When the proverbial "stuff" hits the fan, it has a way of being cast far and wide.
Today's castoff comes from the release of the state study findings on noise from the wind turbines. According to the article in The Standard Times:
Five different locations were tested overall but the five periods of noncompliance came from only single locations on Little Bay Road, Peirces' Point Road and Teal Circle.
Winds were blowing from the northwest and northeast, at varying speeds, when the turbines were found to be exceeding noise regulations by differences of .7 to 1.5 decibels, according to DEP data presented Tuesday night.
The article notes that violations were found in five of the 24 testing periods. That is just under 21% of the time.
First thing I do not want to hear from supporters of the wind project: "The violations were minimal." Second thing I don't want to hear about: "The violations came from only single locations at three spots".
I for one don't care how minimal the violations may or may not be perceived. What I do care about is there were violations, despite repeated assurances there wouldn't be. The fact the same came from single locations in three areas doesn't negate the violations, nor does it establish that only those locations are affected.
Keep in mind that one should be able to assume the reason test samples are conducted is because the results from those test samples are indicative of wider spread of conditions, i.e. the whole concept behind sample testing.
From everyone, I don't want to hear about the flawed standards. The same are what they are. What you want them to be at this point is irrelevant.
As specifically to the opponents, the things I don't want to hear can all be summed up by the "shut them down completely now" argument. Don't squander the substantial gain you have just achieved. If you can't see why such a demand isn't going to work for you in the end, so be it. You have just gained a significant advantage. Use it wisely. Easier said than done I know.
From the state, what we should all be hearing is the type of recommendation based on the findings and soon, and by soon I mean real people soon not government soon, certainly not the normal decision making soon going on in town currently. Although on this particular issue I am guessing there will be a rush to the bandwagon by some.
Everyone, like it or not, needs to take into account a whole lot of things at this point.
One thing everyone should very carefully contemplate is the simple fact that non-compliance has been found. As simple as that fact is, obviously the solution is more complex. So see above for what we should be hearing from the state as to step one.
The next step is where it will get very tricky, and where this Town is going to have the most problems.
NO KNEE JERK REACTIONS. PLEASE!
Falmouth yesterday had a referendum on its ballot concerning the turbines. According to The Cape Cod Times:
The question authorized the decommissioning, dismantling and removal of the turbines and the repayment of grants, prepaid renewable energy credits and other costs associated with removal. It was a contentious enough issue to draw almost 41 percent of the town's registered voters to the polls. The vote was 6,001 against and 2,940 in favor of removing the turbines.
By a 2 to 1 margin the plan got shot down.
People don't like to hear this but there isn't much doubt in my mind if you went to the voters in Fairhaven asking for a debt exclusion or override to "buyout" the developer from the contract for X millions of dollars, you would end up with a very similar result.
In the end, the bottom line comes down to the money. Get a hundred people together, and you might be able to get a pretty health majority to donate a $1 to a good cause. You might even be able to get them to kick in a $5.00 bill if that's what you wanted. Kick that up to $10.00, and watch how many arms start shrinking when they go digging into their pockets. Anything higher than the ten spot and you will definitely see the concept of "charity begins at home" take place.
In the end, the bottom line comes down to the money. Get a hundred people together, and you might be able to get a pretty health majority to donate a $1 to a good cause. You might even be able to get them to kick in a $5.00 bill if that's what you wanted. Kick that up to $10.00, and watch how many arms start shrinking when they go digging into their pockets. Anything higher than the ten spot and you will definitely see the concept of "charity begins at home" take place.
Another "like it or not", we are dealing with a contract. Breach clauses, right to cure breach clauses, rights to attempts at mitigation. Issues that can't be made to simply disappear with a knee jerk reaction.
Don't squander the high ground if you are standing on it right now, and don't develop trench warfare mentality if you aren't.
Act most definitely, but act with an understanding of what you are doing and what it will take to get it done.
There will be more on this. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the new path for the issue. You probably do need to be one to map out the end destination though.
Shifting topics ...
In response to yesterday's query relative to the selectmen's meeting on Monday, several people have given me their spin of what transpired on several matters. Seems I am definitely going to have to watch the tape for this one.
To be fair, until I actually see the meeting, or a published report, I will hold off on what I am hearing.
To use a quote that has been stated in on form or another spanning centuries:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
Be it you prefer to attribute the same to Lincoln, Twain, Proverbs or Confucius, being just some of those oft credited, it is something we all need to keep in mind.
Enough for today. Based on the page views for this morning all ready, I have a hunch there are a few people out there waiting for this morning's piece.
Be Safe.
Be Safe.
It's sad, how the type of response to so many things comes down to money.
ReplyDeleteIf the lack of money was not an issue, would the historic Rogers or Oxford Schools have been closed? Would the call for an election do-over be 'as big' of a deal? Would the Fairhaven 'twin towers' even exist, had it not been for money? Okay, I know some of you are claiming it will save the environment, fine. But thankfully the town was not tallying up the cost for the recent water rescue as it was taking place. Would someone have called out, "We need to stop, we've spent all we can."
Why are so many of the decisions that are made, based first on which way the money flows? Did anyone consider the loss of property values when the location of the turbines was proposed?
Too bad the turbines weren't placed in a better location in the first place. Then residents would not be hurting, and neither would the town's finances in their attempt to sort this out.
Hopefully, the residents and town's legal parties will soon be getting a good night's sleep.
These official findings now give credibility to the people who have been complaining about noise and sleep deprivation. It is so sad that these folks have been widely mocked.
ReplyDeleteI cannot hear the turbines from my home but on certain days when I hit the bike path I shudder at how loud they can be and the lack of empathy from fellow residents. They should definitely be turned immediately off at night - no question. Let these people sleep!
It gets tricky for other parts of the day. What if people work nights and need to sleep during the day? What if these people are hosting a bbq or outside gathering during the day?
The developers and the town swore up and down that the turbines would be in compliance and that is why many gave their support.
It would have been very interesting to see what the naysayers would have said, if one or two new turbines were proposed in their backyards.
DeleteI wish the affected residents good luck in getting satisfaction, now that their claims have been validated.
The town was being informed last night that the turbines were sometimes out of compliance! It was only listed as a public discussion about new material being presented. Period.
DeleteYou will not get anywhere if mobs rule the meeting. What happened last evening was an embarrassment and the police should have been asked to control the mob so that EVERY person got to speak, not just the kids. Its not about the money folks, its about having an agenda item properly listed so as not to result in open meeting violation (like last night) and a properly crafted motion by legal counsel, that actually does what you intend (instead of a sham "take them down motion"). Otherwise, you just absolutely ensure long court delays and lawsuits, which would mean nothing would happen anytime soon. I don't know why the angry mob can't see that point. To not allow each and every town resident to speak, except the loudest mouths in the room, will only end up with the same result as in Falmouth. How did that work out? If you want government to move on an issue, please leave your oversized, foul mouthed kids at home, stop the verbal threats and spitting at a public meeting and let the adults work on the problem.
I wasn't there last night but I can understand why people of all ages and sizes (oversized???) are super pissed. These people haven't been believed or heard going on two years now and sorry Code but really - how could these folks trust our government to do right by them? Waiting for Crotty to advise? Waiting to FINALLY be put on an agenda? Give me a break.
DeleteYou mention Falmouth - that is pretty funny since we all knew about that being giant mess LONG before our turbines were even erected. Yet we foolishly forged ahead with these very poorly sited turbines - congratulating ourselves and signing blades. Shame on us.
I don't agree with using the 'angry mob' tactic, and I wasn't present at the meeting to see it go down. I'm sure some would agree that it never would have escalated to using the tactic, had the whole subject been handled with honesty and courtesy in the first place. The Windwise group has been demeaned for a long time, even while a few of it's members have remained calm and focused.
DeleteI hope this new information makes the doubters believe that what's been complained about is real, and a serious and honest conversation will take place to correct the situation.
Just because people have voiced support for Windwise and/or the affected residents, doesn't necessarily mean we believe the turbines MUST COME DOWN. But a resolution MUST now be reached.
You cannot force a discussion about “shutting down the turbines” at Planning Board public hearings on a new draft wind turbine bylaw. This was tried by WindWise, but unsuccessful. You cannot force a discussion about “shutting down the turbines” at a Selectman’s meeting, with an agenda listed as Town Meeting Planning Board proposed bylaw. This was tried by WindWise but unsuccessful. You cannot force a discussion about “shutting down the turbines” at a Board of Health meeting, supposedly about a draft wind turbine bylaw, when you are not even listed on the agenda for that purpose. This was tried by WindWise but unsuccessful. You cannot force a candidate on a forum to decide on “shutting down the turbines”. This was tried by WindWise but unsuccessful.
DeleteTo be heard, and not violate the law you must be properly on an agenda. (Please read that again). The board also has to have some jurisdiction and also some business it can actually conduct, not just idle talk. I have not seen any instances in our town where the complaints have been ignored.
Falmouth has voted to not “shutting down the turbines”. This was tried by WindWise but unsuccessful.
I do agree that the sound testing team should have provided quarterly updates to the BOH, to keep everyone informed to the progress and those could have provided community feedback. The BOH needs to have facts and they still do not have finished findings.
The mob that is WindWise has a proper role. But in looking at the name itself, meaning Win, Wind or Wise would require a name change to properly identify the group.
We sold out our neighbors for a pittance (something like 20-30 bucks per resident savings per year!) to feel good about going green. The only green is going to Goron Deane, Sumul Shah etc.
ReplyDeleteTurn off your lights, water, recycle and you will actually be kinder to mother earth and your neighbors.
ReplyDeleteThe Mass DEP found the Fairhaven wind turbines non compliant in 5 out of 24 test sites.This is twenty percent of the area .Announced last night.
The Fairhaven Board of Health Election is in Superior Court at 2 PM for a new election in the Board of Health election .
The Fairhaven BOH is having a joint meeting with the Fairhaven Selectmen on June 10,2013 at noon. Night time shut down of turbine talk
ABC 6 News Rhode Island will have extensive news coverage tonight .
The State of Massachusetts has a renewable energy goal of 2000 megawatts of renewable energy by 2020.
The political argument is fossil fuels are making many people sick so the residents around commercial wind turbines should be come sick in a trade off between fossil fuels and wind turbine renewable energy. How much longer can the state drag their feet over the health and safety of the citizens of Massachusetts
New Bedford Standard Times
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130522/NEWS/305220340
State finds Fairhaven turbines in violation of noise regulations
ABC 6 NEWS
http://www.abc6.com/story/22383964/dep-says-fairhaven-wind-turbines-are-too-loud
DEP says Fairhaven wind turbines are too loud
WBSM :
http://wbsm.com/fairhaven-noisey-turbines/Fairhaven
Turbines a Noise Violation
Windwise Massachusetts
http://windwisema.org/
Outrage in Fairhaven
National Wind Watch
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2013/05/22/state-finds-fairhaven-turbines-in-violation-of-noise-regulations/
I have a couple of comments regarding the Turbine testing. First off, this data does not back up all the claims Windwise and others have made regarding human health. This data shows one thing – that the >10 dB over ambient is a NUISANCE by regulation. While nuisance can be broadly defined and interpreted, it is NOT a health or risk standard. It should be painfully obvious to anyone in Fairhaven that the turbines have cause varying degrees of nuisance amongst its citizens. It does not provide a shred of evidence to back up any claims of health effects, infrasound, or a myriad of other things pushed by Windwise.
ReplyDeleteTo argue that the turbines should be shut off completely – or even “just at night” is simply a ludicrous, knee-jerk OVERreaction. Nothing in the data remotely supports such a reaction. The people who think so are obviously blatant wind turbine foes or just hugely misinformed. The only legitimate argument one could make to proactively stop a nuisance condition would be to limit the turbine's use in Northeast and Northwest wind conditions, as the data could reasonably support that. But nothing more. The data just isn't there.
I'm sorry, but nuisance conditions are usually responded to by various institutional controls like soundproofing, windows on residences, etc. Shutting off turbines would be their last resort. And should be, in my opinion.
That all being said, we are now faced with actual data that proves – by standard and regulation – that there is a violation. This violation must be dealt with promptly. It is a slap across the face of any resident in Town – for or against the turbines – that the developers feel that they can wait until winter to propose a fix. That should not be tolerated.
There are things that should have been started TODAY. They should have a new sound study in place immediately. One that is more expansive than DEP's in terms of sample size, duration, etc. Sound data should be collected from within the homes of those who have filed complaints. This should be in the works ALREADY, not months from now. The developer should pony up money for the Town to hire an independent acoustic survey team to do this. In fact, there should have been a contingency in place for that type of sampling before these or other turbines were built.
If additional data and study shows nuisance conditions in other wind and temporal conditions, then we absolutely should look into limiting their use.
I think part of your response is just what causes people to rally the 'mobs.'
DeleteJust because some people are not affected by the turbines, it in no way means that those who are, don't have legitimate claims to their woes.
How would you feel if your neighbor knowingly lets his 5 dogs do their business on your lawn every day. Your other neighbors could claim that the dogs in the neighborhood are not a nuisance, and that you are being over sensitive. You could put up a fence, but why should you have to do that? One day you're living in a neighborhood that you love, and have made an investment in, and the next day, through NO FAULT OF YOUR OWN, you are being driven crazy by the action of another, that you have no control over.
Soundproofing, and windows IN NOT AN ANSWER. What if these residents want to spend time outside?
I don't imagine the things coming down. They have to be adjusted to be in compliance at all times. And then see what problems exist after that.
I hope everyone who believes that those living among the turbines are simply being bothered by a 'nuisance' factor would stop saying it.
There IS a problem and all everyone wants is a REAL solution.
Whether they do or don't have legitimate claims is largely irrelevant to me. The fact that those claims are not intertwined with any existing standard or regulation - or science for that matter, is relevant. What you described is by definition of a nuisance.
ReplyDeleteThere IS a standard and regulations for nuisances, and that's pretty much all we have to work with. That's what we are faced with. Not a helath standard. Not a risk standard. Trust me, I am not immune to nuisances. I live in a neighborhood where there are plenty of them. Keep in mind that nuisances are not just noise-related. They can be dust/particulates or even odors. There are other issues in town that cause people nuisance and don't get 1% of the publicity that the turbines do.
But as I said, the main way to abate nuisances is through institutional controls. Whether it's to install soundproofing or better windows for a noise issue, to spray deoderants for an odor issue, or to put of curtains or water spray to prevent dust. Those are common and accepted practice in nuisance abatement. Shuitting down a company or industry - even for brief periods of time - is NOT. It is not even remotely understandable to think that such an action is acceptable. I get that you don't like it, but that't the way it is. No amount of beating up on Town officials is going to change that practice. These standards go beyond just the Town. If the "mob" can't understand this, I don't know what to tell you. Nuisance regs are what they are, you're not going to squeeze more out of them.
The only regulatory and REAL documented problem right now is the nuisance issue. Nothing more, no matter how much you want it to be. And that's what needs a solution. It isn't going to address infrasound, it's not going to address Wind Turbine Syndrome, it's not going to address property values.
And don't be fooled. The goal of Windwise IS, in fact, to take these down, as they believe IWTs are incompatible with residential communities. The measures and action so far are just a method of "death by a thousand cuts." Start with limiting their use, end up with shutting them down.
As I said, I support more testing and immediate actions to abate the nuisance. NOW. TODAY. If the "mob" wanted allies (and they could get a whole bunch), they'd push for that, rather than to continue to obfuscate the issues by interjecting irrelevancies.
I understand many of your points. I truly hope that a solution to the problem can be found. I'm not advocating for the shutting down or removal of them, because as I understand it, we're past even hoping for that. But something has to be done for these residents.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad enough to have to witness the conflict day after day, even without being directly involved.