The Standard Times has a pro and con op-ed on the tax subsidies for wind power. Quite frankly, you could substitute wind for a bunch of things the tax payers have to subsidize and use the premises in both articles.
From a money point of view, I have to agree with the premise we need to take a hard look at the "bang for the buck", or in my mind the lack thereof.
Less than a week to go for the deadline to take out papers for the B of H race. Kind of our Town's pro and con piece on turbines. As of yesterday morning two people had taken out papers. I am pretty sure you can guess who they are.
Assuming a repeat of the race from April, well who knows.
There is an interesting twist to the race. I have had a few people reference the fact that the election will be a mandate of sorts. Not sure how that plays out absent a turnout of historic numbers.
In the strict literal since a win I suppose can be considered a mandate. In the everyday world though I don't see how a win with a 20% voter turnout is a mandate for anyone to be honest. With that kind of turnout, if you take 60% of the votes in an election you have been elected by what, something like 12% of the people.
That means 78% didn't vote for you. Certainly it is a better percentage than your opponent, but not a clear indication of town wide support.
You cannot make people vote. I kind of wish you could.
Anyone out there with predictions for turnout? I am holding off on mine for awhile. Any "settlement" with the turbine developers which is reached is certainly going to have an effect on the numbers.
If perceived to be too biased against turbines, it could just further energize the pro turbine group which certainly for the moment at least seems to be gathering momentum. The opposite is true also for those opposing the turbines.
Of course that would probably leave pro turbine people caught between a rock and a hard place. such a settlement would involve the current B of H member. If he supports such a settlement, well than who do they vote for to support their cause?
Just interesting is all.
Personally I think a settlement, no matter how good or bad for your personal position is going to lower the overall turnout. I hope I am wrong on that, but that's the way I see it. Truth be told, the whispers I am hearing from many people are they want the turbine "operations" dispute over, one way or the other.
With a settlement, it will all come down to mobilization folks, that is what this election and indeed any election always boils down to. Believing you have the support to win is one thing, getting the supporters out to the polls is another.
Enough for today.
Be safe.
We've seen candidates be well outnumbered in sign holders or newspaper ads win an election.
ReplyDeleteWhat you see, isn't always what you get.
The candidate who gets the most supporters to the polls deserves to win. If you have a preference to who wins- you've got to go vote.
(I just dread the chance that there's a one vote difference. And even more, a poorly run election.)
Given the financial troubles Shah has recently had with Lumas Construction, because of the slowdown of the economy and given the reduced energy output because of the town’s self-imposed time restrictions, I doubt CCI Energy or Palmer Capital are going to have much flexibility to “help people sleep”, given their costs are pretty well fixed in stone.
ReplyDeleteNegotiating at the table:
Shah, a developer already stretched as far as it goes
State officials who don’t support the local NIMBYS position
CCI and Palmer who are bound by rigid financing notes.
2 or 3 town officials who seem to be more aligned anti-wind at this time and not “about the revenue.”
The only flexibility I see is the weak town officials’ position. Such as lease payments severely reduced or suspended; town contracted kWh energy price up; towns’ contracted in the total sum purchased kWh down from 100%.
What’s more important to the current officials, $200,000 plus or a night’s sleep? The average taxpayer won’t even know what hit them, because the blades will be turning while they are shopping, but the town residents suffer the losses.
After that the developer will have no choice but to protect his $8.75 M plus profits investment from the remaining complainants and paper town officials. This is far from over and united. This is all about future elections in the BOH Noise Department and the BOS Sleep Department and the financing of a new town structured government. This may never be over…
Why are we talking "settlement" and "compromise", as if it applies to all the parties involved?
ReplyDeleteAs John has mentioned we have two differing "camps", and a whole lot of folks that are simply ambivalent.
On the one hand, you have supporters of the turbines. The overwhelming majority of which want to see the turbines spinning, so long as they are in compliance. It's not as if the supporters want the turbines to spin in violation of the law, regulations, policies, and standards. There is no vocal group saying they want people to "suffer", or damn the law or anyone who has a complaint.
On the other hand, you have a group of ANTI-WIND people who simply want to shut the turbines down forever or remove them completely. It's pretty much their stated goal. There is nothing else that will satisfy them. Even the temporary nighttime shutdown was never going to be good enough.
Who should be willing to compromise?
In my opinion, surely NOT the folks that want them to run, so long as they are compliant, and are afforded all the leeway and mitigation that any other industry, business or facility is allowed. As a practical matter, there should be ZERO compromise on that.
The Windwise folks are the ones that - in one way or another - WILL HAVE TO compromise. And seeing that some of the actions of our Town Officials seem to have been made to placate these people, THEY will also have to compromise.
I agree with Code. This isn't going to be over anytime soon.
"This isn't going to be over anytime soon" for who?
ReplyDeleteIf they can run in compliance and within the contracted parameters, then shouldn't it be over between the town and Fairhaven Wind?
I can imagine at least one of the selectmen not allowing it to end until everyone's happy. But if that's the way he feels, then he should pursue the issue as a resident, not elected official.
Anonymous, I think my post was pretty clear.
ReplyDeleteIf they can run in compliance with the parameters, then YES, it should be over. BUT, I truly believe that any outcome outside of a turbine teardown will be unacceptable to the Windwise folks. Therefore, their arguments will continue. And so will the threats of lawsuits, the actual loss of revenue, etc.
I actually lay blame with all three selectmen and at least two of the BOH members for their failure to act appropriately and within established procedure. I give the selectboard a little bit of leeway, only because they have some amount of discretion with the actual contract. The way they are mis-interpreting policy and science to reach their decision is unpalatable to me, however.
The BOH on the other hand just makes me sick. If they weren't so blatantly uneven-handed with their enforcement, it may appear to make sense. But they aren't even-handed at all. This adds to the problem.
The wind turbines are a Trojan Horse. They are not the big money maker everyone was led to believe. Fairhaven has a population near 16,000 people. The town gets almost a total of $150,000 from the lease and the power formula. Big deal ! What's the wind developer making a million or more ?
ReplyDeleteGov Patrick is going to start a state wind noise study with independent doctors as of yesterdays news. In addition the state agency that recommends setbacks for commercial wind turbines is up to 2000 feet from residential homes.
The only ones making money on this project are the attorneys. Fairhaven is going to need to ask for a legal fund every year for the wind turbines.
The town is faced with a double edge sword. The residents around the wind turbines are worried about their health and getting some sleep and don't care what it cost the rest of the town. The residents in favor of the wind turbine operating in so called compliance don't care about the residents around the turbines and only care about a trivial amount of money .
The turbines are a Trojan Horse and the troops are on the ground.
Frank, is that you again?
ReplyDeleteAnother HUGE part of the problem in our Town is the anti-wind lobby, and out-of-town interlopers about like the anonymous poster above. Most of the time, they are one in the same.
John, do you ever get sick of posting Anonymous postings? I have no respect for people who love to voice their opinion without actually having to own said opinions. I'd be happy to see them gone. Of course, it's not my blog...
I have had a continuing internal debate over the issue of anonymous.
DeleteIf I didn't moderate the comments, I certainly wouldn't allow it.
It still boils down to the fact that I prefer the "debate" over silence.
Besides many of the anonymous posts do provide insight and valid points. Let's face it, requiring people to sign in with a name wasn't getting too much discussion going.
My hope is that eventually people will be willing to put a name to the post when they see the fact that I do post all views.
I should say mostly all. I have had to toss a few comments into the trash bin this past week, from people on both sides of the issue I would add. Not because of the view point, but the inability to keep out the foul language and/or personal attacks at others.
Plus I have omitted a few one liner cheap shots. Not that I am opposed to someone taking a jab here or there, but at least get it into a relevant comment.
Anyway, I digress. No I don't get sick of it.
What's more disheartening, someone who feels the necessity to write an anonymous comment so they aren't chastised on the street about their view, or someone who can't comment?
DeleteWhen people are referred to by an assumed group name (i.e. Windwise,) or stereotyped into a group (such as NIMBY,) is it any wonder people comment unanimously?
Instead of continuing to assume that anyone will continue to object to the outcome of the 'compromise,' at least get to that point, and see what happens. I think if someone in authority would finally declare, "This is all we can do," then half of the group will continue to fight, and the rest will do whatever they have to do to go on with their lives.
But at least everyone will know where they stand.
I personally think anonymous posters are cowards. I don't care if they are pro- or anti-turbine. As I said, take your position and own it, for good or bad. If you have an opinion, you should also be able to defend it to some degree. If you're too scared to voice your opinion, I can't help you there. That's my take anyway.
DeleteI'd love to know how many of these people that "can't comment" think that Windwise is doing a good job of it for them... Because that's what happens. Windwise becomes the mouthpiece for those who DON'T speak up (assuming of course that they are not turbine supporters).
Michelle, you've been posting long enough, I hope, to be able to discern certain people's styles of writing. It's painfully obvious that non-resident Windwise activists are posting here. That includes the post above. Am I 100% about that? No. But I'm pretty darned sure that's the WINDWISE activist from Mattapoisett. And he's not the only one. It also concerns me greatly that someone like that has such a demented, obsessive fascination with the goings-on in our Town. These pretenders love to shoot off, but really don't care about what goes on here. They also don't care what kind of damage they do to our Town.
I don't label anyone who is anti-turbine as Windwise. I never have. It would be unfair to do so, as I personally know a lot of people who do not like the turbines but also do not support Windwise. But you have to be purposely ignoring the fact that the loudest, least cooperative group of people have been members of Windwise. Their actions here HAVE supported the fact that they are a NIMBY group. Nothing more. You might think NIMBY is a condescending term, but it's literally what they advocate for.
I'll ask you this: If Windwise's goal is to remove the turbines from Fairhaven AT ANY COST, where do you believe there is room for compromise? They ignore and distort science. They ignore regulation. They ignore proper and standard procedure. They ignore policy. How on earth do you think they are willing to compromise on whatever is agreed to/not agreed to this time? I'm sorry, I just don't see it. It might be an assumption, but it's an empirical one and one that I'm willing to take to the bank.
The only comment I'll make about Windwise, as much as I've seen or read or heard from them, is that some of them have expressed their views rationally and others have not. I agree with you about recognizing a style in anonymous comments. Sometimes I wonder who it is, and I do wish they signed their name so we would better understand where they're coming from in their opinion. A repeated opinion from someone in Mattapoisett would not be considered as relevant as one from the Neck.
DeleteI wished something could have been done for the affected people. I know some of the people in the surrounding area whose family has been affected mostly by noise at night. I know one person who tried earplugs on some nights- to no avail. They tried to give the process time, but now they've thrown their hands up. They have not said a word.
I don't know the regulations, but I understand what regulations are. I know the meaning of a contract. And I finally, though disappointingly, understand that nothing has to be done beyond make sure the turbines run in compliance.
It's too bad there isn't a real noticeable effect from the turbines, although I would even doubt anything would be done if all those affected turned purple.
I guess my point is that I think all the testing with any multitude of equipment won't change much. So I wish someone with a backbone and knowledge of the law would come forward and put an end to the whole thing. Let everyone know the whole situation. Stop letting people think there's a chance to change anything.
I could more easily go about town not satisfied with a situation than wondering everyday when the false accusations and promises will end.
Should we plaster that saying right under "Fairhaven United".
ReplyDeleteYou speak of a trivial amount of money. If the Town forgoes the trivial $150,000 per year in exchange for reduced operation, will that satisfy the residents around the turbines?
Using your figures, I don't imagine the developers walking away from a million dollars a year. A sum of money I doubt anyone considers trivial.
The Governor, so far as I am aware, at this point has stated he would "support an independent scientific study". A bit different than stating he will start one.
Everyone seems to want this though, and I would certainly welcome it. Of course everyone wants to pick the panel too.
If the turbines are a Trojan Horse and the troops are on the ground, I am not so sure that means anything good for your position. According to my mythology book, the troops on the ground from the Trojan Horse actually won.
Windwise never came here to defeat anyone,they had a green agenda which many of us buy into.They came in above the radar an we all thought their intentions were honest.A little savings for us over a long period of time.lower pollution than conventional power sources,etc.Their proposals were scrutinized an noise,flicker,etc,siting,were discussed and passed.We have 20 years to live with this or pay windwise off and have 20 years to pay.Call 1-800=ATTORNEY..
ReplyDeleteI think you mean Fairhaven Wind, not Windwise.
DeleteAs a note to anonymous posting, it's a tiny bit rigid to think someone not using their real name is automatically a coward. I happen to regard my privacy in ways others may not. I stand behind my words, as well as in front of them, ;). Just not on the internet. Ever. It has nothing to do with any specific forum, but with innate characteristics which I'm not changing to prove how brave I am. And I am. So there.
ReplyDeleteI have only one other post here, following John's blog about either side not being happy on the turbines. My post was the one that said the BOS is the weakest one I've ever seen. I understand a distinction is helpful when trying to converse, so I'll add a handle to my anonymous posts from here on.
On the turbines, I'd be interested in John's opinion on a particular BOS statement using language of 'injurious to health.' This was in the article referencing Falmouth and how 'Fairhaven's BOS went where the Falmouth BOS didn't.' (sorry for the loose referencing, I can't find the ST article)
Does that language have legal ramifications down the road? And how does the BOS, and not the BOH, make those statements?
~Gallops Like A Charley Horse~