I'm hoping this coming new year, brings changes that can make people want to stay living in Salisbury. Unity, civility and people that are willing to compromise to make our city worth staying here. I want to see an end to the venom.
I don't have anything against "come here's," I'm one myself 37 years ago. I just don't want to see my friends and neighbors get fed up, and all move somewhere else either.
If these developers can't make money off that property without the taxpayers funding it, they need to find a job that they are suited for, because the one they have isn't it.
For this new year, I myself want to try to see some good in all people, but I refuse to lay down and play dead either.
Whether we agree or not, I wish everyone reading this, a most joyous Merry Christmas/Happy Kwanzaa/Happy Hanukkah. And lets turn this old red wagon around in 2007, carry the load and get past this dreaded ordeal that has taken up far too much city administration time and money.
God Bless us One and ALL.......Tim
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Friday, December 22, 2006
Let Me Show You Where Your TIF Money Was Actually Going!
You just can't make this stuff up!Since when does "growth pay for growth," (Mr. Dunn) when the TIF money is going to pay everything a "developer" is supposed to and required to do? You know what, Dunn is just so full of crap it isn't funny. Dunn wanted the TAXPAYERS to pay for all of this! His games and lies have brought me personally to a boiling point and how anyone else can't see through his BS any more is beyond me. Enough is enough!!
Dee, Dee, Deeeee!!!!!!!
.jpg)
Get This!Someone just paid $1,875,000.00 for one of these homes. Now look a little closer. See the SLUDGE PIT at the top right corner of this photo? I wonder if the Builder disclosed this information? IMO, sh*t rolls down hill in this case. (click on photo to enlarge)
The TIF Fate Was Sealed Well Before The Actual County Council Meeting!
.jpg)
The Daily Times certainly isn't doing its homework Ladies & Gentlemen. I am told by excellent sources that this deal was done days before the Council Meeting ever happened and the old Mall owners knew it before they ever walked into the room.
So how the Daily Times can "manufacture news" once again by making it sound like everyone was stunned is beyond me or any one of my sources! It would explain why Mike Dunn would sit there and tell the entire Council they don't know what they're doing because they don't understand what a TIF really is. He was in fact begging the Council to change their mind!
Mike Dunn is a complete Idiot out for himself and no one else. Where's your 100 people now Mr. Dunn? Where were they during the County Council Meeting? Why hasn't the Grapevine you and Barrie write into so often loaded with negative things against the Council's decision? You're full of sh*t Mike Dunn and your days are now numbered.
There are FOUR people I happen to know personally that are going to run you guys out of Office. The Dream Team will be history and the developer games will come to an immediate end. Let them hire lawyers and come after the City for NOT allowing them to do what the current City Council is letting them do. Instead, we have a Mayor that pays City tax dollars to defend a developer and lose???? Just how over the top are you people going to allow this woman to be?
My suggestion to so many City Employees. There's a new Council coming to town and there are a lot of you out there that might start looking around for jobs NOW!
Bill Reddish Is A Much Needed Voice In Salisbury & Wicomico County
If you missed the Bill Reddish Show this morning, you lost out in a big way! Bill very clearly spelled out what is so wrong with the TIF and why he simply cannot understand why the City of Salisbury Officials cannot understand why it is so wrong.
I'll tell you why they can't Bill. It's because some of them could have a piece of the pie? Like I said yesterday, it happened in Sassafras and it happened with WalMart in Fruitland. The Mayor and President of the City Council were in fact financially involved in the rewards of such.
The County Council WILL NOT MEET AGAIN BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. The Mayor and Council, along with the property owners of the old mall need to get over this. As for Mr. Dunn, they have pills for your depression.
I may not always agree with Mr. Reddish, as I'm confident he doesn't always agree with me either. That doesn't mean I don't respect his wisdom, because I do. Thanks for coming back from vacation and sharing all that information with your listeners Bill. Merry Christmas!
I'll tell you why they can't Bill. It's because some of them could have a piece of the pie? Like I said yesterday, it happened in Sassafras and it happened with WalMart in Fruitland. The Mayor and President of the City Council were in fact financially involved in the rewards of such.
The County Council WILL NOT MEET AGAIN BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. The Mayor and Council, along with the property owners of the old mall need to get over this. As for Mr. Dunn, they have pills for your depression.
I may not always agree with Mr. Reddish, as I'm confident he doesn't always agree with me either. That doesn't mean I don't respect his wisdom, because I do. Thanks for coming back from vacation and sharing all that information with your listeners Bill. Merry Christmas!
I'll Let You Dissect This One
.jpg)
I wouldn't want to come off as bashing the Salisbury Zoo any longer so I'll let all of you pick this one apart. This information comes from a Salisbury Zoo Brochure.
Wind Turbine Troubles By Dr. Jimmy Tragle, Part I
Part I
Increasing concern about the environment has been emerging over the last few years and attempts to decrease green house gas emission are being put forth. The installation of large industrial wind plants has been occurring at an increasing rate over the last few years as one attempt to bring one cleaner source of electricity to meet growing demand. This push for placing large numbers of wind turbines in various locations has been met with resistance and support and the disagreement between both factions is growing stronger. This is becoming a relevant issue for Delaware as there is talk of placing an offshore facility in the waters off the Delaware coast. Several topics will need to be considered in order to form an informed opinion.
Both sides have been busy compiling a list of myths they claim the other side has put forth to support its position.
Before going on I must confess that at one time I thought wind energy was a good idea. After extensive reading on the subject I am no longer of that mind. I make no apologies for this as I am certain my bias will show through most if not all of the time.
First a little about the wind turbines themselves. The current trend is to build taller wind turbines. Modern turbines use a pole type tower, usually three blades, and a generator situated atop the tower that the turbines are attached to. The generator is housed in a structure known as a nacelle. The generator contains several hundred gallons of oil for lubrication and cooling. Blades on the some of the newer ones are about 135 feet in length and the hub height for the nacelle is in the neighborhood of 265 feet above the ground. The blades on such a turbine will sweep an area from 130 feet above the ground to 400 feet above the ground (or ocean surface for offshore turbines). That translates to each turbine covering an area a bit greater than one acre in the blade swept area. The blades tend to turn relatively slow, around 15 to 20 revolutions per minute (RPM) at optimum speed. For perspective this will give a blade tip speed somewhere around 180 MPH. Nacelle and blade assemblies usually weigh in excess of 90 tons.
Modern turbines have a nameplate capacity of around 1.5 to 2.0 MegaWatts (MW). For Comparison there is a nuclear fired plant in California that generates 555 MW.
Nameplate rating refers to what the generator would produce if the wind were blowing at optimum speed all the time. Turbine proponents claim about a 30% factor on this issue and experience in other countries with larger numbers of them has been limited to about 15 to 16%. Depending upon which figures used a 1.5 MW turbine will produce either about 0.5 MW or 0..24 MW on average. The reasons for this reduction are that below optimum wind speed production falls off and above optimum wind speeds turbines must be locked down to prevent damage.
For an installation to be worthwhile on a commercial basis there must be several turbines situated on it. I believe a minimum of 20 or so, and developers tend to prefer 40 or more.An attempt is made to site turbines in areas where winds blow often enough to validate siting. This may include vast open stretches or ridgelines extending above other topography, and of course coastal waters. Each of these locations will have peculiarities specific to layout patterns, but there is a minimum distance between them in terms of placing them on a site. Turbines cannot be placed close together as the efficiency will be lost if they are too close together. I believe turbulence off the blades is a big factor. As an example I know of a siting proposal on a ridge in West Va that amounts to 44 1.5MW turbines covering a 6.4 mile stretch of ridge line. One must realize that additional acreage is demanded for transmission lines to get the power to a substation (17 miles for this project) and access roadways.
Battles rage over many issues and with Joe's grace along with any evidence of interest I'll bring those forward bit by bit over the next few days or weeks. Those issues include:
I. Impacts on wildlife, livestock, and humans. These can further be divided into construction phase issues as well as operational phase issues.
A. Construction issues:
1. Damage to cave ecosystems.
2. Damage to spring water sources.
3. Forest habitat destruction and fragmentation.
4. Water runoff due to forest clearing.
5. Carbon emissions due to manufacture, transportation, and construction of turbines and their components.
B. Operational events include:
1. Blade strikes to birds and bats.
2. Blade throw and other accidents.
3. Noise pollution - various sounds emitted from a variety of sources.
4. Strobe effect - light reflection off blades when the sun is near the horizon.
5. Shadow flicker - shadows from blades when the sun is near the horizon.
6. Stray voltage - issues primarily for livestock in situations where metal objects like gates and fences may cause electrocutions when animals contact them.
II. Property Values
A. Altered viewsheds.
B. Health effects.
III. Whether or not the turbines can actually contribute to the production of electricity on an appreciable level. Electrical grid complexity and wind intermittence are key concepts.
IV. Economical Controversy surrounding the development of industrial wind facilities.
A. Availability of temporary jobs to local workers.
B. Availability of permanent jobs to local workers.
C. Financial advantages for local municipalities and county governments.
D. Tax incentives for developers.
Increasing concern about the environment has been emerging over the last few years and attempts to decrease green house gas emission are being put forth. The installation of large industrial wind plants has been occurring at an increasing rate over the last few years as one attempt to bring one cleaner source of electricity to meet growing demand. This push for placing large numbers of wind turbines in various locations has been met with resistance and support and the disagreement between both factions is growing stronger. This is becoming a relevant issue for Delaware as there is talk of placing an offshore facility in the waters off the Delaware coast. Several topics will need to be considered in order to form an informed opinion.
Both sides have been busy compiling a list of myths they claim the other side has put forth to support its position.
Before going on I must confess that at one time I thought wind energy was a good idea. After extensive reading on the subject I am no longer of that mind. I make no apologies for this as I am certain my bias will show through most if not all of the time.
First a little about the wind turbines themselves. The current trend is to build taller wind turbines. Modern turbines use a pole type tower, usually three blades, and a generator situated atop the tower that the turbines are attached to. The generator is housed in a structure known as a nacelle. The generator contains several hundred gallons of oil for lubrication and cooling. Blades on the some of the newer ones are about 135 feet in length and the hub height for the nacelle is in the neighborhood of 265 feet above the ground. The blades on such a turbine will sweep an area from 130 feet above the ground to 400 feet above the ground (or ocean surface for offshore turbines). That translates to each turbine covering an area a bit greater than one acre in the blade swept area. The blades tend to turn relatively slow, around 15 to 20 revolutions per minute (RPM) at optimum speed. For perspective this will give a blade tip speed somewhere around 180 MPH. Nacelle and blade assemblies usually weigh in excess of 90 tons.
Modern turbines have a nameplate capacity of around 1.5 to 2.0 MegaWatts (MW). For Comparison there is a nuclear fired plant in California that generates 555 MW.
Nameplate rating refers to what the generator would produce if the wind were blowing at optimum speed all the time. Turbine proponents claim about a 30% factor on this issue and experience in other countries with larger numbers of them has been limited to about 15 to 16%. Depending upon which figures used a 1.5 MW turbine will produce either about 0.5 MW or 0..24 MW on average. The reasons for this reduction are that below optimum wind speed production falls off and above optimum wind speeds turbines must be locked down to prevent damage.
For an installation to be worthwhile on a commercial basis there must be several turbines situated on it. I believe a minimum of 20 or so, and developers tend to prefer 40 or more.An attempt is made to site turbines in areas where winds blow often enough to validate siting. This may include vast open stretches or ridgelines extending above other topography, and of course coastal waters. Each of these locations will have peculiarities specific to layout patterns, but there is a minimum distance between them in terms of placing them on a site. Turbines cannot be placed close together as the efficiency will be lost if they are too close together. I believe turbulence off the blades is a big factor. As an example I know of a siting proposal on a ridge in West Va that amounts to 44 1.5MW turbines covering a 6.4 mile stretch of ridge line. One must realize that additional acreage is demanded for transmission lines to get the power to a substation (17 miles for this project) and access roadways.
Battles rage over many issues and with Joe's grace along with any evidence of interest I'll bring those forward bit by bit over the next few days or weeks. Those issues include:
I. Impacts on wildlife, livestock, and humans. These can further be divided into construction phase issues as well as operational phase issues.
A. Construction issues:
1. Damage to cave ecosystems.
2. Damage to spring water sources.
3. Forest habitat destruction and fragmentation.
4. Water runoff due to forest clearing.
5. Carbon emissions due to manufacture, transportation, and construction of turbines and their components.
B. Operational events include:
1. Blade strikes to birds and bats.
2. Blade throw and other accidents.
3. Noise pollution - various sounds emitted from a variety of sources.
4. Strobe effect - light reflection off blades when the sun is near the horizon.
5. Shadow flicker - shadows from blades when the sun is near the horizon.
6. Stray voltage - issues primarily for livestock in situations where metal objects like gates and fences may cause electrocutions when animals contact them.
II. Property Values
A. Altered viewsheds.
B. Health effects.
III. Whether or not the turbines can actually contribute to the production of electricity on an appreciable level. Electrical grid complexity and wind intermittence are key concepts.
IV. Economical Controversy surrounding the development of industrial wind facilities.
A. Availability of temporary jobs to local workers.
B. Availability of permanent jobs to local workers.
C. Financial advantages for local municipalities and county governments.
D. Tax incentives for developers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)