Saturday, March 3, 2012

Springfield candidates on woodchip plant

The hottest topic to emerge in Springfield in years has half of the candidates for the Springfield Select Board sitting on the fence.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20120303/NEWS02/703039971

10 comments :

  1. re: "David Yesman, Peter MacGillivray and Select Board member Terri Benton said they saw both pros and cons about the project and had yet to make up their minds."

    ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Springfield desperately needs decisive leadership that can comprehend hard data. If these candidates are unable to assemble all the facts, weigh the pros & cons, and make an educated, rational decision free of emotional bias, then they are not viable Select Board candidates!

    You three just lost my vote. Last thing Springfield needs is more of your type that lack the testicular fortitude to take issue, preferring to play politics with our town's future. A future that is currently rudderless without any plan or even an abstract goal.

    Springfield is in a unique position to bargain for favorable electrical rates. Yet these stooges can't even see a deal staring them in the face.

    Use your town meeting vote wisely. Springfield needs strong leadership with a vision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to hear you are an expert based on the small amount of information that has been supplied, but one meeting with the project developers and one public impassioned bitchfest is not the sole source of information I want my town officials using to make a decision. God forbid we give a couple of them credit for wanting to take the time and do the research needed to make an informed unbiased opinion, unlike yourself.

      Delete
    2. No NO NO...Don't confuse what their thoughts and comments meant. What they were doing was called "riding the fence" they did not comment either way in order to avoid losing votes. They were not trying to gain more knowledge...they have had months to get that together. Instead they all three rode the fence to purposely avoid taking a stance one way or another. I say vote John stettner as a write in!

      Delete
    3. 3 months?...hmm only been two meetings in 2 weeks. Damn I think we have hit our idiot quota on this blog.

      Delete
    4. SOLUTOMAATTIMITTAAMOTULOS3/5/12, 4:06 PM

      Here I come to save The daaaaaaaayy.

      Mighty Mouse is on his Waaaaayyyy

      Delete
  2. Two meetings and they are supposed to have decisive answer. I would prefer my town leaders to attend all the hearings, listen to all the facts presented. Before making a decision. As they have stated with exception of Mr Yesman who is against the project that they believe this will be a good opportunity for the town. However there are more facts to be presented.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Since when does two meetings (one 3 hr informational and one 3 hr PSB hearing) make anyone an expert on biomass? I would be suspect of any candidate that is not reviewing both the pros and cons. Benton and MacGillvray are the only two candidates that understand we need business to offset taxes. Yesman is a smoke and mirrors guy who will help drive what is left of this town into the ground. Kraft wants to make meeting more fun, are you kidding me and Andrews has an ax to grind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After reading this article, I was given some hope by the comments of two people.

      Terri Benton, who is up for re-election, noted the importance of being open and gathering all the information, "before giving it a flat no."
      This was a very heartening comment that made me believe it wasn't a done deed and that the town really could say no if it is not in our best interests.

      Peter MacGillivray, while remaining open-minded, said," tax impact would be wonderful ... but at what cost?"

      This is indeed the question. As a struggling and impoverished town (like Fair Haven), Springfield has been targeted for a large biomass plant that will clearly have negative impacts on our quality of life.

      The most serious aspect of this appears to be the impact on air quality, which would be made more severe given the proposed location of the plant in the middle of a bowl of hills which could contain the particulate matter, which is very dangerous to breathe.

      There is also the question of increased truck traffic, bad for many locations, including picturesque towns like Chester that rely on tourism as an important source of income. (Springfield could also attract tourists if it got its act together!) Heavy truck traffic will add to air pollution and take a toll on our roads, apart from generally lowering our quality of life.

      There are also serious concerns about the amount of wood required to run the plant. At the hearing, a forestry manager had interesting things to say about the culling of "junk" trees adding to the health of the forest, and that these trees would not be cut except for pellets and wood chips, and this makes sense. But if two new plants are opened--the one in Fair Haven has already gotten the green light--and continue to burn all this wood year after year, could the forests really stand up to it? Loggers also mentioned that they now truck their products long distances. I would hope that other uses for this type of product could be found. At the public hearing Hally Whitcomb mentioned a growing demand for wood chips in agriculture and gardening and there will probably be more local demand for pellets as more individuals buy pellet stoves for their homes.

      The other question is the demand for water created by the biomass plant. This potential threat to our water supply was addressed in great detail by Jean Willard and others at the hearing. I understand that the town is investigating whether it would really be possible to supply the necessary volume of water and I hope this is undertaken with great seriousness.

      Finally there is the issue of global warming. I think most people are beginning to realize that this is a real threat and we are seeing it--our first major snowstorm in early March? Vermont has voted to reduce greenhouse gases yet biomass plant are major sources of carbon (as well as other toxins), as bad or worse than coal plants. Large scale biomass is a real step backward in terms of slowing global warming.

      So really,is this the way Spring wants to go? How much improvement has the prison brought to the town? Let's not be desperate! Let's not be a dumping ground! Let's work for better things for our town and bring in truly renewable energy like hydro (for which the town has such potential), solar, even wind. Agricultural projects, manufacturing, let's bring in some really nice stores that aren't in other towns. We don't have to ruin our quality of life like this.

      I hope to hear more about Peter MacGillivray and Terri Benton's views on the matter. At present they are looking to me like the best candidates for the board.

      Wendy Thompson

      Delete
    2. Correction to above: I haven't been able to read the Rutland Herald article yet and look forward to it. My quotations from the candidates come from an article in The Shopper.

      Wendy Thompson again

      Delete
  4. So what you are saying is that the three candidates that actually want to find out all they can about this project should have been following Adam Winstanley around since 2007 when he first started thinking about this concept. Have YOU personally talked to any of these people to see what type of research they are doing? Of course not...that would mean you had to get involved. DUH

    ReplyDelete


Please keep your comments polite and on-topic. No profanity

R E C E N T . . . C O M M E N T S

Springfield Vermont News is an ongoing zero-income volunteer hyperlocal news gathering project. No paid advertising is accepted on this site but any Springfield business willing to place a link to this news blog on their site will be considered for a free ad here. Businesses, organizations and individuals may submit write-ups and photos about any positive happenings here in Springfield that they are associated with and would be deemed newsworthy. Email the Editor at ed44vt@gmail.com.

Privacy statement: This blog does not share personal information with third parties nor do we store any information about your visit to this blog other than to analyze and optimize your content and reading experience through the use of cookies. You can turn off the use of cookies at anytime by changing your specific browser settings. We are not responsible for republished content from this blog on other blogs or websites without our permission. This privacy policy is subject to change without notice and was last updated on January 1, 2017. If you have any questions feel free to contact Springfield Vermont News directly here: ed44vt@gmail.com

Pageviews past week

---

Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts