Wednesday's late edition, right in the middle of things

Well yesterday there was a link to an article on the dilemma facing the Town of Falmouth's select board over that town's turbines.  Today, The Standard Times runs a piece on Falmouth's Board of Health and its present stance, and a bit (a tiny one at that) of comparison to the Fairhaven Board of Health approach.

I will absolutely agree with the B of H in Fairhaven that hearing from people is important. I will also agree that complaints are some evidence of a problem for those people.  

However, and this is where some are going to get ticked off, hearing what people have to say and receiving complaints, forms just some of the basis for assessing and determining a course of action.  If this is the sole criteria, than why is it not be uniformly applied to other noise complaint issues.

I also agree with the quoted statement from the Falmouth B of H chair in the article:

"We feel that all of our decisions need to be based on some finding in fact that is scientifically and legally defensible," Jared Goldstone, chairman of the Falmouth Board of Health, said. "There certainly is no evidence that the turbines are causing problems or the other way around."

Note: I have read the studies, numerous studies, supporting and refuting the claims from all sides.  I am willing to bet so have a whole lot of other people, on both sides.  I am aware of the WHO standards, the new setback policy relative to noise, proposed legislation, old and new European standards, and some more stuff to boot.

Saying that, I realize I am not the only one who can make that claim; and, I am fairly certain there are those out there who have a better grasp on the technical stuff than I do.    But I also know that the words "could", "may", "might" and the near universal sentiment in one form or another "conclusions warrant more studies" do not require a PhD, JD or MD to interpret.  I also am pretty sure I know the difference between apples and oranges.

I totally agree that decisions need to be based on some finding in fact that is scientifically and legally defensible. 

Before someone tries to use the argument that there is no evidence the turbines are not causing the problems either, from a legal point of view you aren't going anywhere with that one, and you won't go to far from a scientific point of view either.  That has been tried over and over again on just about everything.  If that was the legal standard, well we wouldn't have cell towers for example.  Come to think of it, the same applies to a scientific standard.

I don't want to drift too far here, because while absolutely relevant in the bigger picture, the focus should be whether there have been decisions made based on some finding in fact that is scientifically and legally defensible. 

The selectmen's decision for the thirty day notice was absolutely defensible on both grounds, although not on some of the stated grounds.  The science was there to show violations in excess of the state standard.  So while the stated levels of 60 whatever would not have been held a violation, because there were in fact known violations, evidenced by studies, the 30 day notice would have been legally defensible. 

Board of Health action: well assuming the Board at its 3:00 P.M. meeting yesterday accepted the same minutes as the selectmen for the joint meeting on June 10th, the facts:

Mr. Murphy turned over the meeting to Board of Health chairman Peter DeTerra for comment. Mr. DeTerra stated that as of June 6, there have been 486 complaints from 56 households. He said that complaints included lack of sleep, headaches, nausea. 

Mr. DeTerra offered the chance for the other Board of Health members to comment. Ms. Lopes had no comment. Dr. Acksen said that she was glad to be meeting with the Board of Selectmen. She said that the Board of Health has read every complaint. She said she was glad to be at a meeting in which the people were being treated in a respectful manner. Mr. DeTerra started to ask for comment from Fairhaven Wind LLC representatives, but Mr. Murphy stopped him and said that he wanted the meeting to be a dialogue between the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Health to discuss the health impact of the wind turbines, and that he did not want to open it up to the public.

... 

Mr. DeTerra said that most of the complaints are at night. Mr. DeTerra motioned to shut the 

turbines off from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., citing them as a public health nuisance. Dr. Acksen 

seconded. Vote passed with no answer from Ms. Lopes, and with no objection.

Digest version of facts per the minutes: As of June 6, 2013, 486 complaints by 56 households, with most complaints at night.

Ignoring the science, just based on the written minutes, as quoted and in the entirety, if you have any inkling as to what is suppose to be involved in a nuisance hearing, you also should have an inkling as just how defensible the voted motion is.

As to the facts found, we all have differing views about "facts", from my point of view I would not want to have to defend those facts.

Could you have established a reasonable and defensible basis for a cease and desist?  I think you very well could have.  I think you could have even laid it out for the expanded 7:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. for at least a temporary basis.  

Again just an opinion, just as I believe if this ends up in court don't be too surprised to see the town get whacked for damages for loss of earnings for at least four hours of time.

If one has a legal right to operate a facility, subject to operational laws and standards/regulations, if people complain and if listening to those people and those complaints are the all evidence you will use in your stated findings, fine.  Can we just be consistent with that approach?

Better yet, let's not.  If you think we don't have the potential for exposure on the turbines, you ain't even thinking about potential in other areas.

Is there a solution you can get people to accept, and pay for.  I don't know.

One thing I do think needs to be addressed though is if a solution is reached by the town and the developer, is a question I have have been asked a number of times very recently: Will such a settlement mean my taxes go up? 

The answer, assuming the settlement is paid for through existing revenue streams, is quite frankly no.  

We have been maxing out the tax levy pretty much for years.  When it hasn't been maxed out, it wasn't maxed more due to matters not being voted for funding, or calculation issues, rather than a conscious choice.  If you assume the town continues to appropriate the same increases under prop. 2 1/2 as it has in the past, your taxes will not increase as a result of a settlement calculated to be paid. The taxes will contnue to go up with or without the revenue from the turbines.  

If we want a fair and frank discussion this matter must be noted.

Again, if we want a fair and frank discussion what also has to be noted is the fact that the loss of money over and above the tax levy from other sources will of course mean loss of services in some way, shape or form.  

Additional revenues are money spent over and above the tax levy, or in lieu of maxing out the levy.  Since the levy gets maxed year in and year out, loss of additional revenue does not increase your taxes.  Quite frankly, the periodic attempts to give the tax payer a break have not been met with approval. It is that simple.  

So if the intent  was to use the turbine revenue in lieu of taxes, well yes loss of revenue means more taxes.  This hasn't been the intent though, let us all be honest about that.  The loss of that money does mean something else gives though, so let us again be honest with that fact too.

Depending on what is more important to you, depending on what you are willing to accept, depending on a whole host of things, this is where every citizen has to weigh the financial costs of what a settlement will be if structured within the operation budget.

I can picture some faces out there turning red with anger, some people ranting, there he goes again, it is all about money.  Well you would be wrong.  

As a person and as a resident I am actually willing to accept some loss in local receipts as long as the rationale is reasonable and as long as those who make the decision are able to tell me why they think it is justified and what goes because of it.  

I won't apologize for not agreeing that the cost doesn't or shouldn't matter. 

You can have my apology for voting in favor. I wouldn't do it again, my reasoning probably substantially different than the those who did vote against them in the first place, but nonetheless my reasoning would be a no vote.

As mentioned over and over again however, we aren't dealing with whether they should go up.  

The cost of any solution is extremely relevant because in my view the cost of a solution will have a detrimental effect on others in some form.  Because of that, I do very much want to know what gives.

You are free to feel otherwise.

More than enough for today I think.  Be safe.