You may be tired of hearing about it, but the issue remains nonetheless. So ...
The shame in the whole wind turbine issue is that there was no real regulation of what is an industry created by state and federal tax credits, incentives, and other maneuvers on those levels that provides little oversight on the particulars.
From reading, it doesn't seem to be a problem that is particularly limited to just our area or state.
The debate cries out for some significant regulations and standards. Apparently, after the horse has left the barn, it seems that someone is in fact looking to close the gate. which is a good thing, because withe the present laws in place, it is really on the state level where this is going to have to be done.
The shame in the whole wind turbine issue is that there was no real regulation of what is an industry created by state and federal tax credits, incentives, and other maneuvers on those levels that provides little oversight on the particulars.
From reading, it doesn't seem to be a problem that is particularly limited to just our area or state.
The debate cries out for some significant regulations and standards. Apparently, after the horse has left the barn, it seems that someone is in fact looking to close the gate. which is a good thing, because withe the present laws in place, it is really on the state level where this is going to have to be done.
This is not an "anti-turbine" stance. Neither is is a "pro-turbine" position. It is an observation of what goes wrong when you completely re-write laws to allow something to happen and to work financially, but fail to to take the extra step and think it through. Right, wrong or indifferent, the change in the net metering law is what tipped the scales for turbines to "work" financially.
Some may say the call or mandated regulation is a contradiction to my previous lament regarding the "green communities act" taking away what would normally be the local oversight. Indeed the significant regulation that should have been in place would in fact have further "trumped" local involvement in many ways.
Yet I don't see it that way.
Yet I don't see it that way.
By-passing the local review process where a community could actually have teeth in reviews of site plans, etc. without establishing a minimum set of standards creates a slew of problems ranging from limited resources by both those in opposition and those in support to perform true tests on their own, to having a process stopped for no other reason then the purest NIMBY argument (and believe it or not, I am not always against a NIMBY argument).
Setting minimum standards which must be met, relative to sound, set backs and imposing other requirements, which would be subject to review, and requiring site assessments on sound, siting, and wind, which the developer would have to pay for (notice pay, not perform), would put everyone on an equal footing.
Discussing this with someone the other day, it was pointed out that there are all ready minimum standards for noise (or I should say maximum). Well, yes and no.
As opponents to wind will tell you, the noise from turbines is not the same as noise you will hear or experience from other sources, and it is not always predictable.
We could spend days on this particular aspect, but suffice it to say, the main failure as I see it is when you promote an industry, put into effect the components for financing the industry, to the extent you actively encourage people to go out and do the projects; and, provide financial incentives to do it, i.e. you put in place the legal means to make it profitable, you should also be dotting the reasonably foreseeable "i"s and crossing the foreseeable "t"s.
The who and how for such testing and meeting such requirements should be able to be established in a manner that only the extremes on both ends of the spectrum would find objectionable.
Discussing this with someone the other day, it was pointed out that there are all ready minimum standards for noise (or I should say maximum). Well, yes and no.
As opponents to wind will tell you, the noise from turbines is not the same as noise you will hear or experience from other sources, and it is not always predictable.
We could spend days on this particular aspect, but suffice it to say, the main failure as I see it is when you promote an industry, put into effect the components for financing the industry, to the extent you actively encourage people to go out and do the projects; and, provide financial incentives to do it, i.e. you put in place the legal means to make it profitable, you should also be dotting the reasonably foreseeable "i"s and crossing the foreseeable "t"s.
The who and how for such testing and meeting such requirements should be able to be established in a manner that only the extremes on both ends of the spectrum would find objectionable.
Last but not least, assuming a project was approved on the regulatory level, if you had the regulations, final approval must then be obtained from the town/city in which the project will be sited.
I have said it before and will say it again, the one certainty, or as near certain as anyone may be able to predict, it will be a long time before Town Meeting hands out essentially carte blanche authority to negotiate much of anything.
I have said it before and will say it again, the one certainty, or as near certain as anyone may be able to predict, it will be a long time before Town Meeting hands out essentially carte blanche authority to negotiate much of anything.
I can envision the arguments both for and against the above proposal however it is, at least I think it is, a starting point in forming regulations for a new industry that needs to be regulated. Whatever happens, there will certainly be a debate on the regulations, but something needs to be done in my opinion. It seems to be in the process of getting done, and hopefully goes far enough. I suppose better late then never.
This certainly doesn't help us out here in Fairhaven right now though. Then again there are a lot of things going on right now that don't help us.
I've been wondering, truly b/c I'm not asking this to pick a fight... If a person buys a home adjacent to or close to land that is commercial or industrial zoned, do they customarily pay a lesser amount than a comparable home in a more scenic/quiet area and if the value of the home is less than the comparable home would the owner be paying less in taxes over the years?
ReplyDeleteMost of us can't afford homes in secluded, scenic areas where the sky is dark enough at night to actually see the stars and the quiet is so deep that you can hear a loon call in the distance. Some of us afford the homes close enough to hear I-95, or sirens, or marine traffic all day and night but we chose to live there so we really have no complaint. If I choose to buy a house in or near a zone where a new neighbor can run a kennel/breeding business, I couldn't gripe if I hear dogs yipping day and night.
This is not a pro or anti turbine observation either, nor is a statement about the health issues that may or may not arise due to whatever type of noise is emitted. I am just pointing out that before someone can take a NIMBY stance, they should first know what is and was allowed in their backyard when they purchase their home.