Skip to content

Duxbury Selectmen Heed Citizen Message

January 6, 2012

“After the local opposition group Duxbury Wind Wise made its presentation, Duxbury’s selectmen voted to recommend that the town’s Alternative Energy Committee give up a plan to seek local funding to continue its study of the North Hill site.”  This is the crux of a January 5, 2012 article by Boston Globe correspondent Robert Knox.

Duxbury projet area

But instead of leading with this actual news, Knox sells his article with the false assertions of pro-wind advocates. Knox quotes the cochairman of Sustainable Duxbury and the chairman of the Sustainable Energy Committee accusing that there are outside resources being used to influence the town.

It is somewhat understandable that this reporter might have mixed up Duxbury Wind Wise with Wind Wise ~ Massachusetts. WWMA is a statewide alliance, not an organization. Before its name was chosen in May 2011 there was already a Windwise Cape Cod and Fairhaven. Since then Duxbury adopted a variation of the wind wise phrase. Other affiliates were more direct, as with No Brimfield Wind or more circumspect, as in the case of Preserve Lenox Mountain. Each group addresses its own concerns in the way it finds best for its community, and when necessary raises funds for lawn signs, bumper stickers, billboards, lawyers, consultants, and speakers.

These groups have at least one thing in common. They pool information from experts, from people living with turbines, and from investigating the project on their doorstep.

When it comes to industrial wind, the facts speak for themselves. No expensive lobbying campaign required.

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. January 6, 2012 8:58 pm

    Speaking of wind…what a breath of fresh clean air you provide! Thank you, Wind Wise MA for all you do to aid those of us “tilting at windmills” in our quest for the responsible siting of wind technology…our quest seeks to make a priority of public health and safety issues in addition to the private property rights of residents across this state! The precautionary rule is not being used by so many of our public officials when vetting public works projects such as these turbine facilities.
    I sat at a Board of Health meeting last night: first on the agenda was a septic review…the board was very meticulous in their review of the proposed septic system…WHY? Well, to do their jobs protecting our town from the potential adverse impacts of poorly sited and/ or built septic systems, next up on the agenda a couple who have a neighbor that owns two rather large dogs that have been penned up and depositing rather large, well you know right on the very close property line… there was much discussion on what to do with the negligent owners of said dogs…owners that have not followed-up on the BOH request that they move their pen and clean up the piles of, well you know. Why was the BOH concerned? Their responsibilities include the public health and safety of the residents of our town, they clearly take their positions seriously…fines were discussed…our BOH is rightly discussing a negligent dog owner who is posing a public health and safety risk to their neighbors a “nuisance” to say the least. Then we come to the third item on the agenda, what to do, what to say about the wind turbine proposal? Well, suffice it to say they do not know what to do…”what is our responsibility” asked one member…I understand their confusion but sense the irony that septic systems and dog droppings clearly need to be dealt with yet turbines make for a real headscratcher of an issue. One member of the BOH reflected that there are no “regulations” for them to enforce…”where are the regulations?” he queried…and therein lies one major problem…The state of Massachusetts has rushed to provide financial incentive, and grants and subsidies to our cities and towns and private developers (Mary O’Donnell, Kingston) to attract quick movement toward the development of these wind facilities…yet there has never been a parallel effort to develop public health and safety regulations to ensure the citizens of this state are being looked out for, public safety first was never a priority, and once anecdotal evidence began to trickle in did the precautionary rule kick in, sadly no…the victims of the adverse impacts were marginalized.
    The quest for income to support and fund local services has blinded our public officials to the far more important responsibility…that of ensuring public health and safety in addition to ensuring the protection of private property rights…what to do?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: