Why Your Town Must Create a Wind Ordinance
John Droz, Jr. on How to Succeed in the Wind Energy Fight
I was asked to speak at a town board meeting this week. They were quite interested in how to best protect their community from the threat of a proposed wind project. This is a condensed version of what I said…
Since an industrial wind project is something you may have to live with for 20± years, it seems wise tocarefully, objectively, and thoroughly investigate this matter, ahead of time…
After working with 100± communities throughout the US, my conclusion is that your absolute best and first line of defense, is a well-written, protective set of wind energy regulations.
The focus of these regulations should be to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community.
These regulations can be in a stand-alone law, or part of a more comprehensive zoning document. (Where they appear is significantly less important than their content.)
Note that writing these regulations is not about excluding wind energy development — but rather it’s about protecting the citizens, small businesses, the economy, the military, and the ecosystems of your community.
So, how do you go about creating proper wind energy regulations? Well, you have two very differentchoices…
1 - Option One is to figure out what needs to be done, on your own.
Since this is an extremely complex technical matter (with wide-spread ramifications), you’ll need to find the following local people: physicist, electrical engineer, civil engineer, acoustical engineer, physician, financial PhD, hydro-geologist, ecologist, bat expert, ornithologist, EMF expert, real estate appraiser, and last but not least, a technically competent lawyer. That would be your team.
In addition, each of those local people need:
a) to have an interest in this matter,
b) to be supportive of citizen rights, and
c) to have the time available to assist the community.
After you’ve collected these experts (that meet those three qualifications), make sure to also allow for at least a year to do research, to have multiple meetings, etc., etc.
The fundamental question is: do you have all those resources in your community, and the time?
If you are missing any of those experts (or don’t have the time), the wind regulations that result will likely leave you not properly protected, and very vulnerable to a wind project getting built…
2 - Option Two is to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before you.
Many are not be aware of it, but some 250 communities in the US have had to deal with industrial wind energy. Every case is different, but a few were fortunate enough to have the necessary cross-section of experts living nearby. Some were proactive, so they had the luxury and time to do more research. Etc.
In any case, in every one of the 250± other communities, there are lessons to be learned — both what to do, and what not to do. One of my beliefs is that it rarely makes sense to reinvent the wheel — and particularly not in a complex technical matter like industrial wind energy.
That’s the point of my free citizen advocacy service, and my website (WiseEnergy.org), and my monthly Newsletter (which now has some 10,000 readers). All of these are intended to sort out, and then pass on to you, the best ideas out there.
As we announced several months ago, to help those who want to go the Option Two route, we are advocating a model local wind law. (The explanation and supporting data behind it is found on the Key Documents page of our website.)
When all is said and done, it’s your community — so it’s your call how to deal with any proposed wind project.
We’ve simply tried to make it easier to be successful in dealing with this extraordinary challenge — by giving you the Science perspective, and by sharing with you some of the wind energy experiences of numerous other communities.
Let me know any questions you have, or suggestions to improve our services.
regards,
john droz, jr.
physicist & citizen advocate
Views: 418
Comment
-
Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on October 2, 2016 at 2:43pm
-
@Paula The towns attornies are there only to advise the board as to any legal issues that may arise in relationship to the laws. If they are using them against the citizens of the community, that constitutes a misuse of public funds.
I.E. Sangerville's Recall ordinance required them to seek legal advice from the town attorney, however could NOT use them against the citizen to prevent pushing forth a highly illegal worded ordinance that had valid signatures.
You cant fix stupid, but you can not kill stupid either.
Corruption can be fixed, at the ballot box unless the voters are also corrupted with favors...... Time for an investigation........ I.E. Willimantic is under investigation for a long history of corruption and illegal tax acquired property deed transfers to one particular family.
-
-
Read Dillons Rule....... long, boring, but a better understanding as to the position in Government at each level and our role as citizens. This Supreme Court ruling came out of an era of rampant corruption and is often used as court basis for all interactions between corporations, governance, and people.
IF THE TOWN OF CARTHAGE enacted an ordinance it is law, unless there would be legal reason from the state to override such an ordinance. That would be for a court to determine if contested by the citizens. Otherwise the Select board has committed a crime against the town and is subject to recall if there is an ordinance for such action, or provided for in state statute. Though Communities that relegate to the Select Board to act on all other matters in behalf of the town leave themselves open for inappropriate actions, a request to enact an ordinance, then a petition to force the ordinance to a vote, and a follow through to bypass the board if needed is the right of the legislative body (the citizens). Unless there is some illegal reason that the ordinance can not stand, it will. However that is for the Court to determine. A poll or vote to say no, has no legal merits.
An ordinance to prevent future actions can still be had, or an ordinance to prevent automatic renewal could be had. Just because something bad has happened, it is not always forever. Once the agreed upon time frame was set, and the term expired, the ordinance would take effect and would have had I.E. 20 years standing, if not challenged and negated by a court. Still leaving time to enact a better more powerful ordinance if desired by the community. Pushing back may be long and hard but worth the effort if the community values it's quality of place and life and aspirations for its future.
-
Comment by Paula D Kelso on October 2, 2016 at 2:11pm
-
Oh Penny, I was hoping that Clifton was the rare town with, in Eric's words, a dysfunctional group who didn't know their jobs. I'm afraid it's more prevalent than is good for the citizens. However, it is up to the citizens to oversee their town government and act to make it better. I don't know which is more disheartening, the bumbling (and in some cases dishonest) town officials or the indifferent (or in some cases dishonest) citizens of the town.
Eric indicated that maybe better members were voted in, nope this bunch has this town bound and gagged. And they're not afraid to sic lawyers on you if you get out of line. Disagree with the powers that be and you are scrutinized and vilified.
We overwhelmed our town meeting on a moratorium as well. But it's a new building on a slab and being a fine late spring evening we went out behind and held our meeting standing in the backyard. Unfortunately, then we had to file through the town office to vote. In the open with the clerk watching us mark our vote and no one checking us off. Colored slips of paper were given to voters when they checked in to the meeting but they didn't collect those when we voted so people will milling all over the building and the grounds and could have voted twice or more. We lost something like 180 no to 175 yes. Paul Fuller and his wife embraced and celebrated. Most town meetings have a turnout of 40 at the most. So we felt really proud of getting the voters out but hard to sustain that for months and years of struggle. Many here have gone on with their lives and ignore town government. I guess the saying 'you can't fight city hall' has some validity in many people's minds.
-
-
Thank you for that post, Eric Tuttle. It would seem that town selectmen can abuse their powers. In Carthage we voted to preserve the top of Saddleback Mountain, town owned, in its natural state for the people of Carthage to enjoy. This was a special vote held when Carthage was planning it's land use for the future. The selectmen never followed through with that vote, however. Later, when I heard the announcement on the radio while driving to work that Carthage was going to be the sight of the biggest wind farm in the state on Saddleback Mountain, I nearly drove off the road. I called the first selectman to ask why the town hadn't been involved in this process or informed of this huge industrial development and he told me that the selectmen had decided these things on behalf of the citizens because, basically, they, the board members, knew what was best for Carthage. That's when I first discovered that the vote to protect Saddleback had never been acted upon. In another special vote held at the grange hall to decide on a moratorium of the wind power project, the vote was held upstairs in the grange hall, which was inaccessible to voters with disabilities, several of whom were against the wind project, and when all the residents were upstairs just prior to the vote, the building settled abruptly by about six inches, causing an evacuation of another group of people. The vote was illegal, basically, and the moratorium lost by two or three votes. Thinking back on how everything unfolded, it seems surreal. Becoming informed is great advice, and the time to become informed is not after the horse has been let out of the barn.
-
-
IMAGE: no hyperlinks
-
-
The Government Oversight Committee is such a protective measure and committee.
Communities have a right to have their watchdogs also, so as to advise the people of the community on such authority as actors of their community.
-
-
They way to get ahead of this type of board, is first to remove their granted permissions to act in behalf of the town outside of the scope of dispensing funds that were voted upon as required by state statute.
This permission is often assumed as past practice in most communities, however it is suppose to be voted upon at each annual meeting, as to how much they may do in behalf of the community above and beyond the state requirements.
Any town that does not do this is not only foolish, but may be allowing an illegal act to be committed upon those citizens that did not vote for any reason. To not restrain annually the potential of corruptness by local governance is literally stupid and shows that its citizens will take what they get, good bad or ugly. The board members may be there for a 3 year cycle, however annually that authority should be reviewed based on past actions (all not just one issue) and either limited to certain issues, or restrained completely or totally permissive.
-
Comment by Jim Wiegand on October 1, 2016 at 4:26pm
-
-
-
Just finished watching 3-1/2 hours of the video of the Clifton Selectboard. Nothing much to do with wind, however they seem to be the most dysfunctional group not knowing their jobs or where to get the answers. (but that was then) Hopefully this board has cycled to change for the better, however it sounds like that would not be the case. If not then maybe it is high time for a legal investigation by the state into past acts and actions. Though on the Recall ordinance, one person had it correct in that if the board did not move the petition to be placed on the annual warrant, the petitioners could utilize (A) notary (from anywhere in the state) to call the meeting for a vote within the specified time frame from the date of receipt of the petition and its signature validation. The notary must only serve notice to the board that the meeting has been called and as to the date and time. The request was obviously denied by the board for a warrant article which drove it to become a petition. The chances of them acting on the question may have increased, however the notary path is the state's provision to override a possible corrupt local governance. This is the path that Dover-Foxcroft Rights Based Ordinance petitioners failed to carry through on, when met with a Board that has a history of bad influential behavior toward citizens with favor / disfavor.
They way to get ahead of this type of board, is first to remove their granted permissions to act in behalf of the town outside of the scope of dispensing funds that were voted upon as required by state statute.
Any special funds raised or held by request of the citizens by a warrant vote for special use would though then require a community vote to dispense. Acts to even discuss with likes of wind companies would be unauthorized and not binding, and possibly subject those individuals to an immediate recall (with such an ordinance) and create an immediate suspension of any further acts.
Removal of this ability that is relegated to most select boards to avoid continuous voting on issues by the citizens which common place authority, is of the utmost importance but this would need to be removed by either an ordinance or a warrant question. Blind Power keeps the citizens Blind from potential corruption. This is why more citizen participation is needed.
-
-
The irony of our time....... Corruption rules and with it comes their fraud based solutions to the world's problems.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
Maine as Third World Country:
CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power
Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
Not yet a member?
Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?
We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi
Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!
Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law
Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future
"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine