Letters to the Editor

Shame on the Sparrow

Dear Editor:

I have never written in regarding any topic before but after days of consideration, the irking (or irked) voice in my head cannot be quieted any longer.

How dare the Hot Chocolate Sparrow put into place a device to create an uncomfortable sensation in the ears folks 12-25 years of age.  Regardless of what the Sparrow family may feel, the very teens whom they are chasing away are current, and more importantly future, loyal customers.  I moved here when I was twenty-five and WAS a frequent patron of the "Sparrow", as it was lovingly called by the teenagers who sent me there, insisting it was the best cuppa joe around.  I wonder if the "device" had been in place at the time if I would have suffered the effects?  The only complaints I have ever heard about the loitering are those of the owners themselves, who are not the only business in the area to where teens may wish to park and walk.  I hope innocent young passers-by on the way to the pharmacy aren't subject to the "annoying" noise.

I will no longer be enjoying my weekly indulgences.  I will not buy gifts from their store nor will I reccommend that others, my friends or my family spend another dime at such an establishment.  I will not leave the sensitive canine ears of my best friend parked in that parking lot.  In these times of intolerance I see this as just one more injustice.  Perhaps the Sparrows should read the April 6th commentary of Dan Mccullough about the "magic" that today's college students create when they band together.  Orleans should be a support center for teens and not just another place to find rejection.

Rather than scaring teens away, how about saving those dollars spent in hatred and investing in a skate park or recycling bins outside.  If you are not a part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem.

Shame on you, Sparrow.

Signed,

Brandy Tanner
Orleans, MA

5 comments »

Everything goes up except our leader's wisdom

Editor:

Recent news is encouraging the supporters of wind turbine-generators - favorable economic examples abound.

With oil above $115 per barrel and gasoline prices escalating towards $3.50 per gallon, the economic benefits of using free wind have become overpowering. Compounding fossil fuels' never-ending increases, KeySpan announced their natural gas price will go up by 27% from May through October.

Meanwhile, encouraging news of new land wind turbines counters these steady fossil fuel price increases. For example:

1. Upper Cape Tech in Bourne plans to construct an approximately 0.9 (0.6 to 1.25) megawatt wind turbine. On April 9th, the high school committee decided to investigate spending about $2 million, which will be quickly paid off - in 8 to 10 years. A feasibility study concluded this new turbine will eliminate $160,000 annually of school electricity cost, and obtain new income from New England's electrical grid for unused electricity generated;
2. Massachusetts Maritime Academy's existing wind turbine has already saved $250,000 to $300,000 annually, so MMA is now considering another turbine. MMA president Admiral Richard Gurnon stated, "We either exploit this abundant and free (wind) resource or we continue to send billions of dollars to despotic regimes that hate us and use our money to buy weapons to shoot at us.";
3. Falmouth is working to install a 1.5 megawatt wind turbine at their Waste Water Treatment Plant. Funding has been approved by Falmouth voters - the project is both technically and financially sound, and also has State support.

Regarding even more productive offshore wind turbines, despite formed-in-2004 Netherlands company Blue H pushing locally their .08 megawatt (a mere 2.2% of a Cape Wind turbine's output) experimental platform off Italy's coast, it is Massachusetts' Cape Wind, not foreign Blue H, which is key to solving our fossil fuel caused economic and health problems within a reasonable time period.

Jim Liedell
Yarmouth Port, MA

22 comments »

A call to arms in Barnstable

Citizens of the Town of Barnstable - stop Teddy's toadies
Stop this idiotic waste of taxpayer money

By Stephen Peckham, Centerville

The Town Manager has directed the towns attorney to file sui against the CAPE WIND project in Barnstable Superior Court.

Needless to say this suit will cost the town tens of thousands of dollars... With only ONE GOAL: Stop the project from moving forward or at least delay it as long as possible with the hope that the developer will run out of money.

It has been seven years since this project was proposed and made application for approval.

COAL & OIL burning power plants normally take 1 to 2 years to permit.

This is a travesty that has been spearheaded by the COAL & OIL industry backed part time residents of Osterville, Cotuit etc who along with TED KENNEDY have decided that

THEIR VIEW...
Is more important than CLEANER AIR & WATER... TO DRINK, FISH, FARM and to ultimately consume the products that now are POLLUTED with MERCURY & SULFUR DIOXIDE etc.

THEIR VIEW...
Is more important than OUR HEALTH, the HEALTH OF OUR CHILDREN & THEIR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN.

THEIR VIEW...
Is more important... So the TOWN MANAGER & TOWN COUNCIL is spending -OUR TAX DOLLARS- that they collect from EXCISE & REAL ESTATE TAX's... To fight this project...

THEIR VIEW...

Is more important than spending this money on FIGHTING THIS PROJECT... than to pay for:

• BUSSING OUR CHILDREN TO SCHOOL
• MUSIC AND ART PROGRAMS FOR OUR CHILDREN
• PHYSICAL ED FOR OUR CHILDREN
• SPORTS PROGRAMS
• AFTER SCHOOL CARE
• TEACHERS & AIDS
• BOOKS
• ROAD REPAIRS
• MUNICIPAL BUILDING REPAIRS

Contact TOWN MANAGER
John Klimm, 508-862-4610and on & on...

CONTACT THE TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE and express your OUTRAGE!!!

Demand that the town use OUR TAX MONEY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF US.

59 comments »

Our saga about trying to get a residential windmill in Bourne

We need both: clean energy - and clean government

To the Editor:

Wendie A. Howland,  Pocasset

I worried about a lot of things, the first morning after what passed for a hearing at the Bourne Planning Board on our submission for the special permit for our residential windmill. One would be that the first thing I heard on the radio is that oil topped $103 per gallon, an all-time high. I worried about the money we and our builders have sunk into this project in good faith on a town-issued building permit, and for which our grant will not kick in until the project is completed. I worried about the future costs for litigation. I worry about the people who would have wanted to come after us to do their part to have clean energy and lower utility bills in their future.

Let's be clear: I'm not worried about the big hole in our yard, presently full of expensive iron placed there when we had a work permit and on which we stopped work voluntarily days before the Town issued a stop work order. I'm not worried about the unsightly huge piles of sand and topsoil that by rights should be settling in to be ready for spring growth, or the potential harm to the foundation of our adjacent garage. I'm not worried about the hundreds of hours we and our builders spent over the last two and a half years obtaining information, engineering, and planning. I'm not worried about the six or seven Town Board hearings we attended, bringing and submitting everything we were ever asked for and more. I'm not worried that the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals barely speak a civil word to or about each other. I'm not worried about the Town wind energy conversion system (WECS) bylaw, for which we helped provide language and spoke at Town Meeting, because it passed with a single dissenting vote and the will of the people in town is clear. I'm not even worried about who my grandmother would call the poor souls who won't or can't read or hear factual information on our project; in a country where almost a third of the population doesn't believe in evolution, I don't suppose I can be too surprised about deliberate ignorance.

I'll tell you what worries me, though. I worry that a citizen can do what we did: rely on the published bylaw written by a Town board, passed overwhelmingly by a Town meeting, and on the books to be upheld by the elected officials charged with upholding the law. Despite what you may have heard or will hear from some quarters, our application addressed every, single, solitary criterion placed on a project like this, and was completely compliant with the bylaw. You could look it up.

The certified engineered "fall zone," the area around the monopole where it could collapse if we were hit by winds greater than Category 3 hurricane (that's greater than 130 mph, more than Hurricane Katrina), was within the bylaw. Questions regarding "catastrophic failure" have a definable answer, and the engineering describes precisely what that is. (Aside: If you live almost a quarter of a mile from the site of a residential windmill and fear that winds greater than 130 mph will shoot it at your children when they are outside at innocent play, I have one question for you: What are you doing letting them outside in a storm like that?)

The height was within the bylaw, which specifically allows height consistent with efficient engineering taking into account local conditions (trees, buildings, hills).

The sound, the placement, the absence of lighting, the security, insurance coverage, economic data, and every other concern we were asked to address, we did, providing the stamped and signed documentation exactly as requested.

The board had no factual basis on which to deny the permit; indeed, when asked on what basis the permit was being denied, they said that their verbal comments were sufficient. Well, verbal comments aren't worth the paper they're written on, although they do have the admittedly useful characteristic of being unavailable for further review. The decision in writing states only, "Height is almost double what's allowed. Fall zone on abutting properties." Well, not to put too fine a point on it, neither of these opinions is supported by actual fact.

I worry that members of a Town board can come into a hearing with their minds clearly made up before it hears the facts for which it asked. I worry that a Town board can have legitimate concerns regarding a special permit submission raised by its consulting expert (the very excellent Coreen Moore, town planner) and, declining to even ask the questions in public, arbitrarily ignore the data that satisfy them when it is presented to them anyway.

The comments from member Donald Duberger that he wished the 40-foot height requirement was still the law of the land were telling, as was his obvious glee at referring to (but not producing) a note from what he said were 18 of our "neighbors" opposing our plan "in the middle of the residential zone of Michael Road and Keith Road." However, we do not live in the middle of this area. After later review of this note, it is found that of the 12 addresses on this page, exactly one appears on the list of abutters to our project; about half of the signers live nearly a mile away-actually, closer to, well, Mr. Duberger's house, None have any sight lines to our project from their property. We have on record letters signed by several legal abutters; others have declined to be on the record because they must do business with the town but wish us well. It is clear that the promoter of this "petition" was unable to get support from any more of our abutters. The town bylaw makes no reference to "zones," or for that matter, any person's opinion. Further, we have Mr. Duberger's letter to the editor responding to a supportive letter from actual abutter Dave Downarowicz, in which he states categorically that "neighbors don't matter" in the sort of thing that comes before them. This brings into question the assertion that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds; it appears this can vary, as the spirit moves them.

Mr. Duberger very belligerently asked a technical question which was succinctly rebutted by the engineer in the room, making reference to the expertise of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative's standards for siting of residential windmills. Mr. Duberger said that the windmills at Mass Maritime and the Upper Cape school were inefficient and a disappointment, opinions which may come as a big surprise the people there, although I must remember to thank him for being concerned for our financial welfare. He cast aspersions on the reliability of engineers; the Titanic and the Big Dig were invoked. If this is the case, it is unfortunate that so many building codes in town rely on engineers. I wonder also why engineering specs are mandated by so many of our bylaws, if they are so very unreliable.

(BTW, I guess we then must discard the planning board's latest Buzzards Bay improvement plan, because economic improvement plans in towns like Detroit and Newark have failed.)

Mr. Doucette and Mr. Shearer stated that the conditions in the bylaw as written were completely satisfied and that personal feelings or opinions had no place in the permitting process. Mr. Haworth retorted that they were not held to the bylaw, that they had discretion in the process. As a matter of fact, there is no discretion written in the bylaw, which, again, came from this board and which, again, the town passed overwhelmingly. I worry that there is no accountability for this egregiously arrogant behavior.

Mr. Duberger stated, "This is the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time." This is a residential-sized wind energy conversion system, compliant with all aspects of the planning board's bylaw, in a residential area, nearly a year after the bylaw passed overwhelmingly, with electrical rates rising all the time. If you can't site it on an acre+ lot on top of a hill right now, where and when do you think this board WOULD permit one? This appears to be a designed first step - possibly the last-in preventing windmills in any residential area in the town. This is not the will of the people. It will not stand.

Mr. Jensen told us outside the room that he would have voted for it if we "cut down the trees." Well, they aren't our trees to cut down, and I'm not sure that cutting down trees is what any of us who care about the environment have in mind, anyway.

One could find a number of descriptors for this unbelievable performance. Parochially small-minded, oppositional, paternalistic, short-sighted, petty, egregious (op cit), arrogant (op cit), and abusive are some of the printable ones I've heard from other town citizens since this decision came down. I have not sought, but have had given to me freely, a number of stories in which this same board relentlessly disregarded both bylaws and neighbors in denying permits to town citizens for residential and commercial projects, simply because they don't like them. Because this is a small town, some of these people are loath to come forth, because they do business with the town, or in some cases, with the particular members in question. The stories of petty harassment, threats, and yelling in a public hearing are astonishingly consistent. Why is this allowed to continue? If they were taking your lunch money at school, would you let them keep it up?

At the end of the day we are left with two impressions. One is that this contentious board has no intention of ever permitting economically any viable residential windmills in the Town of Bourne, because they just don't like them. The other, much more troubling, is that as in all small places with small minds, you can say that law doesn't count, that it isn't necessary to uphold a law as written, and some bully's personal opinion is more important than a moral and sworn legal responsibility to do so. If anyone has another impression, I'd be interested in the factual basis for it. I would like to think the Town of Bourne is better than that.

While I completely understand the pressures under which people have to do business in and with the town, I respectfully submit that it is time someone stood up to these bullies. We have looked at our options for legal redress, which do exist, and accordingly will file a Complaint in Superior Court. For my money, if a court rules that this denial was handed down arbitrarily in defiance of the bylaw as written, I'd consider looking to recover costs both for our extended legal costs and the lost time on the project. I wonder what the Board of Selectmen and the Town attorney will think about that.

I would like everyone who reads this to send a letter to the editor to the Cape Cod Times, the Bourne Enterprise, the Bourne Courier, and the Selectmen of the Town of Bourne (Town Hall, 24 Perry Avenue, Buzzards Bay MA 02532) to protest this foolishness, and to pressure the Planning Board to save the town's money and face by reviewing the submissions and ruling for clean energy by granting our permit. The only way to shine light on bad government is to bring attention to the acts they perpetrate. Does Bourne really want clean energy, or is this bylaw a fraud foisted upon us? Let them know this is what we want.

Yours for clean energy - and clean government,

Wendie A. Howland,  Pocasset

7 comments »

Televised Commissioners' meetings will help keep the public informed

The following is a letter sent to the County Commissioners by Joan Bernstein, President of the League of Women Voters of the Cape Cod Area regarding televising the Commissioners' meetings.

March 10, 2008

Board of County Commissioners
3195 Main Street
P.O. Box 427
Barnstable, MA  02630

Dear Commissioners Lambros, LeClair, and Doherty:

Re:  Televising Commissioners’ Meetings

The League of Women Voters of Cape Cod Area has as a purpose and as a goal the development and support of good democratic government at all levels of government.  LWVCCA has a long-standing position for the support of strong regional government for Barnstable County and of a regional approach to many Cape issues.

...much of "the County's operations and services are unknown to most of the residents of the Cape.” Based on our long support and advocacy for Barnstable County Government and our participation in the 2005 Charter Review process, we feel the need to voice our concerns regarding citizen participation and the opportunity to view an open, transparent government at work.

In 2005 the League participated in the County Charter Review process.  During this process the League's study group attended committee meetings, developed a report, and submitted recommendations.  Our final recommendation submitted to the Charter Review Committee expressed our concerns that much of "the County's operations and services are unknown to most of the residents of the Cape.”

With this in mind, we recommend that the County Commissioners' weekly meeting be recorded, videotaped, and televised in the same manner as other governing bodies that implement public policy through deliberation.  The televising of the Commissioners' meetings will help to illuminate the many endeavors of the office and allow more of the community access through this process.

We know that some might say the cost of such an endeavor is an unwarranted expense during this time of economic uncertainty, but we disagree.

It is crucial during times like these that government is as transparent and as open as possible and that the public's right and duty to participate and have access to public policy decisions transcend this cost.  It is vitally important to engage the community and to increase citizen participation in county government.  This process will enable the community to have more exposure to the benefits of a regional government.

Therefore, in order to provide the public with this opportunity, we strongly urge that every effort be made to record, videotape, and televise the meetings of the County Commissioners.

Sincerely yours,

Joan Bernstein
President
League of Women Voters of the Cape Cod Area

 

Leave a comment »

A Thank you from Jim Gordon

Thanks to everyone that has written a letter to the Minerals Management Service (MMS) or who gave up an evening to speak at the public hearings in support of Cape wind and a more sustainable future.


"I know that by itself, Cape Wind will not achieve this goal but it is an important start and what better place to begin than in the Federal waters owned by all citizens of the United States off the coast of Massachusetts"
   - Jim GordonI spoke at Thursday night's public hearing at UMass Boston, and I hope you will take a moment to read my thoughts. Since MMS has extended the written comment period to April 21, I hope that if you haven't weighed in yet, you will take a moment to do so.

My Testimony that was given at the UMass Boston Hearing on Thursday, March 13, 2008

My name is Jim Gordon and I am president of Energy Management Inc. the company developing the Cape Wind project. 

First, I would like to thank MMS and the Army Corp of Engineers and the other sixteen Federal and State agencies involved in Cape Wind's review.  Over the last seven years, you have afforded citizens significant opportunity to weigh in either through hearings like this or written comment.  You have generated and compiled thousands of pages of scientific, environmental and socio-economic information on the benefits and impacts of this renewable energy project.

Over the years, I have read thousands of written comments on this project.  I have attended all of these public hearings and until tonight, have not spoken, but rather, intently listed to the heartfelt and passionate comments from both supporters and opponents.  The common denominator I have repeatedly read and heard is that most everyone supports the rapid adoption of more renewable energy. 

I believe this is driven by the understanding that our dependence on imported energy and the impacts of climate change pose a threat to our health, economy, and environment. 

MMS, you have conducted most of your regulatory oversight in the Gulf of Mexico and the Western part of our country so I want to give you some historical examples of how our citizens have responded to the great challenges of our times.

In the book entitled "Salt", Mark Kurlansky recounts that during the revolutionary war when the British embargoed salt which was desperately needed by General Washington's army, the Continental Congress put out a clarion call for colonists to produce salt.  Because of the salty sea and the strong winds over Nantucket Sound hundreds of windmills soon dotted the landscape of the Cape and Islands producing salt and aiding the war effort.

Herman Melville writes about the whalers of Nantucket and New Bedford in Moby Dick and how they braved the elements and risked their lives to light the lamps of the world.

During World Ward I and II, local iron workers, welders, electricians and carpenters built battle ships at this region's deepwater ports to defeat the enemies of freedom and liberty.

We are gathered here tonight as you weigh the merits of America's first proposed offshore wind farm and the hopes and aspiration of citizen's desiring a transition to a more sustainable future. 

I know that by itself, Cape Wind will not achieve this goal but it is an important start and what better place to begin than in the Federal waters owned by all citizens of the United States off the coast of Massachusetts.

Thank you.

5 comments »

Glowing grades don't lie, Cape Wind is not the villain

Editor; 

That Cape Wind is not the villain which opponents (mainly the richly-funded "Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound") seek to portray is no surprise to most of those on the Cape, Islands and nearby - they strongly support the wind farm.  And that support is bolstered by Cape Wind's commitment to a preeminent Environmental Management System (EMS).

The Minerals Management Services' (MMS) 5-inch thick Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) gave Cape Wind glowing grades.  Even beyond those specifics though, Cape Wind agreed to MMS' request to use the all-encompassing EMS to be sure not even the smallest misstep occurs, and to constantly strive for ways to provide even more public benefits.

EMS is adaptive management, with continuous monitoring during construction, operation and maintenance, guaranteeing strict compliance with environmental requirements, and preventing negative events.  Meanwhile, Cape Wind's turbines will combat global warming, improve energy security, and blaze the path in our country's urgently needed quest to use our strong and steady offshore wind.

As the DEIS states, Cape Wind will also boost our economy, by donating $780,000 for Bird Island (off Marion) and $4,220,000 for marine resource preservation, marine habitat restoration, and coastal recreation enhancement projects in Massachusetts - $5 million in total.  The state's portion of lease fees will add another $5 million, yearly.

This is just some of the good news to talk about at the MMS Hearings at Yarmouth, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard and Boston during the second week of March.

Jim Liedell
Yarmouth Port

25 comments »

Cape Wind is for the Birds

Editor:

Cape Wind is for the birds!

It's worrisome that confusion persists regarding Cape Wind and the safety of our avian amigos. With a significantly one-sided partitioning of environmentalists and scientific studies favoring the wind farm's construction, opposition remains limited to a small subsection of wealth sprawled across the private beaches with a view of Horseshoe Shoal.

People, listen up. The birds are going to be fine! The ludicrous claims originating from the Alliance to Protect (Our View of) Nantucket Sound are about as helpful to this debate as a parachute that opens on impact, and as equally intuative.

People, listen up. The birds are going to be fine! The Mass Audubon Society, after a five year study, has given Cape Wind the go-ahead. They've even outlined a plan of action should some unforeseen danger threaten the birds, a plan that also includes a mitigation fund for habitat conservation!

Now, consider the prehistoric smokestack that currently supplies the Cape's power, and its oil spill delivery system. One can see why local birds are psyched about Cape Wind's potential. Really. They are. Ask any bird whisperer. That tweet preceding a chorus of enthusiastic chirps... here's what they're saying: "Can we fly around the turbines? Yes we can! Yes we can!"

Jason Cardwell
Shrewsbury, MA 01545

36 comments »

Greed of the opposition to Cape Wind is sickening

Editor:

Recently I've been following the battle between the Nantucket bourgeoisie and those rational people who prefer their descendants not to require gondola rides for future dining in the North End.

The greed of the opposition to the Cape Wind project sickens me.  There is nothing more arrogant or ignorant, I’m not sure which, than telling scientists worldwide they are wrong about climate change based on a background in yachting.  The location was chosen based on the shallow waters and quantity of wind, not on the aesthetics- it is the ideal location.  Besides, on a day with perfect clarity the human eye can only see 16 of Nantucket Sound’s 163 nautical square mile view. 

Furthermore, what about the view in other places?  At least there will be more than 140 square miles of beauty to enjoy even after Cape Wind's turbines go up.  If the site were off Gloucester, I could see why residents may be upset: boating route disruption and an entire view lost.  Why should any resident, regardless of personal wealth, be entitled to dictate the outcome of their horizon?  What about my view?  On weekends when I look out the windows in Jamaica-Plain I see vinyl-siding, concrete and, if I’m lucky, my 60-year old neighbor fully clothed.

Those of you against the project need to be grateful you can enjoy the Sound and you should have consideration for those of us who care about our descendants' well-being.  Even if you live under a rock in Arizona when not vacationing on Nantucket and somehow concluded climate change does not exist, despite the conclusive evidence, think about the benefits to the economy and future.  The project will create jobs, reduce dependence on foreign oil (thereby stabilizing the price of energy) and help make the limited natural resources of the planet last for future generations. It's simply unfair and unreasonable to allow the aesthetics of a few to destroy the rest, especially when they have so much other horizon to look at while the most beautiful thing the rest of us see is the Charles River.

Mark DeMeo
Wakefield, MA

1 comment »

Mitt gets my vote on the 5th

Dear Editor:

On Tuesday the 5th of February I intend to vote for Mitt Romney in the primary election.   There are many reasons why I consider him to be the superior candidate for president. 

Mitt appeals to both national and foreign economic conservatives.  There is no other candidate with his understanding of the world economy.  He has successfully run a state, a company and a non-profit organization.  There is no one else close having this extensive experience.  He holds graduate degrees both in law and business from Harvard.

Mitt gets it, he is smart, and he knows more than how many troops that should be deployed in Iraq. He is also an executive, who knows how to take advice from others and who knows how to sift through the good and bad advice.

Mitt has no skeletons in his closet. He is smart, articulate and methodical. He knows how to think outside the box.  He can handle adversity.  He has beat them in our bluest of the states. He knows what kind of attack the Democrats will throw at him and he knows how to hit back hard.

Mitt has a family that anyone would be proud of.  His sons are successful and he has been married longer than any other candidate.  Mitt made his money the old fashion way, he earned it.  He is one of the most successful men to have ever run for president.  When he was governor he gave his salary to charity.  Compare this to the famous couple from Little Rock.

Mitt is truly an outstanding example of what is good about America and the capitalist system.

Gerry Nye
Sandwich, MA

9 comments »