This is a link to the presentation put together by local residents who opppose funding the wind turbine project.
Much of the information that in this presentation is inaccurate or misleading in my opinion. I will prepare a more complete rebuttal and present it here when I have time.
Just a few quick points. You can see accurate photo simulations of the wind turbines at this link. The one in the presentation is grossly exaggerated.
The damaged two bladed turbine shown in the UK was experimental and even that was repaired and run for some time. At the time however, there was a lot of controversy about this huge and very expensive machine, put up when the UK had very little experience with wind turbines. The Danish programme meanwhile had been focussing on small three bladed machines, rated at 200-300kW, and in the event they proved to be world beaters, and have subsequently been scaled up to 1.5MW. That’s still half the size of the Orkney machine- which has been widely seen as something of a white elephant. It did no doubt provide some general technical information and experience- though it didn’t operate for long before a crack in the blades forced its retirement. It was subsequently bought privately, repaired, and run for a while to provide power locally. But now the end has finally come.
However, the Burgar Hill site itself remains home to three NEG Micon wind turbines, currently being tested under the high wind speeds found on Orkney. Installed last April, the first two are rated at 1.5 and 2.0 megawatts and have now been joined by a newly installed 1.3MW machine. The BWEA noted that ‘the demolished turbine still sets the record for the most powerful onshore machine in the UK, and also exceeds the first offshore turbines in the UK at Blyth Offshore, rated at 2.0MW each’.
From the same article,A survey of ‘Public Attitudes towards Wind farms in Scotland’ carried out by System Three Social Research, focusing on people living near Scotlands first four windfarms found that the closer people lived to windfarms the more positive was their attitude to them- a result that has emerged regularly in opinion surveys around the UK. 67% found ‘something they liked’ about the Scottish wind farms, rising to 73% amongst those living closest. Moreover, 74% found ‘nothing they disliked’ rising to 80% for those nearest.
Overall it seems that peoples worries prior to construction were often unfounded- for example 40% of the 430 or so respondents in the Scottish survey said they thought that there would be problems, but in the event only 9% reported any problems. Specifically, beforehand, 12% thought noise would be a problem, but afterwards only 1% reported any disturbance. But the survey found that the development companies had not been effective at consultation, outreach and communication with residents: 42% still only heard of the projects via the local papers, only 7% had obtained their information from the developer or local authority.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Wind turbine opponent presentation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
48 comments:
The wind turbine should go froward. Dartmouth has some of the most restrictive bylaws of any of the area towns. The AEC did their homework, worked very hard for years on this project. Wind power, clean wind. YES.
The slide presentation was done by amateurs. Those pictures are meant to shock not inform.
Bill, as public service could you post the permit granted by the Seectmen?
The permit and Select Board decision is on the town website
http://www.town.dartmouth.ma.us/Pages/DartmouthMA_BComm/AEC/FinalSBDecision01-06-10.pdf
Thanks for letting us get a look at the actual permit. That permit is SOLID. It covers every issue I can think of. Select Board members did a great job in protecting town residents. Mrs. Stone was right that the neighbors involvement made this a better project.
We do not believe any town board can legally justify harm to residents in the name of financial gain. The town board does not believe the warnings raised by the residents. Had the SB bothered to speak with the other towns in New England dealing with these towers they would have taken a more precautionary approach.
The Dartmoutjh Zoning Board of Appeals originally denied a cell tower on May 1, 2001 on Russells Mills Road . The petitioner had to get a special permit from the zoning board to locate the tower in a residential district. The board complained the proposed tower "was aesthetically unpleasant,"
The compromise called for the tower to be reduced in height from 190 to 165 feet and the design was changed and was approved by the Historical Commission.Mr. Silveira issued a building permit for the cell tower on April 29.2002 .
If the town counsel reached an out-of-court settlement in US District Court with Judge Harrington who approved the height requirement of 165 feet how then could the town place a wind turbine higher than 165 feet ?
The decision was filed by US District Court Judge Edward F. Harrington. How is it that the town can reach a legal agreement in 2002 in court to restrict the height of a cell tower to 165 feet and then in 2010 place two turbines larger than the Statue of Liberty ? It looks to me as though there is an agreement with the US District Court and the Town of Dartmouth that Russells Mills Road and vicinity has a height restriction of 165 feet . Has anyone gone back to review these court rulings from 2001 thru 2002 ?
Recently the Town of Cohasett went through a long procedure to place several wind turbines to find out after years of hearings the residential zoning requirements would not allow the two turbines . Some times the obvious is overlooked .
How do we deter Massachusetts cities and towns from growing into too-big-to-fail behemoths, it would be better to do so by imposing higher reserve requirements and other safeguards such as higher borrowing interest rate that can lead investors, lenders and borrowers to shy away from excessively large high risk renewable energy wind projects that put residents health at risk .
Next week we may see a financial meltdown that will require higher interest on investments . Although an argument can be made for the commercial wind turbine proposals, who will protect taxpayers against the risk of a future bailout ?
The obvious fact that YOU overlooked is the proposed wind turbines are allowed by a zoning bylaw and they meet the requirements of that bylaw.
The town meeting is NOT voting on location or the WT proximity to neighbors. We are voting to FUND the project...if we FAIL to fund this project there will not be WT ANYWHERE in Dartmouth...and the opponents have said they FAVOR the WT in town...just not at that location....In order to possibly move the project rather than KILL the PROJECT..I urge TM to FUND THE PROJECT.
It is time to move forward now. If not now, then when and if not here, then where. The opponents are nimbys and that is all there is to it. Where were they when the mall and all the expansion on Route six was done? Where were they when Faunce Corner Road was done? Those items have caused additional traffic and noise and pollution i.e. "Developmensis Trafficosis Polluticanis Syndrome" is very real and where is the benefit from this?
We have an opportunity to place two non polluting, systems that will generate MILLIONS in direct public benefit and yet we are side tracked by NIMBYs who manufacture fantastical health concerns because they simply do not want it in their backyard. Well as someone who has to deal with the mall and it surroundings on a daily basis I say quit being selfish and be glad that the turbines aren't a couple of smokestacks!
The town and the residents around the wind turbine will end up in some long legal battle over this whole thing .
What happened to Dartmouth ? It's no longer a residential location with Rte 6 all the malls and what not.
Now this wind turbine experiment by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative housed by the University of Massachusetts to be paid for by the taxpayers of Dartmouth ?
Has anyone approached NStar chief executive Thomas May to get his input on this project ? NO
Folks , Hope you understand what your doing !
It's all about the money. People's well-being takes a backseat when it's about money. Aren't we seeing that all over the country?
Besides, look at the publicity the town will get; look at all the people who will put Dartmouth on the map (as if we need more of such fame; we've had our share already) and who will win accolades for being our town's saviors and bringing us into prosperity!
If it were to turn out that there was no other suitable site for the turbines other than the Chase Rd. location, and the project had to be scrapped, then the project would have to be scrapped. That is that. Sometimes if something doesn't work, it shouldn't be forced to fit into someone's scheme of what should be. But some people are unwilling to acknowledge that. We have all had to drop some plan and go to plan B when plan A couldn't work, and maybe we were crushed and disappointed that our plans went awry and couldn't be completed for one reason or another. Most of us accept and deal with it, however it may disappoint us. It's a part of life even if it is a tough pill to swallow.
The turbine project is too costly a project to just drop for more reasons than just money, if you were to look beneath the surface. There's a lot of glory at stake here.
Oh, did I mention citizens' well-being?
To 10:20, wouldn't it be wise to have an alternative site already identified before money is appropriated? Wouldn't doing so logically be putting the horse before the cart? If Chase Rd. is the ideal site and town meeting objected to funding for that site, wouldn't it be a good idea to have an alternative site in mind, even if it were second best?
A prior poster said here will be "a long legal battle" over the wind turbines. The poster is wrong. The Select Board dotted all of the "I's" and crossed all the "T's" in the permit it granted on the project. If there's a lawsuit, it won't take long for a judge to see that town officials have done their jobs well. Case dismissed.
Not so fast on the lawsuit issues . There may be a case here for which comes first the chicken or the egg . The Town of Dartmouth has an agreement with the court in 2002 with US District Court Judge Edward F. Harrington. That agreement called for a cell tower to be reduced in height from 190 to 165 feet. Mr. Silveira issued a building permit for the cell tower on April 29, 2002 .
The question now is should the town have gone back to US District Court and had the 165 foot height restriction agreement , approved by the Historical Commission and the court , rescinded prior to any vote by the SB . The Town of Dartmouth has both an agreement for a 165 foot height restriction with a US District Court agreement and also a wind turbine special permit process . Which of the two has precedence over the other ? Does the Town of Dartmouth including Russells Mills Road and vicinity has a height restriction of 165 feet according to court documents ?
Here is the information about the town lawsuit . This story appeared on Page A4 of The Standard-Times on June 3, 2002.
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-02/06-03-02/a04lo027.htm
" "The tower shall be unlighted but the flag may be illuminated with unobstructive lighting so as to conform to flag etiquette when displayed between sunset and sunrise," the judge's decision said.
Judge Harrington said the pole will be white with the users' antennae inside.
The judge also ordered that the pole be situated at least 165 feet from the northerly property line.
Kenneth Ira Spigle, the attorney for the petitioner, said yesterday he and John A. Birknes Jr., town counsel, reached an out-of-court settlement and Judge Harrington approved the conditions of their agreement.
He said the compromise called for the tower to be reduced in height from 190 to 165 feet and the design was changed and has been approved by the Historical Commission.
Mr. Silveira issued a building permit for the cell tower on April 29.
The Zoning Board of Appeals originally denied the cell tower on May 1, 2001. The petitioner needed a special permit from the zoning board to locate the tower in a residential district.
The board complained the proposed tower "was aesthetically unpleasing," and said the petitioner was unwilling, because of economic reasons, to design the tower so it resembled a tree to make it less offensive. "
The wind turbine fears are far fetched...turbine collapsing, fires, flicker, "stray voltage" which is a CROCK of BULL......ice throw...these are all caused by opponents of Wind turbines and the nerighbors of the waste water treatment plant believe.
I hope town meeting doesnt follow the same distortions of facts that the unfortunate neighbors have bought into.
The entire wind turbine project is one sided . All the studies and people associated with this project are a product of only the State of Massachusetts . The involvement of the state in this project and the lack of a third party consultant should bring speculation to everyone in town . Greed is what is driving this project not the facts . A vote in favor of this project breaks the tenth commandment . The town is taking property of those around the wind turbine !
10th Commandment; Verse 17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."
Dartmouth has fallen victim to a Pie-In-The-Sky sales-pitch for wind turbines .The town has embarked on a wishful thinking hope of thousands of dollars while the project grows like a cancer that overcomes our community .
Let's be perfectly clear. Without the passage of a "the sky is the limit" special permit wind turbine law, the project as it is proposed could not be erected.
The residential quality of life will sink into a pit of perpetual litigation .Dartmouth has a responsibility to protect their citizens in some kind of respective comprehensive plan .The town fails sensible safeguard setback requirements and appropriate site location.
The SB is willfully and intentionally working towards circumventing prior US district court rulings in their outrageous campaign of sanctioning these two turbines.
I think the previous writer should read the actual decision by the Select Board which is posted on the town website. Bill also linked to it in his first post on this thread (fourth from the top). In that decision, the Select Board did an excellent job of protecting the public health and safety. The neighbors may not want the project, but the Select Board included many stipulations and restrictions in the permit to make sure the neighbors and the town are protected. Suggesting otherwise just isn't true at all.
The SB gave these people a pat on the back and a kick in the pants and you know it !
This whole plan is based on Bank of America giving the towm a loan at less than 4% .
Bank of America and other banks lost 10% of their net worth last week !
The combination of the meltown starting tommorrow and the risk of litigation from the residents around the site will keep a major turbine company and bank away from the entire project !
Remember the SB weighed the risks brought up by the people around the turbines - The banks and turbine people do the same thing. The weight of the risk may be to high for a bank to get involved !
Why would a bank lend money to a project being opposed by the neighbors and a town with a history of financial problems ?
umm 5:25 - the town's credit rating is very good. that is what any bank will look at, not some amorphous statement about previous years of financial problems. as far as problems with neighbors, name one large scale project where there is not some opposition. weak arguments.
The anonymous poster from 5:30PM sounds like the one time and infamous "Frank1": paranoid and dead wrong on just about everything. Frank1: Where did he/she/it go anyway?
Everyone at some time in their life gets sold a bad bill of goods . Sometimes even the best and smartest people get fooled .
This is a giant sales pitch in which in the end the taxpayers of Dartmouth are going to foot the bill .
Was that Godzilla hovering over the wastewater treatment plant? No, I guess it was just someone who has some minimum skills with photo package. Nice try though. Come on down to Portsmouth and look at the one there. Similar to the Dartmouth plan, and no big deal.
My family and I moved to Dartmouth in 2004. At the time the real estate market was at an all time high. I bought my home for $405,000, and now in 2010 it's worth less than what I bought it for. Unfornately the real estate market has taken a massive hit for everyone. But never did I think that the town of Dartmouth could do what they are doing to me and my family. The south tower proposed will be 1400 feet behind my home. This will depreciate my property value anywhere from 20%-30% depending on noise level and flicking. Just imagine a structure larger than the statue of liberty right behind your house. And keep in mind the statue of liberty doesn't make noise and flicker shadows. Why do I have to pay and suffer for the towns financial benefit? And finally, Why didn't I receive any proper notification from the town on what was going on? I'm an abutter to the property. Talk about wrong! I'm discusted with this town. Hopefully town meeting members will make the right decision, unlike the select board did.
1400 feet into the woods is hardly next door.
Don't tell me that you weren't notified because I know that you were.
As far as your property value goes, you have no idea if these windmills will have any effect at all.
The opponents have lied and you bought it. Just look at the picture they have in there presentation and then look at the photosimulations.
to 5:03
You are incorrect at so many levels. For example, the "glide path to the airport". There are towers all over the place that are this tall. Planes come over my neighborhood all the time. I am closer to the airport than you, most likely. Never seen a plane fly as low as the top of towers will be. Ever heard of cell phones? How many towers in Dartmouth and how high are they? Gambling with people's lives? Life is always a gamble isn't it? Everytime you go somewhere is a gamble. Waiting for the school bus is a gamble. Jogging on Chase Road in broad daylight is a gamble. People make decisions based upon odds all the time. Extremely low odds of any problem with the turbines. What part of this don't you get?
Yea Bill,
Those photos look real accurate! Look at how high from Hawthorne then look at how low from Medeiros' sand pit. Those are real accurate! I can take some pictures from inside my basement, can't see them from there either!
When all is said and done; profit for the town, glory for the Selectmen, danger or not to residents, birds, bats, the aquifer etc. the fact is the turbines are going to look BIGGER than any photosimulation done by either the proponents or the opponents and they are going to be massively, monstrously hideous.
As an extra comment (which I'm sure will be picked up and scoffed at by the proponents): what about the pets that these families have? A cat and dog have far more keen and intense a hearing than we do as human beings. Ever hear a dog howl when the fire siren sounds, or someone's home alarm goes off? They, like their owners, will be subject to the same noise, except, for all we know, they will hear it far greater and maybe even feel adverse effects from it, who knows?
They can't speak for themselves.
Scoff and mock, if you want. I could care less. I am happy to at least express my opinion here, and be the voice of the innocent animals.
Of course, if you have no regard for human life, you most certainly can't be expected to value that of an animal.
I would think that shadow/flicker might affect them, too. Just because their constitution is not the same as ours, who or what's to say they may not suffer ill effects from not just the noise, but also the shadow/flicker?
Again, no regard for the quality of human life, so you can't be expected to care about animal life.
Neighbors feel otherwise.
About 50 residents in the Chase Road area vigorously oppose the project, saying their property values will drop, while also complaining about noise, the flicker effect caused by the rotating blades, the height of the towers and their proximity to a residential district.
The neighbors have not ruled out the possibility of litigation to stop the project.
The Fairhaven project was stopped by only eight people ! This project is going to effect around 400 to 500 homes in one way or another . I say class action litigation .
Everyone in town has got to ask themselves if they were looking for a home in Dartmouth would you really buy one next to a commercial wind turbine higher than the Statue of Liberty ? Why are you doing this to your neighbors ? What kind of place have you turned Dartmouth into ?
Everyone ,even smart people get sold a bill of goods sometimes . This time a whole town is getting reeled in hook line and sinker.Something smells fishy about this whole project.
These people you call your representatives won't even let a third party look at the figures . That should at least warrant a raise of the eyebrows !
What kind of bait did they use? Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars
Don't forget your on the hook for 9.5 million .
Do you work? Some people post comments at all times of the day...Breathe!!!!
HERE WE GO TEN YEARS OF LITIGATION .TOWN PICKED THE WRONG SPOT .
DARTMOUTH — On the eve of tonight's special Town Meeting vote to fund two wind turbines, neighbors of the controversial project filed a lawsuit hoping to block it.
In a nine-page complaint, filed Monday in Fall River Superior Court, attorney Philip N. Beauregard, contends the Select Board acted as both the developer of the project and the adjudicator of it, thus depriving his clients of "the objectivity in decision-making required by state law."
The resident opponents better have deep pockets. The only ones to profit from this are the attorneys and the S-T. Beauregard will get to grandstand. Little else will be accomplished. What did it cost to run that ad? That picture was complete BS, a total distortion. Goes to show that the opponents aren't being honest.
The best solution is to have the state issue permits so that the NIMBYs don't tie up every project in court. The legislature is considering the bill right now to do it.
Now we have one of the most vile, blood sucking lawyers in the area representing the NIMBY's. How appropriate and predictable. Mr. Beauregard, based upon some his previous clientele, was capable of representing Hitler and claiming he was a kind, gentle and misunderstood individual. What the NIMBY's haven't figured out yet, that this is going to cost them all thousands of dollars for absolutely nothing! They pay their lawyer and they pay for their share of town's lawyer too.
5:03 I am incorrect? Do you pilot a plane? Do you understand that the runway is aligned with the north tower? Do you understand if a plane is taking off, directly into the wind, which is most often in the summer a SW one, it will fly directly over the north tower as directed to do so by the radio tower. Do you know that if there is an engine failure on that or any plane that it is a known fact to any pilot that you keep your nose into the wind. You do not turn either way, you stay straight. That puts the north turbine IN the glide path of that aircraft. By the way, most cell towers are only 150 to 200' and none are that tall in Dartmouth. Even Pontes' construction tower which can be seen for miles is only 165' as the town would not let them go to 195' like Ponte wanted. You are right, people gamble all the time. That is their choice! Let me take your life and gamble it as you seem to think it's alright for the town to gamble ours! Better yet, I have no problem with you gambling your life. Go fight in Afganistan, and lets see what kind of "windy balls" you have there! The odds of dying over there are less than a predicted turbine failure! WHAT PART DON'T YOU GET ABOUT THAT!
Hey if the state gets involved then the Dartmouth bylaw is out the window. The state wants 3x hub height which would me no closer than 300 meters or 985'. That would make both the north and south tower no good in their present location. So, that would be a bad thing and why? Problem is the NIMBYs or PROPONENTS who want this just not in their backyards haven't done any real research and are mad that the effected residents have done their research and know more than them. This whole thing was rushed through so we would have less time getting info from experts. But hate to tell you, we did! After 6 years the AEC knows the issues and did not present them properly to the town meeting members or the SB members who aren't on the AEC. The bylaw is a joke. It will allow any company to come in, buy a few acres, put up one building with a meter in it, and install a 100m unit just 660' from an occupied residence! This is what most town meeting members have come to realize. They were duped by the AEC and the Dartmouth Agenda Machine when they voted in favor of the bylaw. By being told the bylaw was restrictive (a major lie) they thought they were doing a good thing. Why do pro wind people have to lie to get what they want. Tell the truth and put turbines where they belong, and that is not in close proximity to homes. Like the earlier poster said, What don't you get about that?
The other day it looked like a pro-wind turbine proponent (Martha Coakley) would be heading to Washington -- Opppps ! I think that Gov Patrick and all the Democratic leaders need to revisit the proposed Massachusetts Wind energy Siting Reform Act . Is this what the residential homeowners want ? Commercial wind turbines in their backyards ?
The Wind Energy Siting Reform Act will strip local control over the siting of industrial wind power plants and associated roads and transmission lines. Under this Act, the state Energy Facilities Siting Board will have the power to forever alter the character and prosperity of our communities. The health of our environment and economy depend upon local control, and we oppose any effort by the state to override our community rights.
The beneficiaries of the Massachusetts Wind Energy Siting Reform Act are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
Vote out anyone who wants to take your residential property rights
Town Counsel Anthony C. Savastano said he will spend all the money the town has to get this project through the court process ! He made that statement in the news today before the meeting tonight ?
Who asked him to fight the residents around the wind turbines already ?
It's because of NIMBYs like this that the state has a Energy Facilities Siting Board. http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeasubtopic&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Energy%2C+Utilities+%26+Clean+Technologies&L2=Energy+Facilities+Siting+Board&sid=Eoeea
We'd all be shivering in the dark if we had to go through years of litigation from neighbors to install power plants, transmission or gas lines. It makes a lot of sense to add wind turbines to the list of things that this board can do. That's what the Massachusetts Wind Energy Siting Reform Act says. Can't be passed soon enough.
Hey, you're right. The picture in the ad in the S-T is B. S. Those turbines are only 80 meters in the picture. The ones planned for Chase Road are 100 meters,even worse standing an additional 66' taller. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Lots of people believe they have good ideas and don't force it on others. Why do the pro wind people feel they have to force their ideas on everyone else. Why don't they all get together and buy their own piece of land, sell the electricity back, and make their own money. Then build their houses all around it. They can enjoy the view, sound, and property value loss while keeping all those "benefits" to themselves! I'm sure there's lots of people who don't care about you sharing.
this deserves a second post...
Windy Balls, Nice name. All proponents seem to be arrogant and ingnorant to others. These turbines have come into our neighborhood and our homes, we haven't gone into yours. We are trying to save our homes, our lives, and our well being and you proponents try and blame us for defending ourselfs. Man, you are selfish! Funny, you say that the concerned resident has no proof that his property value will be lost yet there is lot's of local documentation from realtors that say different. It is only in a paper report done by a college that is funded by pro-green energy concerns that says different and even the author of the paper has omitted to it's inaccuracy when dealing with homes at under 1 mile away. ! You are right though about the picture in the presentation. If it is the two turbines along the rode with a pickup in front it is not completly accurate. Those turbines are only 80 meter units and not really as tall and obtrusive as the units proposed for Chase road. You see, there are no 100 meter units in the US that you can get a picture of to copy because the only units close are the ones in Snyder TX (105m)and they are in an abandoned oil field with no houses around. I have flown over them. Really though, how high are the Dartmouth turbines? Just high enough to effect the glide path of a airport 5.5 miles away! I would like one of the proponents or even better, Mr. Trimble or Ms. Stone explain to a resident why their loved one was killed if there is ever any accident with a blade or blade throw piece. Explain why money is more important than the person's live! It's funny, people gamble everyday with the chance of winning in the 1 to one million. Wonder if anyone would gamble with the chance of dying with better odds than that? The town is playing those losing odds for the people living TOO close.
January 25, 2010 5:03 PM
Get a GRIP !! you all live near the waste water treatment plant, the town dump and a stone quarry...trust me, the turbines are not having an impact on health or well-being any more than these 3 monsters in your backyard/
"Trust me." Right. Another "expert" weighs in.
Itjust goes to show how compassionate people really are! Let me get this right.... because the neighbors around the DPW already deal with the smell from inadequately treated sewerage and the sound and dust from Medeiros Construcion Co, that is the justifcation for shoving another nuisance down their throats???
You people NEED to wake up!!! The wind industry is cleverly sneeking in Dartmouth's back door. I suggest you research the name Cashman in association with proposing 130 turbines of our coast, including Cape Wind which is a legal fiasco right now!!! He commentd in a blog, that he will be sending letters to these property owners offering to buy their properties, knock them down and build a wind turbine tourist attraction... are you serious????
I heard neighbors are suing Mr Kirby of S Dartmouth because he is installing to 50 meters turbines (not 100% sure of the size)and neighbors say their too close. Well, you can thank the SB and a who created the rediculously minimal setback parameters....I think there are may be more NIMBY's very soon!
Post a Comment