GREED CORRUPTION BRIBERY GRAFT BROUGHT TO YOU BY AVANGRID

Comment

Comment by Paula D Kelso on October 13, 2016 at 8:41pm

To be clear, Clifton and Pisgah are a little different story from most of the projects, more like Freedom.

There will be 5 1.8 MW turbines for a total of 9 MW plate capacity.

The state mandate of tangible benefit of $5,000 per MW per year to the community doesn't apply to Pisgah, but out of the goodness of their hearts they have promised to do so anyway. One good thing in Clifton's ordinance, at least so far, does not require there to be a promise of tangible benefit.  A philosophical stance opposing buying a permit, but in reality the offer of free money worked for the developer. And maintaining a key private road in town that key people live on didn't hurt.

We have a little more than 700 tax accounts, a few more than 400 of those residential and of those 400 almost 100 are seasonal residences. A large %age of the residential are shorefront and have the highest taxes and those people in particular found the extra tax money coming in attractive. It's worth remarking that many who opposed the wind facility were among the lower taxed. One might have thought it would have been reversed. People with money wouldn't want their property values hurt. People less well off would have wanted lower taxes. But be it ever so humble, a person's home is their castle and worth fighting for.

On the budget impact of the facility, the town's budget is about $325,000 for town government and services, about $180,000 for county tax and $600,000 for the school district assessment. The promise of $250,000 in taxes plus the $45,000 sounds like manna from heaven. The county and the school district will bump up their assessments and the state will lower its revenue sharing. Hence the argument for a TIF. If one looks at my post about the ownership and financing of Pisgah, one might well ask why the Clifton taxpayers would want to help finance this project. I don't know what the decision was on a TIF, but at least I don't think it is still in the game here.

Comment by Democratic-Republican on October 13, 2016 at 6:07pm

45,000 per year......... the town sold cheap if turbines are sited within the community. 

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2015/03/05/anti-wind-development-gr...

• The 206-megawatt Bingham project would have turbines located on property in Bingham, Abbot, Parkman, Mayfield Township and Kingsbury Plantation. It has reached agreements to make for 20 years annual payments of $106,900 to Bingham, $20,000 to Moscow, Abbot and Parkman, and $176,000 to Kingsbury Plantation.

Parkman and Abbot should receive $20,000 per year for 20 years for the ROW access of the lines (no turbines).

Moscow and Mayfield I believe got more than what was stated here, however Parkman may already be in debt on the deal with this springs destruction of town roads. 

Comment by Pineo Girl on October 13, 2016 at 4:37pm

Just what I thought - Like the Pisgah project!

Comment by Paula D Kelso on October 13, 2016 at 4:22pm

From the NY times article:

Still, the payment proposal has left a sour taste. As The Rutland Herald put it in an editorial on Sunday, “The naked offer of money to individual citizens may be even more corrosive to the civic life of the town than the potential environmental effects of the wind turbines.”

Yep, is your vote for sale for ~$400 or ~$1100 a year (depending on whether Grafton or Windham property owner)? There oughta be a law. And the kicker is that it will be years before you even see that 400 or 1100.  And I'm sure there's some fine print somewhere (or no print at all as in our Clifton situation, taking the offer of $45,000 to the town per year as a done deal without the formalities to make it a legally binding agreement) that allows for circumstances on not honoring the pay-out.