Meanwhile, the Daily Times has falsely portrayed wind power as a perfect source of energy. The latest installment is a free ad that it provided by publishing a letter statement by a spokesman for "Big Wind" named James Walker, who was identified as one of the "pioneers of wind power" and former chair of the American Wind Industry Association. He pleads for reinstituting the federal tax credit subsidy for investors in windfarms of that Congress wisely allowed to expire after 2014. Mr. Walker correctly argues that the subsidy – initially enacted more than 20 years ago as a temporary stimulus for the then fledgling wind power industry – is responsible for the subsequent growth in wind energy since then. None other than Warren Buffet has placed much money into the wind power pot because the subsidy makes it profitable to do so – and solely for that reason as Mr. Buffett admits.
Wind power is not an efficient source of power and but for the subsidy it would be forgotten. But that largess has spawned an industry that is now faced with reality as well as the growing public opposition because of the high cost, both in electric bills and harm to health and the environment that result from windfarms. Since the federal gravy train makes it possible for wind power to survive, and the recent election has diminished the power of the industry in Congress, it has become desperate. So, it has turned to liberal rags like the Daily Times for free advocacy.
Wind tunnel power is a better and less invasive source of energy.Why it is being suppressed is a mystery.
ReplyDeleteWhy are conservatives so against wind power, but you'd allow fracking next to a school of you could.
ReplyDeletei'd be willing to bet none of these wind power advocates has a windmill at their house.
ReplyDeletewant to know why? Because secretly, they suffer from NIMBY.
Well said Joe. Wind energy makes no cents yet has persisted because the large subsidies make it feasible for developers and government mandates force utilities to purchase it. Wind power is quickly becoming an energy disaster because of its high cost, and the environmental damage. The people who are forced to live near these turbines are suffering a multitude of health issues along with lower property values. All the while the wind industry is denying these problems exist.
ReplyDeleteWind Power as well as solar power generating systems are, in my mind, welfare for the rich. The people that have these systems installed on their homes can generally afford to do so without the governments help paying for them. So why is our government propping up these industries?
ReplyDeleteDid anything come out of looking at the ethics problem in Somerset County??
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteDid anything come out of looking at the ethics problem in Somerset County??
March 18, 2015 at 12:38 PM
********************************
Answer: Ask Scott Tawes!!!
Wind power it junk science, just like the daily times is junk information. Together they could not blow enough wind power to move leaf.
ReplyDeleteAs to Jim, his approval for wind mills says everything about his political buddies, and nothing about his intellect
12:38 --
ReplyDeleteThe Somerset County elite still consider "ethics" to be a four letter word than can't be spoken in their presence much less observed in their dealings!
The Somerset County Ethics Commission is currently evaluating the conflicts of interest brought about by p&z commissioners and county commissioners disregard of evidence that shows industrial turbines will adversely impact the safety and property values of the citizens they are charged to protect.
ReplyDeleteWind installations wreck havoc on the local environment while making living conditions unbearable for nearby residents. The energy gleaned from the projects comes at a very high cost because of the requirement for 100% backup. Thus ratepayers are paying for 2 sources of power (one of which is wasted) whenever wind is producing.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, what is the status of the Crisfield turbine??? I know the taxpayers were being charged $3.8 million and Crisfield was paying an additional $400,000. This unit is supposed to produce $150,000 per year in electric. The life expectancy is only 10-13years. Do the math on this one. With a cost of $4.2 million and a return of less than $2 million, taxpayers are being fleeced. The City is trying to hire an engineer for $30,000 a year to maintain it. Is anybody paying attention??????
ReplyDeleteI'm shocked that the PG spokesman is not on here yet telling us how great windmills are. They think we are so stupid as to believe their snake oil.
ReplyDeleteNo community in the US would welcome PG because if they would PG would pack up and go there.
PG also continues to try and make us believe this is a property rights issue when they are only concerned about the property rights of the lease holders and not concerned at all about the rights of non lease holders. PG reminds me of a telemarketer trying to sell you something that you don't want while trying to convince you that you just can't live without it. They are just the type that I would suspect the Daily times of supporting. Can we say Liberals.
The Somerset Ethics Commission was appointed by the County Commissioners so good luck with that one.
ReplyDelete9:56 While I am not on a PG salary I have been on other threads reading the nonsense SFS posts. I have read through this thread and as I am getting sick of the unsubstantiated accusations of corruption and the easily refuted lies SFS brings to bear I personally was going just going to leave it alone, I think others had similar viewpoints. However your comment is just too ignorant for me to walk away from. Firstly the 150+/- members of SFS do not constitute a reason for Pioneer to leave. The participating landowners, non-participating proponents welcome new business to the area. That and a multi million dollar investment gives them reason to stay. You can continue to trash whomever does not agree with you and make false accusations of corruption while cowardly hiding behind innuendo, that is your right. However at the end of the day the proponents and quite possibly this company you have such disdain for are your neighbors. If you do not feel you can peacefully live with that then maybe you should find another community that would welcome you. You mention snake oil. Wouldn't you define snake oil as the use of propaganda and false sources of information to drive a point of view? The proponents have relied on peer reviewed articles, publications from health, science and statistical organizations to refute the propaganda SFS spreads on higher electric rates, property value losses, health effects, etc.. The opponents have relied heavily on youtube and sources citing wikipedia. I believe youtube and sources like wikipedia are closer to what I would call "snake oil" information. You also bring up property rights, while consistently arguing that somehow you should have a controlling interest on others land. Unlike you I am supportive of everyone's property rights. I think you should be able to do as you wish as allowed by zoning with your land, but I also believe my neighbor should be able to do what they will as allowed by zoning with their land. Of course I also believe I should be allowed to exercise my property rights as allowed by zoning with my property. At the end of the day despite your claims no one is trying to sell you anything. In reality all anyone wants is for you to mind your business on your property and let others do the same.
ReplyDeleteJust wait until the PG guy gets on here, he'll straighten you all out with his facts and studies. By the way windmill guy, I need a new hat.
ReplyDeleteGB, you are going to continue beating that dead horse (property rights) when you know this is not a property rights issue at all. Do you think I should be able to let my grass grow tall, do you think I should be able to park an untagged vehicle in my driveway, do you think I should be able to do many many things that harm no one but they are zoned out because neighbors just don't like looking at them? Windmills are no different, if neighbors don't want to look at these ugly contraptions then they should be zoned out, period. It is up to elected officials to tell us what is acceptable. We have no property rights anymore because politicians tell us what we can and cannot do.
ReplyDeleteGB found the post, they sniffed it out like a fly on sh$$.
ReplyDelete11:12 You must have missed the SFS signs saying "Stand up for your property rights." I am. Mind your business on your property and I will do likewise. If you want a controlling interest on your neighbors property move to a HOA.
ReplyDeleteYou totally missed the point 11:48. I don't want to tell my neighbors what to do at all. On the other hand I don't want to be told what to do with mine either. That being said, if I can't do what I want to do that isn't harming anyone than I'm opposed to PG being able to build something that IS obviously not wanted by neighbors. Property rights work in both directions in case that little detail escaped you 11:48. By the way, I wanted to open a small business on property zoned commercial and was denied because there were two homes on each side that objected. So much for your argument of property rights, they don't exist in this county.
ReplyDeleteI can't even burn leaves without the permission of the elected rulers. It isn't the neighbors that even care, it's the elected officials that think they know best. Property rights have been destroyed just like our gun rights and a whole lot of other rights. GB argument is false on this issue like it is on many others.
ReplyDelete8:05 the Crisfield wind mill is just another example of a sound good feel good project that costs tax payers a lot of money for nothing. The majority of the wind mill is lying flat on the ground, I've heard it can't get an erection!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if that is why Bradshaw retired?
Westover is now paying the price of a prison, landfill, high sewer rates, etc and now they want to surround them with wind mills. Those people shouldn't even have to pay taxes, no one would buy a home there.
ReplyDeleteI think GB guy is giving up, he hasn't given us a study recently. He hasn't even complained about SFS since 9:20. Don't give up GB, I want my lease checks to keep coming.
ReplyDeleteThe reason Pioneer Green has staked a claim here is because of our self-serving county officials. It is not the people who live here that are "poor and dumb", but our county officials that think we are poor and dumb.
ReplyDeleteLook out Worcester, you are next. But instead of littering your onshore properties with industrialization, James Mathias has his sites on your most precious asset, your oceanfront.
ReplyDeleteNever thought Mathias would throw away Ocean City, but I guess his political aspirations are more important.
I'm happy that the PG guy has finally realized that we will not be deceived by his rhetoric. They tried the Obama approach by telling the same lies over and over and hoped people would finally believe it but we proved that theory wrong.
ReplyDeleteHas PG packed up and moved or what? They have never stayed off the blogs for so long. They must have realized that no one believes what they are saying on the blog sites.
ReplyDeleteI have read through the last few blogs. The opposition seems scared to try to offer anything to defend their point of view. Meanwhile those in favor of wind mills seem happy to offer to prove their argument. To me it seems the people that will not offer anything to validate their point of view would be the ones lying.
ReplyDelete9:46 LOL! SFS claims to have lost 600-800 supporters in six months and you say no one believes the proponents?? People can believe what they choose. They can believe peer reviewed research and publications from national health and statistic groups. Or they can believe your youtube and wikipedia. You cannot have an intelligent conversation with someone who believes wikipedia and youtube are more credible than peer reviewed scientific publications.
ReplyDeleteRight 4:34 and we should believe all the peer review studies about global warming also. If in fact SFS has lost 600 supporters which I doubt is true, they still have more supporters than PG. The only supporters of PG are the ones getting paid for leases. Money talks, BS walks if you know what I mean.
ReplyDeleteThe reason studies are useless is because locals just don't want the windmills for other various reasons and that is there right. Studies will never change the minds of someone who just doesn't like to look at windmills.
I've heard that PG has finally caved, you lease holders better call and find out if you are going to get your next lease check.
ReplyDelete5:10 It's funny you should say that as I have read quite a bit of research discounting global warming. You say studies are useless so we should just take your word? That does not make much sense. Also I know at least two people that do not have leases that spoke in favor of the project at the public hearing. I also know of at least two others that have written letters to the editor in favor of the project. If SFS's last press conference was accurate than the opposition has as few as 200 members now. That is their word. There are about 200 participating landowners, not including their families and the non-participating supporters. So to say that SFS has more supporters is ignoring there own statements which I will grant you tend to not be very accurate. Of course people do not have to like wind turbines. There are many things others do with their property that I do not like. But as I am not the one paying their mortgage I do not think I have any right to tell them what they can and cannot do when they act within the confines of zoning.
ReplyDeleteSFS is going strong with hundreds of supporters and more importantly it is educating people of the consequences of wind. Opposition to this project has grown substantially because people have done their research and understand this will harm the environment and raise their utility rates.
ReplyDeleteConfines of zoning, isn't that exactly what SFS is trying to do? All they are asking is that the zoning board do there job and keep Somerset safe. I don't think anyone could disagree with that.
ReplyDeleteYou made my point exactly 8:40. I tried to say that with all the studies from all the well known scientist that say we are experiencing global warming, we are now finding out that it was all a hoax. Just as many scientist are now saying there is NO global warming. Just because a lot of studies favor wind power doesn't make them correct. If there was any doubt at all about the safety of windmills then why would Somerset county want them? More tax dollars is not a good answer, there is more to life than money. We are not guinea pigs.
ReplyDelete9:36 If you have "hundreds" of people then why did your claimed support go from over a thousand and counting in September to 200-400 in February? How have people done their research when SFS refuses to do research? I am going to call B.S. You have 100+ on your online petition. You have 100+ likes on social media. You had 100+ show up to your propaganda forum (and not all of them were opposed). It seems to me nothing indicates you have over 200 supporters but your word. 10:11 Actually no. SFS has lost twice at zoning. Now they want the commissioners to put it to a referendum or kill it rather than vote on either of the two ordinances that have been passed. All anyone wants is zoning to do their job. They have done their job twice and passed ordinances taking into account safety, residential needs, commercial needs and all the property rights involved. 12:52 If you were to READ into the research that has been done into climate change you will see much of NOAA's data has been fairly consistent that there is not much evidence to support global man made climate change. You cannot just read the abstracts of a select few publications or read the opinion statements of select scientists and consider yourself informed apparently you have done this both on the global warming front and on the wind turbine front.
ReplyDeleteIf SFS has 200 supporters that is about 200 more than PG. The only real supporters of PG are the landowners that want the cash. I don't call them real supporters, take away the cash and see how much support they would be. No one wants windmills unless there is something in it for them. Maybe an Obama lover would like them but we don't have many of them is Somerset.
ReplyDelete9:55 There were people that spoke at the public hearing with no contract from Pioneer. Also there have been people with no contract that have written letters to the editor in support with no contract with Pioneer. How many businesses have people who are not getting anything out of it spending time going to public meetings and writing letters to the editor? Not many but this project has. Actually most of the people I know that have supported the project are very conservative. Once again you are wrong on all fronts.
ReplyDeleteThe function of zoning is protection of property from non-compatible development. Wind turbines will wreck havoc on property value of homeowners while increase electricity costs for the rest of us. Citizens must be protected from wind and solar developments because they are industrial and encroach on property rights.
ReplyDeleteSomerset residents do not support wind development within its borders, but the PG cheerleader wants you to believe otherwise. The few supporting the Great Bay Wind project are those collecting money to do so.
ReplyDeleteSo much support but opposed to a referendum, Hum.
ReplyDeleteThe red flags for this project are obvious, low wind resource, pristine habitat, National Defense, Atlantic Flyway, and high population density. Moving forward with this project would disrupt the ecologically sensitive region for very little energy while harming our National Defense. Why is it being considered, could it be because of the politically connected few that will benefit?
ReplyDeleteabsolutely 12:15!
ReplyDeleteIf windmills are such a great thing than why aren't other counties begging PG to come and build in there county?
ReplyDeleteSince PG is so determined to build in Somerset only tells me that they have no where else to go. Frankly, no community would want something like this project and all the problems that it will bring with it.
The PG PR guy has certainly slacked off with his comments. He must have realized that we are not falling for all the misrepresentation.
ReplyDeleteA city in the middle of oil and natural gas reserves is turning to renewables and none of their reasons are tied to carbon emmissions or Obama "Georgetown – population 54,000 – will take the output from the 150MW solar plant and another 144MW from a new wind farm to source its needs from renewables. The local utility saying it has turned to wind and solar because it is cheaper and more reliable, and requires a lot less water."
ReplyDeletehttp://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/20/georgetown-texas-aims-for-100-solar-wind-power-within-2-years/?utm_source=Wind+News&utm_campaign=a90d2bf3fa-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_79fed14422-a90d2bf3fa-332046725
As has been pointed out everyone wants electricity but how do you generate it? Nuclear is out because of what happened in Japan. Coal is being discouraged because of all kinds of pollutants the least worrisome of them being carbon. Wind and Solar have proven themselves to be viable and reliable. Anybody who does not understand there is a increasing shortage of electricity in this Country in general and in Somerset in particular is simply deliberately deceiving themselves.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/more-coal-plants-are-being-cancelled-than-built/
Since the lie of property values being hurt by turbines is still being spread so again here is 4 respected studies showing no loss in property values. Pay close attention to the second one ( Hinman) as it did show a loss of property values during permitting and construction ( due to fearmongering ) but after completion when people could see and hear turbines in operation values rebounded to even higher levels than before turbines!
ReplyDeleteAtkinson-Palombo, C.; Hoen, B. (2014). Relationship between Wind Turbines and Residential Property Values in Massachusetts. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
This study provides siting process stakeholders with additional information from which to work. The report builds on Berkeley Lab’s previous studies published in 2009 and 2013 by amassing a much larger dataset of home sales near wind facilities sited in urban environments than had previously been collected.
Hinman, J.L. (2010). Wind Farm Proximity and Property Values: A Pooled Hedonic Regression Analysis of Property Values in Central Illinois. Illinois State University.
The study examined whether proximity to the 240-turbine Twin Groves Wind Farm (Phases I and II) in Illinois impacted nearby residential property values and whether any impact on nearby property values changes over the different stages of wind farm development. This study used 3,851 residential property transactions.
Hoen, B.; Brown, J.P.; Jackson, T.; Wiser, R.; Thayer, M.; Cappers, P. (2013). A Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Wind Energy Facilities on Surrounding Property Values in the United States. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
This report builds on a 2009 study that also investigated impacts on home values near wind facilities. The researchers analyzed more than 50,000 home sales near 67 wind facilities in 27 counties across nine states and did not find any statistically identifiable impacts of wind facilities to nearby home property values.
Hoen, B.; Wiser, R.H.; Cappers, P.; Thayer, M.; Sethi, G. (2009). The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The researchers collected data on almost 7,500 sales of single family homes within 10 miles of 24 wind facilities in nine states.
Just let the voters decide with a referendum vote and in the mean time have an independent investigation of possible ethics violations in Somerset County. If things are above board, the commissioners and their County appointees should welcome this and proceed ASAP. If the powers to be do not welcome this, then it's high time for a recall vote of the commissioner and the firing of their appointees including the County Attorney. Since the air of impropriety has been raised, then let's get an investigation by a appropriate no biased source to set this matter right.
ReplyDeleteSomerset citizens need officials that will represent them instead of their own interests.
ReplyDeleteCounty commissioners are elected to serve the people that voted for them, not their family and friends.
2:22 Somerset County is not a HOA. As much of a relief it might be to hold a referendum so SFS can be shut up once and for all property rights can not be put to referendum.
ReplyDelete12:15 You lose all credibility in your other claims when you claim low wind resource. Two MET towers have shown there is sufficient wind. In addition the area involved is farmland not urban. It is not high population density. The area is an Atlantic flyway but all research has shown any avian losses would be sustainable. Eagles have been a topic of concern but if the bald eagle population was at risk then USFWS would be able to withhold permits. Can we talk facts not rhetoric?
ReplyDelete8:19 Correction. A fringe group does not support wind development and imply that their 150+/- members somehow constitute a majority. 8:20 There are a lot of rights I think the majority support but that I think it would be wholly inappropriate to put to referendum.
ReplyDelete8:15 The Lawrence Berkeley Lab says wind turbines do not hurt property values. Your anonymous post and a real estate agent paid to write an opinion article say they do. I think I will believe the Lawrence Berkeley Lab unless you have something in terms of real information to offer.
ReplyDelete1:13 Or maybe were are tired of fighting emotional rhetoric. For a long time I had hoped you guys would get off wind watch and youtube and do some actual research so we could have a fact base discussion on these blogs. Still hasn't happened.
ReplyDelete2:22 Better idea. Rather than putting property rights to vote once the ethics commission has cleared this whole thing the commissioners should pass one of the two ordinances that zoning has passed. In the meantime so as not to appear hypocritical why don't you expand your ethics complaint to include your leader who had identical conflicts of interest?
ReplyDeleteElected officials and people who serve on various appointed boards deserve better than unsubstantiated charges of corruption and unethical behavior, and allegations by innuendo. It's very childish to see a small group of people having public temper tantrums because the views they express but cannot corroborate with any sound scientific data are rejected. The calls for a referendum are simply a delaying tactic by small group of people who watched every candidate they endorsed lose in the last election. There should never be a referendum on property rights or any other Constitutional Right but before time and money is spent on a referendum people should have to show they at least have significant support. While SFS is certainly well funded it has not and can show any evidence of more than a few hundred supporters. This is after they have spent TENS of thousands of dollars on misinformation and fearmongering.
ReplyDelete@2:22 - a referendum on industry???? And property rights??? Do you realize what you are saying??? How about we put the right to farm up for referendum? I am sure the citizens in the Wildwood Drive area would love to put those "industrial" poultry farms to referendum. Do you realize the long term implications of what you are saying? Do you realize the implications to the county as a whole? Do you realize the message that sends to any business looking at Somerset? Unbelievable...
ReplyDeleteI'm 4:24 and see a typo. It should read "While SFS is certainly well funded it has not and cannot show any evidence of more than a few hundred supporters.
ReplyDeleteAs opponents continue to "spin" their innuendo and untruthful information and continue to stall with the ethics violation of the day (regardless that the ordinance indicates otherwise) let's see how many quality people we will be able to recruit to run for elected office and serve on any Commission in the county. After all, they couldn't even get enough people to run for all the openings on the Republican Central Committee - think that might have been because of one person on there???
ReplyDeleteIt is because of attitudes and unwillingness to work together that the "good old boy" network in Somerset thrives and will continue to do so until everyone stops with accusations, innuendo and misleading tactics and comes together in a spirit of compromise and willingness to work together to better the county.
If the theories expressed in this book and by SFS were true it would seem that where wind power was located people would hate it but reliable polls show just the opposite. Polls have been mentioned on this blog that show wind energy very popular in states such as Texas and Kansas where huge amounts of wind energy are generated but here is an article about polls in Scotland where this book is based. It shows wind energy has gained in polls as turbines are added.
ReplyDeletehttp://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/17/scottish-public-increasingly-favour-wind-power/?utm_source=Wind+News&utm_campaign=da55bf95d8-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_79fed14422-da55bf95d8-332046725
Studies do not supersede realty. Property values do decline as recognized by the assessment board in Vermont. Banks in Scotland and Canada are not loaning monies on homes too close to wind turbines.
ReplyDeleteToo bad the Pioneer Green lobbyist has found this article. His posts tout studies the wind industry commissioned. All you have to do is look at the conditions people are having to endure that live in communities that hose wind. Research Falmouth, MA, Octillo, CA, Kingston, MA, Orangeville, NY, Brown County, WI. These are just a few of the hundreds of areas dealing with the consequences of wind.
ReplyDeleteMost European countries calculate their setbacks in meters not feet. Safe distances are still being debated but range from 3000 feet to 3 miles.
ReplyDelete@6:33 Scientifically done studies reflect reality far better than SFS. A 12% drop in assessment value on ONE house in Vermont is not a better reflection on reality than the over one MILLION property transactions that have been reviewed that show no drop in property value (unless your SFS). Please cite a reference that shows banks are not lending for houses close to turbines in Scotland or Canada as I can't find a source that says that. Interesting that 4:44 cites a government done poll in Scotland that shows a 71% approval rating for wind energy but you claim (without a source) that banks won't finance homes in Scotland!
ReplyDelete@ 6:37 Instead reading wind watch and reporting what they say living conditions are like near these wind farms how about showing some reputable polls that give a fair representation of what the people say. As the supporters have done for several areas. If it is as you say there are hundreds of places with negative consequences surely you can find a reputable poll on one!
@6:40 I really am not familiar with European turbine setbacks could you cite some. I have seen pictures of wind farms in Denmark that have multiple turbines right in the villages. Setbacks in this Country have been cited on this blog and I would be happy to cite more. They generally run from the height of the turbine to 1.5 x the height of the turbine. Somerset's proposed setback is 2.5 x the height of the turbine and SFS is still complaining!
4:24 - A referendum vote is the democratic method of ensuring what the voters want. What's wrong with a referendum vote? Maybe the powers to be are worried it will not pass and since many powers to be unethically invested in this initiative then maybe a good ethics investigation will settle a lot of folks down concerning this issue. What's the rush because we need to make sure everything is correct and there are no violations of ethics?? We, the many citizens of Somerset County, welcome such an investigation! Why wouldn't you?
ReplyDeleteIf Texas and Kansas love wind mills so much please tell us why you came to Somerset county Mr. PG. You certainly didn't do this to benefit Somerset, the only logical reason you came was to line your own pockets with cash. We don't trust your studies and we don't like wind mills, that's all you really need to know.
ReplyDelete@8:58 Another disgusting SFS lie! Name one person who has invested in PG from Somerset! Doesn't have to be anyone in authority just name one person who has invested in PG! Just the opposite has occurred, PG has invested in Somerset, to the tune of millions of dollars, and has very patiently waited 5 years for a simple zoning ordinance. Twice the zoning board has carefully looked at all scientific evidence AND listened to the uncorroborated fears of SFS and passed a very conservative ordinance. It's long passed time for the commissioners to realize that they are not going to satisfy a small group of fanatics in the county and pass a ordinance! Who are you that you feel you speak for " the many citizens of Somerset County"? What election have you won?
ReplyDelete@9:57 Of course PG came to Somerset to make money! Why do you think Mountaire,Tyson,Perdue,Sysco,Wall Mart, McDonalds, Hardees, Rite Aid, Food Lion and all the other companies that do business in Somerset came to Somerset? Is SFS now suggesting that only not for profit companies be allowed to do business in Somerset? I do thank you for being honest in stating you don't trust scientifically done studies and that your objection is based solely on your personal opinion. If SFS will be honest and tell the commissioners that and stop lying about property values,health issues,bird kills etc they will get no objection from me or any other supporter. We certainly respect your right to your opinion!
ReplyDeleteThe VT assessments that lowered property values encompassed all homes within 3/4 of a mile of the project which were FOUR homes. The Great Bay Wind Project has over 400 hundred homes within 1 mile. All of the homes in Vermont received lower assessments that ranged from 8 to 18%. Multiply that by the 400 homes in Somerset and see who is paying for the price of wind.
ReplyDeleteThe PG cheerleader is trying to control this blog with his bullying tactics. Please look at communities and countries that host wind. The reality is that wind turbines within a mile of people cause unsurmountable problems. Placing this project less than 1200 feet from people would be a disaster. After the Shirley Wind project was declared a human health hazard, the Somerset zoning board reduced setback distances and increased turbine heights. This is a blatant disregard of public health and safety!
ReplyDeletePG has invested in those who are politically connected to the County Commissioners and Charles Otto. The property easements can be viewed at MDlandrec.net. The contracts show were the wind leasers are being compensated for tolerance of noise, electromagnetic interference, and shadow flicker. Nearby neighbors will be forced to live with these conditions and many will find their properties unmarketable. Signing your land rights away for a few bucks while your neighbor pays the price, should not be legalized.
ReplyDelete5:44 - The investments are done by way of obtaining lands by lease that are more than suitable for this wind purpose in preparation assigning a lease for wind power. I'm a taxpayer in Somerset County who only wants our elected officials to be ethical and correct. By the way, before you make a complete idiot of your self, why don't you research the recent lands leased and by who and what families. This may clear up your confusion or go to a Commissioners' meeting and ask this question directly. You will not get a direct answer and will be stonewalled. In addition, why are you so upset about an ethics investigation because if everyone is clean, then it should be welcomed with open arms. And yes, I do speak for many citizens in Somerset County with the same concerns. You must be a very confused person because it doesn't take being elected in order to voice a concern of many and as I'm a taxpaying citizen of this county I have every right to question same. You need to read the Constitution.
ReplyDelete@9:14 Please cite your source as that is NOT what the link supplied by SFS said. Again the link on SFS webpage referring to Vermont mentioned ONE home! But lets say you are correct you are arguing a lowering of assessed value on FOUR homes in Vermont is a stronger argument that turbines hurt property value than the over one MILLION property transactions reviewed by respected research institutions that show they do not hurt property values!
ReplyDelete@9:20 Yes lets please look at the communities that host wind! The supporters have cited several polls from respected polling firms that show support for wind energy. Furthermore support generally goes UP in areas after turbines are installed. The supporters have repeatedly encouraged people to take the short drive to Lewes and talk to people at random and ask them for their opinion! SFS wants everyone to ignore the multitude of people that support wind energy and have NO problem living close to one and just listen to the handful of complainers.
@11:03 Again SFS has failed to show any credible evidence they or anyone else will be harmed. SFS cannot show even one credible study that suggests any property will be unmarketable!
@12:42 You seem to be the confused person! At 8:58 you referred to yourself as "We, the many citizens of Somerset County". If you feel empowered to speak for the many citizens of Somerset County you are the one who needs to read the Constitution because that certainly does require an election! SFS is a very very SMALL organization that feels because they are well funded they should get their way and their neighbors should have to beg for their permission before using the land they own! As far as ethics worry about the SFS leader, clean up your own house before attacking others!
9:20 What bullying tactics? Is it now bullying to cite sources when conversing with a bunch of people relying on youtube for information?
ReplyDelete9:20 You consider that Mass. Board of Health Literature review as junk science but then refer to the Brown County ruling? It seems your definition of credible information revolves around it agreeing with you. No wonder your such a fan of wikipedia and youtube and sources that cite those two.
ReplyDelete@12:42 You seem to be somewhat incoherent! Do you stand by the statement at 8:58 that people in authority have invested in PG or are you backing away from that deliberate disgusting lie? If you are standing by that lie than again please name even ONE person in Somerset County who has invested in PG!
ReplyDelete1:55 pm- My house is clean, so why are upset about an ethics investigation?? And no, I do not have to be elected to speak for myself or others as I only need to be a citizen. And to your paranoia, I'm not attacking others and if you believe that by having an ethics investigation is attacking others, then you need serious help. The air of impropriety has been raised and should be investigated and, hopefully, this will satisfy everyone as well as well as having a possibly positive outcome. You must feel very much less empowered than most but that's your problem. Please read the Constitution as being elected to public office, in no way, inhibits a citizen for speaking for himself or others. Especially see the First Amendment but still read all of it.
ReplyDeleteIn Vermont, 4 turbines that are 440 feet high were placed within 3/4 of a mile of 4 homes. All of which lost property value. The one that was 3700 feet away lost 12% of its value. In Somerset, there are over 400 homes within 1 mile. In the Midwest and the desert range were there are turbines, there are very few homesteads and guess what, they have wind! This project will not fit in Somerset...
ReplyDeleteDisclosure is the basic requirement of open government. It seems all counties in Maryland abide but it except Somerset. This is not an allegation, it is a fact. Citizens deserve a fair and open government that protects them. If there are ethics violations, those guilty should be dismissed so that we can have the representation we deserve. God Bless America.
ReplyDelete2:33 When you file select ethics complaints in an attempt to intimidate officials that is attacking others. If your ethics complaint was not a bogus, select complaint then you would have included your leader who had the same exact conflicts of interest. If you feel the ethics complaint was just then you should immediately expand it to include the leader of SFS.
ReplyDelete2:59 I don't know that there is a leader, but if you mean Ms. Truit, she has been removed by the Commissioners, because she interferred with their plans for themselves, family and friends to benefit. Those with serious ethics violations still remain on the P & Z Commission.
ReplyDelete2:58 The ethics complaint may or may not be bogus without having a comprehensive non-biased investigation completed. The air of impropriety was raised concerning land leases obtained by elected and appointed officials before the legislation was finalized. The legislation will impact those who obtained same and did obtain same due the preferential status and knowledge not shared with the public. Apparently many citizens do question the ethics of such "insider trading". So, let us have an investigation to settle this matter once and for all. Only the guilty will appose such an investigation and it would be absolutely great if an investigation found no wrong doing but we'll never know without an investigation. Let's face it, Somerset County has been known for a long time for insider shenanigans and nepotism. Let's clear the air!
ReplyDelete@2:33 You continue to dodge so I again quote you "We, the many citizens of Somerset County". Who gave you the authority to speak for the many citizens of Somerset County? I certainly don't want you speaking for me and I am a citizen of Somerset County. You represent a small group of fanatics called Safe for Somerset and that's all! They hardly represent the many citizens of Somerset County.
ReplyDelete@2:37 Is this what you call citing a source? Okay we got it, in your opinion property values were hurt by turbines in Vermont. This is how I cite a source. If you read this study
http://greatbaywind.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/wind_turbines_property_massachusetts.pdf you will find it was done in urban areas of Massachusetts by one of the most respected research institutions in the world. It examined over 122000 property transactions (that's a lot more than four) and looked at both values and frequency of sales down to a quarter mile. It found NO effect from turbines on either! Do you notice the difference between how you cite a source and how I do? You state your opinion based on something you read on wind watch I give you respected research and the link to it.
@3:30 You are certainly entitled to your opinion but Tammy was not removed her term expired. I suspect her not being reappointed had far more to do with a Delmarva Farmer article and other numerous examples of unprofessional behavior on her part.
ReplyDelete@3:30 Please name even one elected or appointed official who had signed a lease with PG. Citizens should question insider trading when proven but it should also question unsubstantiated claims of corruption against our elected officials. Especially when made by hypocrites with identical family ties. This is all about a bunch of well funded elites who think they should have a say on what is done on all land in the county. Since spreading lies and fearmongering didn't get them what they wanted now they are trying to intimidate our elected officials. The commissioners should stand up to them and pass the first ordinance and shut them once and for all. As an added bonus Kagan would move out of the County!
The Ethics complaint filed by individuals who are associated with SFS indicates impropriety based on land leases held by in-laws and, oh, yes - that a Commission members' husband has a venture with Scott Tawes.
ReplyDeleteFirst, one must do a little reading. I have read the County Ethics Ordinance - every page. I suggest one read Article 4 Conflicts of Interest which defines "qualified relative" as a spouse, parent, child or sibling. It says NOTHING about in-laws. So how can there be an ethical violation regarding in laws if it is not defined in the ordinance? A little more reading on the State Ethics Commission would enlighten one that the State also does not include in laws.
With regard to the relationship with Scott Tawes, I used the list of leaseholders listed on the Safe for Somerset website. There is no such relationship with a Commission member.
So, 3:30, you are making the implication that there was impropriety by elected and appointed officials, ie, "land leases obtained by elected and appointed officials before the legislation was finalized." I assume, that by legislation, you mean the Planning Commission's draft ordinance on wind. Again, using the Safe for Somerset website, there is no one elected or appointed holding a lease that I can see. I do see; however, a lease that I believe belongs to the leader of SFS's brother in law - who I am pretty sure held the lease while she was on the Planning Commission. Same concern, but no one is worried about that. Just a little hypocritical, perhaps??
And if you believe that in laws should be included - then that should be your request of the Ethics Commission - not asking them to spend their time investigating something that isn't there.
So name some names - or is just that spreading innuendo is more fun than being truthful?
Officials must abide by ethics laws so that minimum safeguards are in place to avoid conflicts of interest. Passing laws that benefit family and business associates is unethical and constitutes a conflict of interest.
ReplyDelete!10:11 More innuendo! Please give us names! This is what was said in 3:30 "The air of impropriety was raised concerning land leases obtained by elected and appointed officials before the legislation was finalized." Again name one who had a lease. Name one ethics law that was violated. You claim " Passing laws that benefit family and business associates is unethical and constitutes a conflict of interest." By that standard anything done to benefit the county would be a conflict of interest!!! Please explain how you feel any government could function under that standard. The only way a elected official could vote on anything positive for the county is if they had NO family or business interests in the county. Personally I want elected officials with ties to Somerset County. You disgusting people use innuendo to smear people because you didn't get your way but you can't name even one example of ethics violations!
ReplyDelete@10:11 - I don't disagree that "officials must abide by ethics laws"; however, as pointed out earlier, the Ethics Ordinance and State Law do not define in-laws as "qualified relatives", so there has been no conflict of interest. Again, if your gripe is with the wording of the Ethics Ordinance, fine - but lay off the innuendo and baseless accusations of corruptions with no proof.
ReplyDeleteFollowing the money leads you to the Boston Family and the Anderson family.
ReplyDelete6:46 A "qualified relative" does have legal "interest" in his or her spouse's property. It doesn't matter which one has signed the deed.
ReplyDelete@7:56 Again this is what was stated at 3:30 "The air of impropriety was raised concerning land leases obtained by elected and appointed officials before the legislation was finalized." Are you saying Jerry Boston or Kevin Anderson had a signed lease or even a lease offered to them while the ordinance was before the zoning board? Again you disgusting people just continue with innuendo and baseless accusations!
ReplyDelete@6:46 Please cite the ethics code that supports your assertion. You people claim laws have been broken but can't cite the laws, you claim ethics have been violated but can't name one person involved who had a lease. Just one big smear campaign!!!
The whole thing was killed this afternoon.
ReplyDeleteThe commissioners owe the citizens of the county an apology for putting them through this for the last 5 years.