The citizens of Rumford have voted to accept a very negative wind power ordinance. The selectmen received help from committee people who drafted the first ordinance and others.
The town manager assured Rumford voters that a “yes” or “no” vote was for the ordinance only and not for a wind facility when, in fact, the ordinance is so restrictive that First Wind facility has notified the town that it has pulled out.
The third ordinance was more like the first one, with negative items limiting any wind facilities coming to Rumford.
When the mill closes, it will be too late for a wind company to come here.
I am a pro-wind supporter and believe we need to start cleaning our environment. The United States should not be sacrificing troops by sending them to foreign countries, fighting to provide needed oil resources for consumption here.
The landowners have lost sale or easement income from any wind facility coming to Rumford. I believe the only way they can show their disappointment is to close all their land for public use in Rumford. The town would not give them any tax breaks for their losses. The town has lost tax income from a wind farm worth millions of dollars.
Maybe we are all losers from any tax relief.
Richard McInnis, Rumford
Report a correction
congrats to Rumford
Mr. McGinnis states we need to start cleaning our environment. I agree, but wind turbines are sucking money away from things which might work ,like solar, hydro, and tidal not to mention new tech nukes which are much safer than the half century old plants which are due to be decommissioned anyway. The tree cutting for trans. lines, roads, buildings, etc. and the spraying to prevent tree regrowth is counterproductive to cleaning the env., and if one looks further to China, they will see where the nasty turbines begin. Google Baiyun Obo rare earth mines. We are only getting 29% of our oil from the Middle East. If they cut our supply off, big deal. We could even import from Venezuela. As far as war, humans have a propensity for it and I am sure another reason would be found. It was revenge for the bombing of the WTCs that Iraq and Afg. were invaded, not oil. I think it would be a mistake to expect the landowners to be petty and close their lands. They were doing fine before the wind turbine circus invaded the area, and will be fine after. When people say they are for wind power , how do you know what size they are talking about? Many would favor smaller turbines but not the industrial size ones which are the most objectionable. If the wind developers want to leave the state, GREAT!!! Maine won't miss you.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.protected under the migratory bird act
The Production Tax Credit has been the primary federal financial support mechanism for wind, which rewards developers and investors with 2.2 cents per kWh over 10 years. The main source of revenue for projects are PTCs, and trading renewable energy market certificates (RECs).
And stimulis grants and backed up loans. And tax revenue from your town.
We should not let out of staters take our money and our land.
The developer is not going to stop at 22 turbines. River Valley will have no tourism if some measures are not taken to protect it's n atural beauty.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Chateaugay, NY wind farm ...71 turbines!
If you want to see the largest wind farm East of the MIssissippi; drive to Plattsburgh and 'tour' the Chateaugay, NY wind farm. It is becoming quite controversial.
First, low power rates canceled a second farm with 13 turbines....see video of turbine collapsing http://www.wptz.com/r/18870331/detail.html
"But after review of anticipated construction costs and factoring in continued payouts to easement holders and poor rates on power-production credits from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, "Noble has concluded that the ongoing carrying costs are not justified," the letter states."
The turbines are sited on dairy farms and defray taxes; but the interesting thing is to see cows and crops underneath the towers, which raises the question of the impact of these huge rotating blades on migrating geese----this is a major flyway; esp. since the geese feed on grain not harvested, and in turn they leave fertilizer. Drive away the geese and you lose the fertilizer and you have to contend with seed that sprouts next spring.
Do the turbines kill migrating geese as well as diverting them from agriculture lands? It's a question that's gotten the attention of at least one ornithologist at Syracuse U. who questions initial studies using radar which were not done during migratory periods but in summer. Given tip speeds of 180 mph, and bad weather flying he assumes a higher kill rate than early studies indicated.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Rumford's HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL
While I respect the letter writer's zeal and forceful advocacy for corporate wind farming; he forgets that Rumford has long used water power to generate electricity.
There is a long list of reasons why hydro-power is so much better than wind farms...much smaller footprint, no carbon absorbing forest lost, flood & ice damage mitigation, recreational benefits, maintenance of a fishery, generation of power 24/7 and little need for instant on backup now using fossil fueled generators, enhancement of property values from the creation of shoreline and in turn increases in property tax revenue, and finally CHEAP power. The town of Madison generates its own power and if my reading of the PUC base rates is correct they are selling it at 4 cents/KwH. Maybe less, maybe a little more; but far less expensive than the est. 52 cents for wind farm energy.
To be sure there are concerns about facilitating fish passage; but this is a consideration that can be easily engineered into every restored dam or weir. There are a number of successful restorations of alewife runs in New Brunswick and Mass. using diversion weirs.
Taking down a dam can result in the loss of an entire aquatic habitat and all the life forms it sustains...plants that absorb CO2 and cleanse the water way of pollutants; fish that can become a food source for a world with a rapidly expanding population; and more importantly a storage tank for future droughts predicted by eco-alarmists.
The down side of wind farms is ignored by these loud voices. They don't want you to know about the amount of forest lost to transmission lines or access roads, and the runoff contribution these clear cuts have----note how the runoff from Sunday River tore out Rt. 27 and two bridges. They don't want you to know that people who paid a 30% premium for their rural retreat's view-line's find having a 400' tall wind turbine in the middle of it not exactly what they bought, nor representative of that image of Maine found in DOWN EAST magazine and many others like it.
Maine's economy and heritage was built using water power. It's time to restore hydro-powered village life and the communities where people can kayak, bike and walk to a high tech. business that uses inexpensive power generated locally and reliably.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Oops! Wrong resort
Minor correction to an otherwise insightful analysis of water power. It was at Sugarloaf/Carrabassett Valley that the recent flood did damage to Rt. 27, not Sunday River. Whether it is a road or a village, if it is built in a 100 year flood plain, it is bound to sustain flood damage at some point. It is nature's reminder as to what really rules the planet.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Thanks....for the catch..
I use GOOGLE EARTH to assess sites for microhydro and I used it to scan the two Rt.27 washouts. What was once a largely forested, and scarcely populated valley has been cut off and sectioned into vacation/second home sites,including access roads and drainage ditches. To make matters worse, there is an 18 hole golf course upstream probably designed to shed water. No wonder the bridges washed out! Drove through upstate NYC and VT. and there were similar instances of washouts in areas where there has been vacation home development and loss of forest cover.
Would a set of small dams and weirs better manage flooding? Probably, just look at the Androscoggin, once a raging river, now flooding is managed with timed releases. Taking out these dams is insane in regions where watersheds are being denuded and partially paved over.
Btw.thanks for the catch, but you can't edit posts....I've made my views known to the editor.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Rumford's Wind Ordinance
At least the people of Rumford got to vote three times. The people of Woodstock got no vote. The wind supporters slid in a change in the building permit and site plan ordinance and voted it in while everyone else was out making a living working. The trust of the citizens of Woodstock has been broken. Woodstock now has a 10 turbine wind project on Spruce Mountain and can be seen for 50 miles. Did anyone consider the health affects of these machines on pedestals and the affect they have on the townships who charge a "View Tax"? What will be said when the people who have ended up with just wind turbines in their view? What if, they decide that the tax is not worth the view? Did anyone other than the land owners, lessee and leasers really think the others affected would get any money? This is private business and Business is Business. Rumford needed to make the wind industry responsible in protecting the people before industry. The health affects out weigh the private money being thinly spread over Rumford.It should also be said that First Wind was forced by the State of New York, to sign an ethics contract because First Wind wasn't doing business in a fair and ethical way.This lead to First Wind moving to Maine instead of continuing their projects in New York State. They would like us to think it was industrial expansion, only I fear that they, First Wind, might have been run out of New York.
There have been a lot of things said By Patriot Renewables in Woodstock that seem to be changing as the project is built. the latest rumor is that the 20 year project will be ended in 10 years. That would mean that the town of Woodstock will miss out on 10 years of tax money and Patriot Renewables will never have to pay a dime of decommissioning costs. De-commissioning cost begins at year 12.If this is true, please tell me who isn't keeping their end of the insinuations made about building the Woodstock Spruce Mountain Wind Project? I applaud the citizens of Rumford in creating safe guidelines for an industry who is more concerned with federal dollars, than the safety of the citizens. I would remind the people of Rumford that it is the backers of the wind industry that has cut off the wood for the mill and broken their contract. It is a manipulation tactic being used to doubt your decision of the wind ordinance in your town. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Rumford citizens walk proud and realize that it is not about for wind or against wind,IT IS ABOUT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF YOUR COMMUNITY.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Rumford, Just another day in the Wind Scam
As was said before by educated others on this subject,
"I would like to recommend the independent film "Windfall" Produced by Laura Isreal
http://windfallthemovie.com/index_1.html
What is highlighted in the film is the covert way that wind developers operate. Targetting elected officials with large tracts of land,ignoring the majority of people who will have to live in the shadows of turbines owned by utility companies and billionaire investors.
Making false claims about the impacts that wind development will have on established land uses, future development and the property values of the area.
Intensionally pitting neighbor against neighbor. What they are doing is comparable to scattering a handful of twenty dollar bills in a crowd of people at city hall while their associates are are across the street robbing the bank".
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/windfall
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.and Sun Journal, BTW, please report on this one
PERU APPROVES WIND MORATORUIM!
"Peru Voters Overwhelmingly Approve Wind Moratorium"
see please,
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/peru-voters-overwhelmingly-a...
The TRUTH concerning the Wind Scam in Maine has a way of spreading doesn't it Messrs McInnis, Mcaffrey and Belanger.
You serve, you do not rule in this society (try as you may to do otherwise).
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The wind ordinance vote was
The wind ordinance vote was by democratic process. The land use issue is a thorny one. If an industrial pig farmer targeted Rumford because it was a "stinky mill town", I'd like to think the townspeople would put up an equal stink to protect their own property values and quality of life. Extra tax dollars for the town are always nice to get, but if those tax dollars place undue burden on the town's residents, that has to be taken into consideration. I think the town of Rumford is a very beautiful place, and I'm glad the residents voted to keep it that way.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Mr. McInnis, Mr. Belanger,
Mr. McInnis, Mr. Belanger, and Mr. McCaffrey, has it ever occurred to you that this lengthy public debate might have been good for Rumford, as it gave residents an opportunity to learn more about wind power than what has been propagandized over the last decade or so in the great "greenwashing" of America? That just maybe, the majority made an informed decision? That just maybe they believe in the town setting the standards by which wind must operate and that includes protecting the interests of ALL RESIDENTS from the negative impact of industrial wind development? That just maybe, more than a few people have driven out in proximity of the Record Hill project and decided that isn't what they want on top of their town?
Contrary to your sour notes, I am quite inspired by the community of Rumford. I think it has a better future than you folks project, especially without wind turbines as tall as Boston skyscrapers on top of blasted away Black Mt. or any other locations in town.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Hey Brad, You are not paying
Hey Brad, You are not paying attention. The majority of people wrote down at the poles they wanted wind development. What part of that do you not understand?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (6) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I understand
First of all, the word is polls when referring to places where people vote, not poles. Second, I understand the results of voting. You lost your push for whatever you think you might gain from having Rumford ravaged by industrial wind development, so perhaps you strident wind supporters should get over it. One of the most common results of the wind developers wanting to take advantage of towns is the schism, often rancorous, that divides communities. More and more people are saying they recognize the tremendous negatives associated with wind power development and do not want it in their communities. Or, they are saying wind power development can come to our town and I support it, but on our terms. Perhaps that is the true meaning to poll results. Considering the influence First Wind has tried to have in Rumford, this is a stinging defeat for the meddlesome company.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.So now you don't like the democratic process, BECAUSE YOU LOST!
Mr. McInnis,
When put to an honest democratic vote by an informed electorate, WIND Scoundrels like First Wind and those that succumb to their bribery, will always lose.
Residents under constitutional home rule of Maine have superior rights to those self serving, subsidy sucking property owners who now are upset they can't be welfare recipients to the federal buck and have lost a civic fight, under the law.
Citizens have the rights, indeed the responsibility to protect our area, health, and pocket books.
The only protection from scoundrels and liars and deceivers is an informed and active electorate.
You don't like it , Tough.
Wind companies and those who they bribe know that communities all over Maine are rising up and protecting themselves from the wind scoundrels, like First Wind and their community destructive tactics.
The game is up
Three citizen votes, three loses for the wind scoundrels.
Give it a try the forth time, or try to unorganize Rumford perhaps into a medieval fiefdom perhaps, and you may win, but not under Maine State constitutional law.
That to might be illegal don't you think?
There are communities that can be bought,(like the dirty political and underhanded town of Lincoln, also known as Haynes-town, where First Wind illegally got a project in ).
It is wonderful that Rumford citizens have educated themselves and put a stop to the illegalities of wind scoundrels, by seizing their home rule powers.
As far as the land owning self serving abusers I say, shut off your land, close the gates, and citizens will flip the bird to you!
It will be well deserved!
Just remember have the self-serving land owners pay their land taxes, without our money!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It seems to me the selectmen
It seems to me the selectmen again went againts the will of the people. The majority of comments writen at the poles showed that Rumford tax payers want wind development and some people thought, because of the lies that were spread, that voting yes meant you were voting for wind. Well the oposite was true. The people of Rumford got the wool pulled over there eyes. As far as the mill goes they have done an internal study and the demand for paper is projected to decrease by 50% in five years. Where will Rumford be then. I do not beleive granting TIFs to pizza joints is the solution..
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (6) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.As I stated...
Ordinances can be amended.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Closing land not the solution
I understand that there were some people who were eager to make money off the wind-power project, and this ordinance has prevented this from happening. However, we are all adults here, and a school-yard response is not in the town's best interest. We have had trouble attracting jobs to the area; industrial jobs have not been brought in, which means retail jobs are not being developed. The one asset we have that could attract some added revenue to our community is tourism. Unfortunately, over the years, poor community planning has left us without public recreation trails, such as those in some communities developed on former railroad beds. We need to rely upon the generosity of landowners to permit access. Tourism may not provide the same revenue as manufacturing jobs, but it can help our sinking economy. There are people out there who are trying to make a living on the tourism trade. Shutting down land access to visitors is taking away income to them. If we shut off all sources of revenue, our town will become the slum that many perceive it to be already.
In the middle of a lake, it is unwise to tell people on a sinking boat that they cannot use your bucket to bail out the water.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I have to agree
and this is not because I am either pro or anti wind. The ordinance effectively undercut any landowner from using his property as he/she saw fit and this, to me, seems like the act of a government gone insane.
The idea that a municipality would produce an ordinance so restrictive that it would prevent any Industry, that didn't involve pizza and sandwiches, from setting up shop in town seems self defeating. Given the fact that the local paper mill has declared bankruptcy, one would think that any industry would be welcomed here. Yeah, I know all about the TIFs and other crap that says the wind farms wouldn't actually pay any taxes, blah, blah, blah. So you write the ordinance so that they WOULD pay taxes, and so They WOULD pay part of the electric bills. If Byron and Roxbury can figure out a way to make it pay for them, I would think that the selectpersons in Rumford would be able to figure out how to make it work for us.
All of you voters who were against this, I want you to ask yourselves, seriously, what real difference did it make to you? You talk a big game about the environment but when was the last time that any of you REALLY spent time out there? I'll be honest and say I don't remember, but I do know that the wind mills, when, I do look up and notice them, don't look any worse than the clearcuts that I used to see all over the sides of the mountains. And better than that, the windmills are at least generating an income for somebody, even if it's not you.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (9) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If Byron and Roxbury can figure out a way to make it pay for the
If Byron and Roxbury can figure out a way to make it pay for them,
Byron told Angus to go back to the coast.
Roxbury has no tax status change with Angus et. al. holdings on Record Hill.
Is Angus still paying tree growth?
Roxbury residents saw decrease in tax bills last year because costs were cut and student enrollment changed. NOT because Angus paid anyone.
When does Roxbury get free electricity?
Roxbury can shelter taxes in their own rainy day fund. Ask Mike Rogers of Maine Revenue.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.