Comment by Sue Hobart (Falmouth, Mass.) on 07/10/2011 at 9:35 pm
Yet we are still pounded here…. Poor Barry [Funfar] is the sweetest guy around. I used to be a sweet person too…. Now I am nothing but angry or sick [Wind Turbine Syndrome] ….
I despise this godforsaken town and State.
My life has been literally “blown away,” and so has Barry’s….
Something about having to start from scratch at 50 something or more just makes it hardly worth living…. And still the turbine in my backyard turns and turns as the owner lives happily in his 2-million dollar home and sails his boat all week long…. Dan Webb … aka Float Realty Trust … privately owned … paid for by mostly state grants….
There is a special place in hell for him, I hope….
Not to mention the town officials in Falmouth, and Governer Patrick Duvall, who says Falmouth is right in line with his goals….
Comment by gail (Italy) on 07/11/2011 at 2:48 am
I felt suicidal at times, until we abandoned our house in Tuscany (Italy) 2008, but you never really do start from scratch; you take all your accumulated experience with you. My husband and I were 52 and 59 in 2008, and discovered that we had more energy to fight this scourge away from the scene of the crime.
I feel sick when I think that others are still in this position and wish you all the very best with your fight.
Remember, we have supporters all over the world.
I concentrate on us winning. I see we’ve won and I’m celebrating. Join in!
Barry, I hope you’re reading this, my friend, and all you other victims of Falmouth wind turbines—and all other wind turbines.
Let me put it this way: If all you Barry Funfars and Stephana Johnstons (Ontario) and Tracy Whitworths (Ontario) and Lindgrens (Maine) and Eatons (Oregon) and Janssens (Australia) and Davises (UK) hang in there, and don’t put a bullet in your heads, but keep fighting this “scourge” (as Gail puts it)—then Nina & I will continue to do battle alongside you. And I know Dr. Sarah Laurie will continue to fight the “good fight,” as well.
Remember, “We, the People” matter, not these goddam corrupt governments and their sham agencies, all of which are but an arm of corporations.
Is it a deal?
Comment by S Parkinson (Mass.) on 07/11/2011 at 6:51 am
Write to Rachel Maddow. She is smart. She is using turbines in her promos. Make her aware that this is misplaced support for a profound issue that requires something more than replacing the Robber Baron’s oil rigs with wind machines, and she is now promoting a position she might want to revisit.
The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC) was stuck with these two commercial wind turbines in 2005 at $3300.00 per month in a warehouse in Texas. They were out of warranty and were holding a contest to try and sell these two turbines to some town in Massachusetts.
The MTC paid for the Preliminary Wind Turbine Financial Analysis and all the favorable reports to install these two wind turbines as they were stuck with millions of dollars worth of old turbines.
The towns of Fairhaven and Mattapoisett fought their own towns over the setbacks to these same turbines that were being used in the contest to see which towns in Massachusetts would receive the turbines first.
The big question is how much more noise do these older turbines make if they are the same old turbines proposed for Orleans in 2004? Why was the MTC stuck with these two turbines for five years? What was the deal the MTC and the Town of Falmouth made for these two turbines if indeed they are the two antiquated out of warranty turbines from 2004? Did the wind sound study include the date and year of manufacture of the turbines?
We need to find the actual date and time these turbines were built and go forward from there! We also need to see how federal stimulus funds were used to purchase the two old, out of warranty turbines. If stimulus funds were used, did the money go back to a quasi-state agency for profit? Click here for the website for the two turbines.
The MTC is a quasi-state agency. The only way to keep the employees of the MTC quiet was to bump them up to the MassCEC.
The Mass. Attorney General should look into this whole mess!
Comment by Helen (New Zealand) on 07/11/2011 at 8:02 pm
Do keep on!! We won, using arguments concening noise effects on health—particularly on the development of young children and babies and the later cost to government and society, landscape degradation, silt runoff into streams causing pollution during construction, devaluation of nearby homes, danger to native birds and bats, damage to an outstanding landmark which is of importance to tangata whenua (local Maori people), and lack of real value because turbines need backup when there is no wind.
Landscape degradation, silt runoff and noise were the chief deciding factors in the decision. The Environment Court in fact decided to cut the allowable number of turbines from 125 to under half, which the applicant deemed unviable. The applicant had in fact gone bankrupt during proceedings and was trying to sell the proposal, so the reduced number approved made sales impossible. The one thing that was clear to us was that, long before [all this came pass], we should have ensured that the city council had defined zones where turbines should or should not be built. We are now hammering that out.