CapeCodToday Blog Chowder

Margebunny's posts remind me alot of Peckham's. Just an observation.

Not only are they on-shore, but they're community-owned.

Ooooh, I think I know why awayfromthebay can't find anyone to partner with him. $100 g's a year is "chump" change if it means dealing with his megalomania on a daily basis.

Oh, I see...maybe it's the koolaid you should stay away from then. Non-intoxicating, but clearly mind-altering. Keep up all of your hard work, you are clearly very proud of what you do.

I promise not to think too much if you promise not to drink too much.

I think awayfromthebay should stay away from the bottle -- and maybe his keyboard :)

The signers of the letter are proverbial hogs at the trough. Pretty simple really. BTW, I'd bet my money on a charter captain any day.

I'll bet a couple thousand stimulus dollars that the characters signing the letter have special interests in seeing this project get approval...

Quite frankly, I am impressed that Mr. Mihos is willing to take on a state like Massachusetts. It truly shows his dedication to a fiscally troubled place that so many of us love nonetheless and want to see healthy again.

suhsuh, I have read the exact opposite of what you are claiming about Scesny in news reports. People who have known the family for years describe a very dysfunctional situation with the Scesnys, starting with the father...Forutnately, the facts and evidence have finally caught up with this "charming" criminal.

DO THE MATH -- 300,000 homes divided by 138 turbines? Are you kidding me?

I love how it is put forth as fact in this piece that Cape Wind would provide power to 300,000 Cape Cod homes -- PLEASE...what a farce.

Once again, after reading another one of Richard's pieces, I am utterly speechless...

Thank you for this article -- Christy will make a fine candidate. I would much rather vote for someone who is hands-on, and willing to work hard, (both physically and mentally) to succeed, than someone who campaigns on words and feel good ideas that often don't materialize.

A thoughtful piece but I am not sure how Deval Patirck has rescued "us". Do you mean the Massachusetts dems or Mass citizens as a whole?

Christy -- you have my vote, and everyone else of voting age in my family. I will spread the word for amongst my friends as well. It high time for some checks and balances in Massachusetts!!!

Richard unless you are tongue in cheek with regard to your negative comments about golf, you are WAY off base, IMHO.

First of all, it is called the GAME of golf for a reason. It is a game more than a sport, however one that is easier played and mastered if one is in good physical shape.

That being said, it is also a game that can be enjoyed by those who are very young and those who are old, and everyone in between. It is not any more expensive (in fact it is usually less) to play golf than it is to ski if you know where to look.

If you think there's alot of money to be won in professional golf, think again. On a relative scale to other athletic pursuits where salaries are huge, even for those who sit on the bench, professional golfers do not get paid unless they PLAY WELL. Meanwhile, professional athletes in sports continue to collect their salaries regardless of whether they play well, or play at all.

As for golf being on TV alot, I think I could find a fishing tournament on TV just as often.

Pecka/Pig, you amuse me. Just so we are all clear on this, we don't have the same ability to search for your old posts because they were deleted/removed when you were banned (temporarily) awhile ago. Last time I checked we all had the same rights to express an opinion...Mav, I think trolling twits are more difficult to eradicate than bed bugs in a two bit hotel.

Pecka/Pig -- you are defintely one and the same. Your slapstick style is thoroughly recognizable. And, the fact that you are re-posting comments I made almost 2 years ago, illustrates your status as a cyber stalker. It must be nice to respond to your own posts with your alter ego thereby falsely creating support for your opinions. It's not your message so much has your method.

:)

Am I the only one who thinks piggie and pecka are the same poster? If so, there is alot of multiple, back to back posting happening...

Am I the only one who thinks piggie and pecka are the same poster? If so, there is alot of multiple, back to back posting happening...

Clearly it is impossible to discuss the pros and cons of Cape Wind with Piggie and Pecka without them sniping. It only detracts from any point you might be trying to make, but whatever.

Actually I wasn't trying to be clever. And my comment was in no way meant as an admission that the battle is lost (far from it). I would not be surprised, in fact I fully expect, that IF this project is permitted, there will be no-show "jobs" created by the Patrick/Bowles crew which they will then bestow upon their cronies. You're allowed to commment about what you perceive to be back room deals if you feel that they might stop Cape Wind and that's OK -- I can certainly do the same if I see it in the opposite. Why can't you respect a differing opinion without resorting to such childish behavior?

Deval and Ian want to force this crazy project upon Nantucket Sound so that they can start handing out cushy, high paying "jobs" to all of their toadies. The Deputy Minister of Wind position pays 175,000 a year and he only has to report to work when the wind is more than 15 knots or on every other Wednesday. Nice, real nice...

The last thing the Cape needs is more pigs feeding at the trough. Has anyone mentioned the proposed annual "inspection fee" (300.00 one time, 100.00 each year after that) that Cape rental property owners will have to pay. Another cash grab...

I love all of these ideas! 2010 can't come fast enough -- Christy has my vote, but I tend to agree that running as an Independent may affect his chances for a successful bid.

"following"...my bad

Good grief Dorsal -- there really is no need to get personal. If you have been foolwing this debate on this forum as long as I have, you would know that Mav is nothing less than informed and respectful in his comments. And...he has every right to have an opinion that is contrary to yours.

If it becomes OK to possess an ounce or less, shouldn't it be OK to sell it as long as you don't sell more than an ounce to each "customer"?

This would be on the "SORB" (sex offender registry board)link, by the way, not the "click here" link

Use the Quick Link onthe right hand side of the front page that say "search for detailed information on level 3 sex offenders" and you will get photos, home and work addresses, and charges that each offender was convicted of with dates. Many have multiple convictions, yet are still walking the streets of our towns and neighborhoods.

I agree with you bft. These are federal waters that belong to all of us and should be free from navigational obstacles. Cape Wind found a loophole and is trying to slither throught it, at the expense of our safety. The navigational concern is just one problem on a very long list of issues with this ill-sited project.

I agree -- 5 out of the 9 posts here are his.

Christy -- from one small business owner to another -- I think everyone should have to own their own business at least once in their life. If I had a nickel for every cubicle critic who thought they could run our business better, I'd be living the high life. All these know-it-alls seem to see is the imaginary pile of money coming in, not the hard work and payables that go out. Finally, I second the comment made earlier, thank you for taking time out of your very busy life to address some of them here (and very respectfully, I might add).

I thought the subject was gas discounts, here. Leave it to the rabid pro-winder to try and derail a refreshingly different topic - i.e. how one business owner is trying to do his part to ease the cost of energy for consumers. Thanks Christy -- you, unlike Peckham, actually get it.

What a nasty comment. The next four years may get very uncomfortable for you!

Pardon me mountainwild,
First of all, I am not quite sure where your comment "especially the East Coast" comes from? Do you think the citizens of the East Coast all got together and said "hey, I know, let's buy all sorts of coal from Appalachia"? We have no say where any coal that might be purchased (for energy production here) comes from. Secondly, if I am not mistaken, right or wrong, the coal mining industry has literally sustained the economy of Appalachia for generations. Like it or not, multiple thousands of residents of your area have made a living mining the stuff, and still do. It may be better to concentrate your environmental efforts in your own neighborhoods. I suspect this will be difficult due to the importance of coal mining to the economy of Appalachia. I don't think the citizens of your area would be overly receptive to a contingent of East Coasters showing up to support the virtues of strip mining, would they?

So, let me get this straight...it's OK for the pro-windustrial contingent to speak their minds, but not OK for those who oppose the taking of something that belongs to all of us? What a bunch of hypocrites you people are. And by the way Christy -- I have and always will be a customer. Thank you for your willingness to suffer the various insults lobbed at you, and for standing up for Nantucket Sound and the many of us who oppose it's industrialization.

It was widely reported that the majority of Massachusetts residents was in favor of the Big Dig, too...

Actually, the America's Cup was contended off the coast of Newport only 12 times since the inaugural race in 1851. Not trying to split hairs or anything -- just pointing out another typical pro-wind farm over-simplification of fact. Unfortunately, Tron, this is the type of standard response you will get if you ask a good question about the merits of the wind farm experiment being proposed for Nantucket Sound. Truth is, nobody knows what the actual output of the wind farm would be.

Seahawk, you are correct. However, as Mr. Cardwell demonstrates in his letter, it is a favorite ploy of those who want the wind farm to claim that only the rich people with a view care about preserving the Sound. There are many "average" citizens, like myself, who would like to see the Sound remain an open ocean vista, free from industrial development. Even more of a concern, is that Jim Gordon/Cape Wind is essentially taking something that belongs to all of us, for no charge, and hopes to use it for personal gain --scary stuff...

How many of us can say that they spend as much time on the Sound as Maverick? I think we should put some stock in his observations no matter what side of the issue we are on. I share in his desire to protect and preserve what is to many of us, and for many reasons, a treasure. At the risk of melodrama, it is hard for those of us who love and respect the Sound to envision it fouled by monstrous flashing turbines. Trust me, I have spoken to many, many people who spend time on the sound that feel the same way. They recognize this project for exactly what it is -- a boondoggle for a private developer who is trying to cleverly sneak through a loophole. We may have been born at night, but not last night.

I'm with you Susan -- like most opponents of this poorly sited industrial project, I am just an "ordinary" citizen who sees a developer's boondoggle for what it is. I commend the CCC for exerting their control and speaking for those who will be most affected by the project. ACT LOCALLY!

She has the back pedal move down to a science, too. See her post from yesterday where she claims her book is nothing more than "entertainment". Wow.

Ah, I believe your post on 7/16 at 5:28 was the "first shot". I do not appreciate the personal tone of your posts. About face? I think not. Call it a clarification for you who so easily jumps to many conclusions. MY POINT is that the pursuit story was what everyone was talking about at the scene (the one you were not present at) and that it seemed altogether plausable to my husband as well. If you want to nit pick to try and prove a point -- go for it. "A person like you" has more to do with your obvious fondness for insulting others which you have done from your very first commment (7/16 at 5:28). But, whatever. As I said, I've seen the likes of you before. Bottom line -- you weren't there.

First of all -- enough with the snippy personal nature of your posts. There were MANY people there during and just after the crash that were all saying the same thing. The chase story was NOT my husband's personal interpretation of the scene (and by the way, the cars weren't PARKED, they were littering the intersection). I was simply supporting the question/comment posed by Buzz that the author of this blog asserted was not mentioned by authorities. To those on the scene the chase story seemed obvious and or plausable. You, my friend, are relying on the media for your information. Like you, they were not there (nor was it reported by them until the next afternoon). You say that you do not want someone who crashes out of a militiary base to escape and harm innocent people -- that's exactly what happened. Ask the families of the dead and injured if they think police pursuits are a good idea, not me.

midcapecodder,
I knew someone like you would chime in -- all I can say is that you weren't there and know a whole lot less about what happened to cause the crash than those that were. As far as your opinion, you know the old saying...

Buzz,
My husband came upon the accident scene less than ten minutes after it happened and he definitely heard the same thing about a high speed chase originating somewhere on or near Otis. He spent about twenty minutes at the scene. Police were asking people if they witnessed the accident, etc. There was one state police vehicle there (the one presumably involved in the chase), the rest were local LE/rescue who were responding to the accident scene. From what he observed (the position of the state police car, the car that caused the accident, and the victims cars), the police chase story looked pretty obvious to him. In any event, a very, very sad event that may have been preventable (?) and certainly should be investigated thoroughly.

Conserve -- you couldn't be more right. I have said over and over that the rich NIMBY argument is not only inappropriate, but overused. As a middle class American, I object to the taking of the sound by a for-profit, privately-owned, and government subsidized industrial plant that will RUIN a national treasure. And, by the way, all of my middle class friends and acquaintances feel the same way.

We always called Somerville "the city without mufflers". I saw my first rat there back in my college days...

Considering that there has never been a large scale off-shore windplant constructed in an endangered species migratory path (such as the one proposed by Cape Wind), I think comparing it's potential bird kill levels to Altamont is more than appropriate. This is especially true in light of Mass Audubon's published estimates on predicted bird deaths that measure in thousands the birds that will die (just like at Altamont). Phrases like "the best POTENTIAL (emphasis added) for reducing bird kills" isn't exact science or fact either, is it? The fact is, wind turbines kill birds, period. You can deny it all day long but it will not change reality.

Mav -- you (and other hard-working residents across the canal)are what the Cape is all about. As it has been debated over the last few days on another post here at CCToday, it is not easy to afford to live on the Cape. It is even harder to have your voices heard on a subject like Cape Wind. Money talks, no matter what side of the debate we stand.

Manatee, your last post is totally confusing. Have I missed something?

Ms Hill,
I thank the heavens every day for the Cape Wind opposers who are willing to invest their millions to save a national treasure because I personally don't have millions to contribute. It's time for everyone to realize that most of those opposed to Cape Wind ARE NOT wealthy and do not own yachts.

There is plenty of money coming from the other side of this debate and you know it. The difference is, those putting up the cash in favor of Cape Wind stand to reap huge financial rewards if they are successful. Those defending the Sound whether it is with their money, words, or other actions, will simply have the Sound, minus an industrial eyesore, to show for their efforts.

Who is more honorable? I believe the it is the latter.

Is the focus on sewage dumping suddenly the newest diversionary tactic? Seems so to me.

Adam,
I join Peter, and other middle class folks, who oppose the wind farm for many different reasons. I respect the time you spent typing this piece, however, the references to the Kennedy's, Bill Koch, and other wealthy Cape Wind opponents, is starting to wear on average folks like myself who also oppose the project. Just because someone writes a book means they should be automatically granted favorable attention? I would venture to guess that there are many books published every day that aren't given the attention their authors think they deserve -- those are the breaks my friend.

Aside from the economics of the project that Professor Tuerck and his fellow researchers have clearly defined as flawed, there has to be a provision in(or interpretation of) the Endangered Species Act that can be invoked here? I think it is worth a thorough search of the laws that already exist to protect our national assets, though I guess this may have already be done...

I'll have to take Neil's word for what the book says as I REFUSE to buy it, or even waste my time and gas driving to my local library to borrow it. Furthermore, I applaud Professor Tuerck for defining this whole debate in a neat, well-written, and thoroughly researched, nutshell. I will refer anyone and everyone I know who has questions about Cape Wind to Tuerck's (et al) research and findings.

My brother-in-law attended Liberty University as a freshman a few years back. He was offered a fast-track student loan and was given a spot on the golf team. He was not raised as a hard-core Baptist, but based on his somewhat desperate financial situation, decided he would go. How bad could it be -- he thought? After a year of mandatory 24 hour Bible reading marathons, numerous attempts by his classmates to convert him, the golf coach playing religious tapes during each and every long bus trip to tournaments, and watching people stop and pray before eating so much as a bag of chips, he left. It was that bad.

Meant to mention Capri -- typing too fast :) -- a champion of our environment, conservation, and threatened wildlife.

With all due respect Self Reliance -- I have a hard time believing your math/generalizations/assertions. It is very easy to talk a great game in support of Cape Wind, but I'm not buying. I have followed this debate on CCToday for almost two years. I was anti-Cape Wind before I came here, and I am even more so after the laissez-faire education I have enjoyed thanks to Barbara,, Maverick, Neil, etc. Thanks guys and gals...

Fuzzy math aside, can we agree that using these smaller turbines as examples for the purpose of argument, debate, or discussion of Cape Wind is inappropriate?

You make my point. How does extolling the virtues of the Hull, MMA, or Falmouth Academy turbines prove that Cape Wind is a good idea??? There is a serious disconnect for sure.

That is great -- If the numbers being tossed here are really that good, let each individual municipality decide whether they want to venture into wind energy (or not). This would eliminate the need for them to purchase power second hand, at little or no savings, from the owner of a poorly sited and largely unwelcome project rife with very serious implications for wildlife and the environment. I guess the real question is...how does one land based turbine here or there compare to a 24 square mile, 130 turbine, industrial plant?

And...how about the multi-million dollar monitoring contract Cape Wind is dangling in front of a now compliant Mass Audubon? Or, the millions of dollrs he's going to give the town of Yarmouth, who are now for some reason trying to opt out of the Cape Cod Commission? And, I'm sure this only the tip of Jim Gordon's iceberg...

What did happen to the Ten Questions story?

The dredging that is necessary to maintain harbors and local waterways is COMPLETELY different than that which might (and probably would be) necessary to allow the potential installation of wind turbines in less than 12 feet of water. Marina dredging is regulated by state and local authorities, I am sure, and are to the benefit of everyone who boats in those waters. Dredging in these areas, if I am not mistaken, is essential to the health of areas like Waquoit Bay, Tashmoo Pond, and the like. It allows the necessary exchange of water, nutrients, and wildlife between the many bays and saltwater ponds that dot the coastline and the open ocean. That being said, dredging in the open waters of Nantucket Sound is unnecessary and damaging (unless you're Jim Gordon). Nantucket Sound belongs to everyone, not to Jim Gordon to do with as he pleases. Who would be responsible for monitoring the dredging? Who would pay for the many man hours that would be necessary in order to objectively oversee the process? Would marine charts need to be re-surveyed and re-written, published?

Was this op-ed written recently?

Thanks Jack for pointing out my misunderstanding about this blog -- my error. It is indeed a collaboration, which I didn't realize. In any event, it provides us all with a forum to voice our opinions and concerns, and as a way of keeping up with the latest information regarding the Cape Wind debate. I consider CCToday an excellent source of info about Cape Cod in general and appreciate their commitment to providing this site for all of us.

Jack,
I have to say I was a bit surprised to see the comments closed by CC Today and I am happy that you were able to have this thread/comment section re-opened -- it's your blog and I think you should be able to comment on the issue, which you have always done responsibly and respectfully. Your blog adds alot to the Cape Cod Today offerings and the wind energy debate as a whole.

There is a big difference between the money being spent by those who want to stop the theft of a public resource, and those who want to profit from it. Your so-called mossbacks are not the only ones, first of all, who oppose the proposed taking of public waters. There are many, many everyday non-nimby citizens who oppose it. I commend anyone who is willing to spend their time and money for no financial reward. Gordon has thrown millions at every agency/town/special interest group, etc, that he can because, as we all know, he stands to reap huge personal monetary benefit if he is successful. I wonder what he'll try to pay the Mashpee Tribe to get them to change their position...

Thanks Barbara,
Exactly, where is the outrage? The debate over the merits of wind power has, in my opinion, decent points on either side of the argument. For instance, if it were a means to an end for global warming and our dependence on foreign fuel supplies, and IF it were properly sited, permitted, etc. then I might not oppose it so much. However, it is the very base of the argument with which I think we all should have an issue, and yes, even outrage. The facility has been deliberately and exploitatively targeted for an area that for many reasons should be off limits to private industry. To me, the process should have been stopped right there. End of story.

I didn't say the wind doesn't blow, please don't put your spin on my comments. Good for the people who may have success with their privately owned, properly permitted, wind turbines. Again, your analogies to sail boats, and now bikes and bumblebees, when discussing a large scale experimental wind plant in a place that does not belong solely to it's hopeful proponents are, as I said before, silly. Sailing and biking are popular because they provide largely recreational and in certain cases competitive outlets for their participants which is why they remain popular. Like the flight of the bumblebee, they have nothing to do with the debate at hand.

Equating the supposed success of a single privately or municipally owned and regulated wind turbine to an experimental, off-shore, large-scale windustrial plant is about as logical as the sailing analogy I commented on earlier. Don't try to sell us that bill of goods -- we're not buying.

Neil, as usual you make an excellent point re: wind powered vessels. Installing wind turbines on private or municipal property here and there (and where it makes sense) is one thing. Large scale experimental installations in environmentally sensitive and significant areas that are not currently regulated by anyone is another thing entirely. Nantucket Sound belongs to every man, woman, and child in the US. It is not Jim Gordon's to use for financial gain -- not a very difficult concept...

To compare the amount of wind needed for sailing a boat with the amount of wind needed to turn 130+ turbines is silly and you know it. Sailors sail when it's windy, or they use their back up power source. Furthermore -- the continual references to the Kennedys is tiresome. There are many others, myself included, who are middle class and against the windustrial plant. We may not be wealthy, but we're smart enough to see the exploitation of the loophole that Gordon is attempting to ram his project through. This is far from a done deal.

At the very least this may give us more people/agencies to appeal to re: the inevitable damage to sensitive ecological areas and or environments. The fact that coastal/estuarine areas are so heavily protected should almost preclude any large scale construction for private, for-profit projects. I wish this as the thorn in the lion's paw -- who knows?

Barbara and Capri,
As usual, Cape Wind proponents' antics just seem to get more and more bizarre -- singing at a public hearing, plucking signs, verbal insults on this blog -- what next?

Here's a question that I have been thinking about, I apologize if it seems uneducated. Let's suppose (to my personal horror) that this ridiculous "project" was permitted; In strictly substratic terms, and besides the obvious disruption to the ocean floor that the construction of the towers would cause, what about the large scale on-shore excavations that would be necessary to route the connecting cable to the grid? To my knowledge, one can't prune a shrub or pluck a piece of beach grass within a few hundred yards of a coastal waterway on the Cape -- why should Cape Wind be able to totally disrupt the shoreline in order to create landfall for the cable(s)? There has to be something wrong here...

Darktest,
With all due respect, Neil, Barbara, Capri, et al, are exceedingly well-versed, well-read, and thorough in their knowledge of the Cape Wind project. I am continually impressed with their intelligent discourse, and passion for their position in this debate. They respectfully interact with everyone on this website, whether they are for the project or not. I think they deserve alot more credit and respect from you than they are getting. You latest argument with regard to the competitive bidding process that was completely and purposely circumvented by Cape Wind simply does not hold water. The fact that you can't find the exact wording you're looking for (There shall be no competitive bidding...) means nothing.

Williams and Whitcomb have certainly come up with a catchy premise to sell their book -- Celebrity, wealth, The Kennedy's and politics vs. the "hero" Jim Gordon. Hello --- it's not just the wealthy and powerful who oppose the attempted theft of Nantucket Sound for the purposes of Gordon's personal gain. There are many average middle class people, myself included, who are able to see this farcical proposal for what it is. Congrats Ms. Williams and Mr. Whitcomb on an indulgent and IMO imbalanced spin on the issue.