, i.e. the move to the academy building.
According to the S-T today, the Fairhaven BOH will be asking the state to conduct a sound study on the turbines. Hopefully, and I do mean hopefully, it gets done and with due speed.
Why?
If the turbines are in violation of the sound levels, than the turbines must either be immediately be brought into compliance or shut down. No ifs, and or buts.
The project was sold and continues to be defended as being within the appropriate sound levels. It either is or isn't. It either complies or it doesn't.
Right off the bat, let's everyone acknowledge that this particular study isn't going to end the debate. If the audible sound is within the state allowable level, they will be those who will pick apart the test as faulty, not extensive enough, fixed and I am sure many more things, including the infrasound issue.
If the noise level exceeds the state standards, be prepared for attempts to find a way to "fix" it; and, I am just as sure we should prepare ourselves for those who will attempt to pick apart the tests as faulty, etc.
Monday Night ...
Watching the selectmen's meeting last night one was able to see how they dealt with the issue of relocating tourism. Well one of them was, the other two were doing everything they could to avoid the move, i.e. the move to the academy building.
I have spent twenty active years involved in town matters and I have never seen more time and effort wasted over an issue for the sake of continuing to give a private group a free ride on the public dime.
The latest suggestion from Center Street: let's deal with New Bedford and co-ordinate tourism. No problem. Knock your socks off with that one.
Not a bad idea, but ...
Not a bad idea, but ...
Unless you are thinking about eliminating the tourism office in Fairhaven, you still have to deal with the issue of where the tourism office in Fairhaven is going to be located.
Hey maybe you can convince New Bedford to locate its tourism department in our town.
I cannot understand the continuing effort on this one. I can't. Make no mistake about it, this has little to do with tourism and everything about politics. This whole debate is reaching the point where describing it as absurd is an understatement.
The time and effort being spent to keep tourism out of the academy building is mind boggling. If this kind of effort had been put into actually operating a real museum, we would have a facility to rival the Whaling Museum.
Take away the Farmers' Market and the people who use the academy building for the bathroom facilities and I would hazard a guess that the visitors count to the building would drop by 90% or more.
Here is the question of the day, what plans do Selectmen Espindola and Murphy have relative to the continued occupation of a public building by a private group rent free? Let's not forgot that little problem. You may want to, but it is not going to be forgotten.
If the Historical Society intends to rely on its twenty year track record of running a museum at the academy building as grounds for continued "free occupancy" I submit that in addition to the the rent you should start charging, you should also be looking for it to pony up some significant back rent.
The majority of the board can continue to sidestep the issue of the tourism department, but its failure to address the use of the building by the Historical Society is a continuing slap in the face to every other private group in town that has to pay anything for any service.
The value of the service provided by the Historical Society to the town is "zip", "zero", "zilch", "nada". There is no quid pro quo. No collaborative effort.
Until the recent proposition to use the academy building for tourism, the above 90% or more figure would apply to the number of people in town who had no idea there was a difference between the Historical Society and Historical Commission, or that there was even a museum at that location.
Until the recent proposition to use the academy building for tourism, the above 90% or more figure would apply to the number of people in town who had no idea there was a difference between the Historical Society and Historical Commission, or that there was even a museum at that location.
Further into the meeting, the selectmen reached the issue of town counsel for selectman Espindola. Interesting exchange of opinions and comments
Got to love the executive session exchange also.
I am not going to get into the details on either of these last two matters. It was that painful (brief, but painful).
I am not going to get into the details on either of these last two matters. It was that painful (brief, but painful).
Folks, you have to watch these meetings. This is the type of stuff you can't make up.
IYCDTWBTBTW...
I agree that,"If the turbines are in violation of the sound levels, than the turbines must either be immediately be brought into compliance or shut down. No ifs, and or buts." There will be objective, measurable results based on scientific facts to determine this but there will also be arguments from the opposition should the turbines pass muster.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the much more subjective complaints of negative, physical ailments due to the turbines, those things are impossible to measure because there are no published, science based, peer reviewed studies to back the hypothetical cause and effect assumptions.
It's very possible that the larger number of folks living within the range of the turbines who have not complained are having no ill effects. Until there is a way to accurately measure the presence or lack of ailments in all the people living within the legal limits of the turbines, there is no reason to shut them down if they are operating within the legal parameters.
Just a note on the Tourism Office. It seems that some.of.the Selectman are showing their inexperience with this topic. Joining forces.with New Bedford hasn't worked in the past, why would you think.it will work in this economical climate.
ReplyDeleteHere we have a department head that has researched his departmental needs, only to be over ruled by inexperience and a outside society. What is so hard with making this easy choice. What are they going to do with the difficult choices coming up. I can't think of one reason, outside of ADA that this is not the correct spot. Tourism, history, academy building, all works for me.