"A public hearing held on the proposed ordinance last week was attended by a majority of people who opposed wind development."
This public hearing was open to all citizens , those who favor wind development as well as those opposed.
How many times has the town conducted public meetings/hearings where a vote was held to determine the public's opinion. Every time these votes were upheld and those who didn't attend , but opposed the outcome of the vote, were told they should have attended and voiced their opinion.
The people attending the public hearing on the proposed ordinance left no doubt that they wanted a more protective ordinance to vote on. A petition with 145 signatures was handed to the selectboard and indicated the same public desire.
Now, after 3 years into the process, this board wants to spend what is left of a $10,000 dollar donation from the wind developer to persuade the public to accept wind development. Is it their intent to represent their own interests or the people's interests ?
I suggest that the public hearings proposed by this board be held at the community room at Dirigo High School, because , if the people weren't loud enough for the board to hear them at the first hearing, they will be more than happy to take the board members to the wood shed next time.
Is enticement of the appearence of easy money so overwhelming to this select board, that they can't hear their people anymore. A good 60 people out of the 75 attending this hearing wanted a more protective ordinance than offered by the select board and wanted it done so it could be voted on June 12th.
Buying into this wind to electrcity idea is risky, economically. To think that covering the landscape with enough of these machines will bring prosperity to us all is simply the same menality used to sell sub prime mortgages so that it seemed everyone could afford a house. Falling for this wind scam now because the money looks great will only lead to pay back of huge porportions later as the concept of wind to electricity fails, one wind turbine at a time.
The headlines from the Sun Journal of October 27, 2010 reads :
Wind ordinance ballot question withdrawn
“DIXFIELD — In a last-minute decision Monday night, selectmen unanimously voted to remove a wind-power ordinance question from next week's ballot.”
“Rather than have people vote on something that is unclear, we would rather withdraw it and be able to clarify it at a later time,” Clarke said.
Clarke’s reason for withdrawing was because Tom Carroll had pointed out that wording in the ordinance could prevent the project from taking place. ( select board meeting, Oct 24,2010 )
Clearly, the board wants an ordinance that will allow a wind development on Colonel Holman Mountain.
This is an illogical and unjust maneuver aimed to catch the voters off-guard.
Illogical because those who want to allow the wind project will most likely vote to enact this ordinance, but those who don’t want to allow the wind project, even with a vote against this ordinance, will accomplishe nothing to prevent the project, as the permitting for such a project will, then, fall into the hands of the DEP, whose lenient regulations has never brought denial to any wind project.
Unjust because it gives the voting public no choice. Whether your vote is for the ordinance or against the ordinance, there is no way to stop the project.
Dixfield voters are entitled to have a choice and this can be accomplished by attending the hearing and demanding the ordinance proposed by Clarke/Donahue be “tweaked” to replace it’s leniency with a more responsible setbacks, as over twenty or more towns throughout Maine have done.
What is this, singling out Dixfield for the biggest increase ? Between the past few RSU 10 budgets and, now, this budget, Dixfield is getting slammed and a little sick of this.
Canton, I don't believe, has any type of site or noise ordinance that would address wind turbine projects. This DEP public meeting was the town's first exposure to any type of rules and regulations expressively written for wind development. The DEP rules, as depicted in this article, are very questionable, leaving the town not sufficiency protected against loss of property values and concerns due to noise. This meeting should be a " Red Flag " alert to the town to consider a moratorium. The DEP rules are not that difficult to understand. The town has now heard, for the first time, some of their rules. Hopefully, the town will follow suit with almost all the other area surrounding towns and consider whether the DEP rules are adequate for their comfort. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
The collusion between the wind developers and the DEP ( the rule makers) makes Canton no more special than any other town. The DEP has never denied a development and this process of public meeting is basically a joke. But, I love zeroing in on the State Agencies and rattling their cages. A good old Canton stand up against these greasy, government know-it-alls is necessary here
Read this following excerpt from a recent article in this newspaper and tell me how a town manager gets to tell the select board how to respond to a citizen petition, advocating the citizens be left out in the cold. Who is whose boss, anyways ?
"Town Manager Eugene Skibitksy said Tuesday that the board has no responsibility to place another ordinance before townspeople because a proposal to devise an ordinance was voted down at a town meeting in May of 2011. With that action, the town has agreed to follow the state Department of Environmental Protection regulations for wind development."
Shame on the Dixfield Select Board ! Given the duty, by the people to write and offer to the people , a wind ordinance providing protections against the adverse effects of wind turbines, THEY FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PEOPLE'S WISHES. NO ORDINANCE, WHY ? The people voted (52 for to 11 against) to adopt a moratorium on wind which included the following provision : " The Purpose of this Ordinance is to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of Dixfield by fostering orderly wind energy facility development. During the term of the moratorium the Town of Dixfield will determine the most appropriate methods to regulate wind energy facilities and prepare appropriate municipal ordinances to achieve such."
We have a town manager telling us he would like to have the select board DENY a forthcoming petition that would offer the voters of Dixfield a chance to vote for a wind ordinance written to protect and based on the latest science and evidence of the impacts from wind turbines. Is this what we expect from a town manager ? , someone who was part of the committee that failed to perform the duty as 52 to 11 people mandated and now advocates the people should be allowed no voice in calling for an adequate wind ordinance for Dixfield ?
Scott, the vote at the town meeting took place at 9:30 pm on a weeknight and after 3 and a half hours of contentious give and take over municipal budget items. People were tired and an offer to discuss wind regulations wasn't too appealing and was voted down 30-25. This article only asked if people wanted to discuss the regulation process. It ran into bad timing. The question of whether to adopt DEP regulations in lieu of establishing our own regulations was never a part of this article. Your paper needs to talk to others beyond the town manager and bring truth to your stories.
"A public hearing held on the
"A public hearing held on the proposed ordinance last week was attended by a majority of people who opposed wind development."
This public hearing was open to all citizens , those who favor wind development as well as those opposed.
How many times has the town conducted public meetings/hearings where a vote was held to determine the public's opinion. Every time these votes were upheld and those who didn't attend , but opposed the outcome of the vote, were told they should have attended and voiced their opinion.
The people attending the public hearing on the proposed ordinance left no doubt that they wanted a more protective ordinance to vote on. A petition with 145 signatures was handed to the selectboard and indicated the same public desire.
Now, after 3 years into the process, this board wants to spend what is left of a $10,000 dollar donation from the wind developer to persuade the public to accept wind development. Is it their intent to represent their own interests or the people's interests ?
I suggest that the public hearings proposed by this board be held at the community room at Dirigo High School, because , if the people weren't loud enough for the board to hear them at the first hearing, they will be more than happy to take the board members to the wood shed next time.
Is enticement of the
Is enticement of the appearence of easy money so overwhelming to this select board, that they can't hear their people anymore. A good 60 people out of the 75 attending this hearing wanted a more protective ordinance than offered by the select board and wanted it done so it could be voted on June 12th.
Buying into this wind to electrcity idea is risky, economically. To think that covering the landscape with enough of these machines will bring prosperity to us all is simply the same menality used to sell sub prime mortgages so that it seemed everyone could afford a house. Falling for this wind scam now because the money looks great will only lead to pay back of huge porportions later as the concept of wind to electricity fails, one wind turbine at a time.
The headlines from the Sun
The headlines from the Sun Journal of October 27, 2010 reads :
Wind ordinance ballot question withdrawn
“DIXFIELD — In a last-minute decision Monday night, selectmen unanimously voted to remove a wind-power ordinance question from next week's ballot.”
“Rather than have people vote on something that is unclear, we would rather withdraw it and be able to clarify it at a later time,” Clarke said.
Clarke’s reason for withdrawing was because Tom Carroll had pointed out that wording in the ordinance could prevent the project from taking place. ( select board meeting, Oct 24,2010 )
Clearly, the board wants an ordinance that will allow a wind development on Colonel Holman Mountain.
This is an illogical and unjust maneuver aimed to catch the voters off-guard.
Illogical because those who want to allow the wind project will most likely vote to enact this ordinance, but those who don’t want to allow the wind project, even with a vote against this ordinance, will accomplishe nothing to prevent the project, as the permitting for such a project will, then, fall into the hands of the DEP, whose lenient regulations has never brought denial to any wind project.
Unjust because it gives the voting public no choice. Whether your vote is for the ordinance or against the ordinance, there is no way to stop the project.
Dixfield voters are entitled to have a choice and this can be accomplished by attending the hearing and demanding the ordinance proposed by Clarke/Donahue be “tweaked” to replace it’s leniency with a more responsible setbacks, as over twenty or more towns throughout Maine have done.
What is this, singling out
What is this, singling out Dixfield for the biggest increase ? Between the past few RSU 10 budgets and, now, this budget, Dixfield is getting slammed and a little sick of this.
Sorry, but you are still
Sorry, but you are still reporting incorrect information
Canton, I don't believe, has
Canton, I don't believe, has any type of site or noise ordinance that would address wind turbine projects. This DEP public meeting was the town's first exposure to any type of rules and regulations expressively written for wind development. The DEP rules, as depicted in this article, are very questionable, leaving the town not sufficiency protected against loss of property values and concerns due to noise. This meeting should be a " Red Flag " alert to the town to consider a moratorium. The DEP rules are not that difficult to understand. The town has now heard, for the first time, some of their rules. Hopefully, the town will follow suit with almost all the other area surrounding towns and consider whether the DEP rules are adequate for their comfort. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
The collusion between the
The collusion between the wind developers and the DEP ( the rule makers) makes Canton no more special than any other town. The DEP has never denied a development and this process of public meeting is basically a joke. But, I love zeroing in on the State Agencies and rattling their cages. A good old Canton stand up against these greasy, government know-it-alls is necessary here
Read this following excerpt
Read this following excerpt from a recent article in this newspaper and tell me how a town manager gets to tell the select board how to respond to a citizen petition, advocating the citizens be left out in the cold. Who is whose boss, anyways ?
"Town Manager Eugene Skibitksy said Tuesday that the board has no responsibility to place another ordinance before townspeople because a proposal to devise an ordinance was voted down at a town meeting in May of 2011. With that action, the town has agreed to follow the state Department of Environmental Protection regulations for wind development."
Shame on the Dixfield Select
Shame on the Dixfield Select Board ! Given the duty, by the people to write and offer to the people , a wind ordinance providing protections against the adverse effects of wind turbines, THEY FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PEOPLE'S WISHES. NO ORDINANCE, WHY ? The people voted (52 for to 11 against) to adopt a moratorium on wind which included the following provision : " The Purpose of this Ordinance is to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of Dixfield by fostering orderly wind energy facility development. During the term of the moratorium the Town of Dixfield will determine the most appropriate methods to regulate wind energy facilities and prepare appropriate municipal ordinances to achieve such."
We have a town manager telling us he would like to have the select board DENY a forthcoming petition that would offer the voters of Dixfield a chance to vote for a wind ordinance written to protect and based on the latest science and evidence of the impacts from wind turbines. Is this what we expect from a town manager ? , someone who was part of the committee that failed to perform the duty as 52 to 11 people mandated and now advocates the people should be allowed no voice in calling for an adequate wind ordinance for Dixfield ?
Scott, the vote at the town
Scott, the vote at the town meeting took place at 9:30 pm on a weeknight and after 3 and a half hours of contentious give and take over municipal budget items. People were tired and an offer to discuss wind regulations wasn't too appealing and was voted down 30-25. This article only asked if people wanted to discuss the regulation process. It ran into bad timing. The question of whether to adopt DEP regulations in lieu of establishing our own regulations was never a part of this article. Your paper needs to talk to others beyond the town manager and bring truth to your stories.