The selectmen are trying to contribute to wind in Massachusetts, although not to wind power. Here's their recent letter to our governor, our assemblyman and our senator on the pending wind power siting legislation before the state legislature. My comments are interspersed.
"The Selectboard of Egremont is writing to state its position regarding the developing legislation for the siting of wind turbines in Massachusetts. First, we want to be clear that we are in support of finding alternative energy sources for a secure and safe future of our great state and country. This is NOT a debate regarding wind power. We believe that there are many solutions that can be employed to gain our energy independence - wind, solar and hydro being just a few, and we support all well thought-out solutions." Whenever you see an introduction like this (especially in a politician's letter), you know what's going to follow. They don't really support it at all. This reminds me of what a very wise person told me years ago: Whenever someone stating a position uses the word "but" in a sentence, you can ignore everything in the sentence that precedes that word. Not surprisingly, here's what follows:
"The Selectboard of Egremont believes its local Planning Board has been duly elected by our citizens to act in their behalf and to review projects that fall under their jurisdiction. We believe that they have the greatest knowledge of our community and are in the appropriate position to recommend what is in the best interests of our community." Give me a break. Anyone who has spoken with our selectmen knows how they feel about the planning board. But I give them credit for their political astuteness. Whenever you don't want to take a position because it's going to cost you votes whichever way you go, figure out a way to duck.
"We disagree with any attempt to remove either Egremont’s Planning Board from the review and approval process regarding wind turbine siting locally or the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission from the review and approval process regionally. To be clear, this is not about wind power as an alternative energy source, but rather a matter of exercising local control of our community and having more say in its development than allowed by the recent legislative draft." Translated, we want the power to keep wind power installations out of our community. As the selectmen well know, the legislation doesn't just allow wind power anywhere the industry wants it. It sets out pretty thorough statewide standards that must be met for wind power installations. Local control will only put on additional limits (i.e., prohibitions); it certainly won't result in easing the statewide standards. If you lined up every expert in the world on this subject, with viewpoints across every spectrum imaginable, and they all agreed on the applicable standards, the NIMBYs in Egremont would still want to be able to veto an installation. So this IS about wind power, because it inevitably restricts it. So it's hypocritical for the selectboard to say, as they did, that they're in favor of wind power. What they should have said is that they're in favor of wind power only if it's somewhere else.
"Our citizens have placed their trust in our actions to protect their interests. While you are currently reviewing the wind turbine legislation we strongly request that you consider these comments as you move forward in preparing a fair, balanced and inclusive proposal." The legislation is already fair and balanced. And when it comes to something like wind power installations, I'd much rather put my trust in the experts, not people whose only interest is to keep it out regardless of its social value.
News about Egremont and what's going on there, with a particular focus on local government activities. Your comments on postings are strongly encouraged. This blog is intended to be a forum for ideas and thoughts from everyone.
Posts
Followers
About Me
- Richard Allen
- I'm a retired New York City lawyer who tries to look to the future with an eye on the past, to apply cold hard reasoning to public issues and to stay true to the basic libertarian philosophy: If something doesn't affect my health or safety, don't legislate it; leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.
5 comments:
Our town authorities have shown clearly that they block virtually all progress. Look at our cable TV. Look at our cell phone access. Look at our broadband access. At every turn our "elected" officials have blocked us from having access to these basics. I read the other day that only 4% of internet users today have to rely on dial up access. Egremont is in that 4%. We're in the dark ages. I'm in favor of taking control on these issues out of the hands of our elected officials. They don't represent us well.
The bill that the Select Board opposes was introduced in the Legislature for at least two reasons:
1) Wind projects are being blocked in Mass. NIMBYs have given Mass. a national reputation for this (e.g. Nantucket, town of Florida).
2) The hostile reception given wind projects in Mass. makes them more expensive. Currently, it is easier to site a fossil fuel plant than a wind project.
The Select Board letter also indicates that they are cool to nuclear power. All the while, businesses in Mass. move out or close because of high electric prices.
It's easy to respond with anonymity, and easier with incorrect information. Let me add a few thoughts to the discussion.
The Selectboard's letter (written by me) clearly states that we are NOT opposed to wind power. We are opposed to giving up local control to politicians and businessmen hundreds of miles away. We are asking for our Planning Board (and those other Planning Boards in the region) to have input. That just seems reasonable. This same argument is heard in virtually every town affected by the legislation. If you agree that each community should have a say in matters that affect its citizens (a right that was fought for by our forefathers some time ago) then you sometimes have to abide by it when you disagree. If the Governor said, "Put a Walmart on Prospect Lake!", would you have the same stance you are proposing here? Of course the suggestion is ridiculous, but the underlying concept is not... we, as a community, retain the right to have input in decisions that affect our community for today and many years to come.
Projects of this scale always cause conflict. But rather than throwing barbs at opposing sides we should look for common ground.
One of your respondents suggests that the Selectboard is cool to nuclear power. Is that assumption because I forgot to mention it? Not at all, it's just that I'm not sure where to put it. Maybe on Prospect Lake, instead of the Walmart.
(Pardon my humor.)
Your other respondent lacks current information. We have made great progress recently regarding cellular service. Last year's annual town meeting resulted in an expanded overlay district for a cell tower. Recently one company has presented plans to the Conservation Commission (and had multiple open meetings for review) for a proposed cell tower site. The process is moving forward while we await the Attorney General's approval of last year's bylaw. More progress has been made in the last few months than in many previous years.
Our Technology Committee is working with other town's to bring broadband to all of Egremont. The Selectboard wants it as much as your respondent. Besides dial-up, there is HughesNet and WiSpring to increase service. While not the optimal solution, they are alternatives to consider. The writer is confused to think that the control of broadband is in the hands of local "elected officials." If it were in our hands we would have it. That is what we are fighting for.
A last thought to your writer and viewers. Come to the Selectboard meeting and share your thoughts and enter into dialogue. We would be glad to discuss this, to share the most current information and work together. Responding to a blog is usually a one way street - a way to vent - but doesn't allow debate and discussion.
Respectfully,
Bruce Cumsky
Chair, Egremont Board of Selectmen
Cumsky talks a lot. But the last time I checked Egremont still had no broadband access nor cellphone service. We're still in the dark ages. Talk is cheap. Maybe he should wait to publish his next comments until he has some concrete results to post?
As far as the local input issue is concerned, it's a great smoke screen. He wants wind mills in Egremont about as much as he wants Obama bin Laden to set up camp in town. But he doesn't want to come out of the closet. This is his way of hiding. It's time to take local control away from people who just don't want progress to come to Egremont.
Bruce
I'm glad to see that you actually read contrary opinion. I agree with you about anonymous posts. Personally I don't put much stock in the opinion of a person who doesn't have the guts to sign their name to their post. That being said, I have to challenge your contention that the selectmen are open to progress. I sat in front of you at that Saturday meeting. You seemed to argue with sincerity. However, you know someone has mastered the art of faking sincerity when they believe their own press. You say that the town's elected representatives are interested in progress. If the last meeting is any indication of that interest then you fall short of the mark. If the board of select were truly interested in entering the 21st century then we would have a tower. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we can't eat this mix. You are however a good politician. You might consider running for Mr. Pig's job.
KevinZurrin
Post a Comment