10/24/09 -

To: the Editor—

Our Town Council has been bedazzled by Deepwater’s image of Russian dancers dressed as windmills and beautiful electric rates dressed as green energy independence.

I just read the proposal in front of the Public Utilities Commission. Deepwater’s “cheap” electricity is going to cost “the grid” 30 cents per kilowatt-hour to start and go to 56 cents. I don’t know what this will translate to on a Block Island Power Company bill, but if you include BIPCo’s fee, plus a transmission fee, plus the cost of the $50 million dollar cable to support the 30-megawatt power plant, I’m willing to bet none of us are going to like it.

This does not look like cheap electricity nor does it look like energy independence. It looks like the latest hedge fund rip-off of the taxpayer dollar. Deepwater stands to gain (it is a secret because they can’t figure out exactly how much) approximately $375 million dollars in “stimulus” money plus $600 million in energy fees from the rate payer.

In my opinion, Deepwater’s scam is getting more and more obvious. These mills are metal and plastic industrial power plants that will cost us a fortune and our true island beauty while enriching hedge fund owners with our own money. I think it’s time for our town elders to notice that the emperor has no clothes.

Mike Delia

Whale Swamp Road

To: the Editor—

Some important information was not included in the discussion regarding the effort to create a zoning ordinance for wind energy systems at the transfer station. Since resigning from the Electric Utility Task Group, I feel no obligation to support the town in this effort.

My observations are from professional and historical experience. It is important to realize that the first step in the process of attempting to lower the island’s cost of electricity was for the Electric Utility Task Group, upon Block Island Power Company’s request, to make an offer to purchase the company from the four owners. For more than a year the task group worked to reach a price it considered fair and equitable to ratepayers; imagine our disbelief when the owners came back with a price almost triple that.

My personal opinion is that BIPCo’s initial request was a deliberate attempt to waste and divert the town’s resources while BIPCo was negotiating with Deepwater.

With respect to regulation, it has become apparent that Block Island does not have the benefit of good regulatory oversight from the Public Utility Commission or the Consumer Advocate of State Attorney General Office. There really is no other excuse for rates to be this high. Our investigations found numerous questionable transactions and processes that they have ignored. So, we are on our own with managing our cost of energy.  Please do not vilify the Town Council members who are attempting to create a diversified and lower cost and cleaner source of energy. Instead, the next time you are at a social event, breakfast, etc. and see any of the BIPCo owners, why don’t you ask them how they change their positions faster than wind and still expect to have any credibility. 

One comment on “flicker”; many of us experience the airport’s lights every night of the year. It is not an unreasonable compromise for a very few people to experience blade flicker for very short periods of time for everyone’s benefit of an alternative source of energy.

Chris Warfel

High Street

To: the Editor—

This letter is meant to clarify a statement, in support of siting an industrial scale wind turbine at the transfer station, which was put out at the October 5 public hearing at Town Hall. The Block Island Times reported that First Warden Kim Gaffett and an island visitor from New Jersey both said that there is a wind farm “near” a national wildlife refuge in New Jersey. I would like to set the record straight on this issue. A wind turbine at the transfer station would be 250 feet from national wildlife refuge boundaries. This is a fact! The wind farm and national wildlife refuge in New Jersey are located outside of, and “near,” Atlantic City, New Jersey. (The Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.) The closest refuge boundary to the wind farm is five miles. So, “nearness,” I guess, is in the eye of the beholder, but I feel that never even should have been a statement in favor of a wind turbine at the transfer station. You tell me, what is the difference of “nearness” at these two locations? I just want to inform everyone interested in the true facts.

Tom Magarian

North Pitcher, N.Y.

To: the Editor—

“Block Island’s lovely views” don’t include a tour of the Block Island Power Company plant, or the sights, sounds and stench of the diesel-fuel tanker trucks that supply it. Could anybody think wind power would be worse?

Since we have enrolled, architecturally, into the “oldsey-cutesy” styles, I think we ought to construct updated versions of the traditional windmill. The eight-vane “Lincolnshire” English model of windmill could harness a great deal of energy, and would look great anywhere on the island. 

This model runs on two, four, six or eight sails, so it does not need repair as often as a four- or five-vane model. Nobody worried about any kind of environmental impact when these were built in the 18th century, so it would be hard to see how we could worry now. Electricity was unknown then, but Yankee ingenuity could make these into wonderful generators. 

The idea of a wind turbine taller than the Statue of Liberty may be misguided.

This is another choice, and to my mind a much prettier one; it’s even compatible with daffodils.

Adam Dydak

Old Harbor Meadows

 

To: the Editor—

I was interested to see in the October 10 edition of the Block Island Times, the architectural rendering of the proposed transfer station wind turbine. The front-page diagram made clear the size of the wind turbine in relation to other well-known structures. It was startling. Looking at the height of the turbine compared to Beacon Hill, I realized that not only will the residents within a mile or so of the turbine easily be able to see it at all times, but it is obvious that the number of people who will not easily be able to spot some portion of the turbine at any time from almost any place on the island will be a distinct minority.

In fact, on a clear day, boaters will no doubt use the turbine as a handy navigational aid from as far away as Montauk or Stonington. Not that in future years as many boaters may want to visit the Great Salt Pond once the magic of its setting is diminished by the looming structure of the turbine.

It is interesting to read that the town might realize cost savings of perhaps $200,000 per year with the turbine. That’s good. But I wonder how much income will be lost over time by the restaurants, inns and hotels, marinas and other island businesses due to a slow but steady decrease in the number of visitors who come for the unique, irreplaceably non-mainland charm that is Block Island?

This topic of costs interests me for another reason. The Times article noted that the cost of the turbine would be amortized over 20 years. That’s a long time. What will the town do if in five or 10 years the technology for alternative forms of energy generation have advanced in ways that make Block Island’s energy independence attainable in far less invasive and expensive ways than present wind turbine technology? After all, technology in this field is advancing rapidly. Presumably the answer to this question is, “nothing.” Once the turbine investment is made, there will be no changing to better forms of energy generation.

At the Town Council’s October 5 hearing, there was the mention of a wind turbine in New Jersey, and, according to the Times article, there was in attendance a “visitor from New Jersey, who happened to see the hearing advertised….” Was the point of this visitor’s attendance at the hearing to assure everyone that the turbine will be good for Block Island, albeit making Block Island more like the mainland, more like New Jersey?

Stephen Bergan

Near West Beach Road

To: the Editor—

This is an informational letter sent by Citizens Concerned About Seawinds to update the community on the issues of the Seawinds condo development. It has come to our attention that a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) should never have been given to the Seawinds condos until the affordable house was occupied. We engaged our lawyer, Patrick Dougherty, who has written a letter to the Town Council to be read into the record at the Town Council meeting that was held on October 21. Our lawyer has also addressed the issue of the condos now being marketed as three-month timeshares.

The issues raised in his letter have nothing to do with objecting to the presence of the affordable house on the property, but rather to recognize that had the law been followed carefully and adhered to, the affordable unit would have been occupied much sooner.

Our goal is to address the illegal issue of renting the condos weekly and daily throughout this past summer when there should never have been a CO issued. The state law pertaining to the developer’s comprehensive permit states in part: all low and moderate housing units will be built and occupied prior to, or simultaneously with the construction and occupancy of any market rate units. On August 8, 2008 Marc Tillson stated in his correspondence to B. I. Housing LLC: “I want you to be aware, as you are advertising the market rate units for sale in the Block Island Times, that I will be unable to issue Certificates of Use and Occupancy for any units in the development that do not comply with these requirements.” He then issued COs on June 18, 2009 despite the fact that the affordable unit had not been occupied. We wonder how this could have taken place and why the COs were given when the law specifically states that the affordable unit be occupied. The COs should be withdrawn until the affordable unit is finally occupied!

Our second goal is to encourage the Town Council to address the timeshare issue. Selling the six units as timeshares is inconsistent with the developer’s representations in the application for the Comprehensive Permit. In the materials submitted there was no reference to anything other than single-family ownership. The supporting material, such as Traffic Safety Analysis, was based upon “single family ownership” of each of the units. The proposed use was always represented to be residential and not commercial, rental or timeshare. B. I. Housing LLC. clearly did not seek approval for a timeshare development that necessarily would significantly increase traffic, water consumption, sewer and overall use of the property to the detriment of the town and the abutters.

There was no time for discussion at the Town Council meeting but we hope the Town Council will put Seawinds on the agenda for their next meeting and deal with these issues.

Rob and Karen Hayden

Gerry and Bud Comeau

Citizens Concerned About Seawinds Committee

To: the Editor—

We would like to extend our deepest thanks to everyone who helped make this past summer’s 3rd annual Dream Big Fundraiser another huge success. We were able to raise enough money to support three important endeavors for The Ian Korbek Fund.

We are currently planning to refurbish the Ian Kortbek Memorial Skatepark, which is starting to show signs of wear and tear from the countless people who have enjoyed using the park. Now that the summer crowds have slowed down, a few days will be set aside to restore and repaint some of the park’s equipment.

As always, the Ian Kortbek Fund will continue to support the Ian Kortbek Memorial Scholarship. This past year a $1,000 scholarship was awarded to a graduating senior from the Block Island School. We encourage all seniors at the Block Island School to apply for this scholarship, and remind them that this particular grant is not only for college or university tuition, but can be used for any pursuit of further education.

Finally, last year it was brought to our attention that a family in Georgia was heading a skatepark project, “Robbie’s Dream,” in honor of their late son Robbie. Today they’ve secured land from their town and are in the final steps of making their memorial skatepark a reality. The Ian Korbek Fund was honored to contribute to Robbie’s Dream, and will continue to collaborate with Robbie’s family throughout the project. This marks a new direction for the Ian Kortbek Fund that spans beyond the shores of Block Island, touching the lives of kids across the country.

Our sincerest thanks to all the members of Block Island community, and all the contributors to the Ian Kortbek Fund, for all your help and support of the Ian Kortbek Fund. We know that without you none of this would be possible.

To learn more about the Ian Kortbek Fund, visit our website at HYPERLINK “http://www.IanKortbek.com” www.IanKortbek.com.

Eddie Stover

President, Dream Big

Parker Lacoste

Vice President, Dream Big