RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Wind towers discussed at West Rutland meeting



Toolbox

By Gordon Dritschilo STAFF WRITER - Published: October 23, 2009

WEST RUTLAND — Two speakers said wind towers need to be a safe distance from homes and another said they do not need to be in Vermont during a forum Thursday.

Vermonters for a Clean Environment organized the meeting at West Rutland Town Hall in light of the proposal of Vermont Community Wind Farm to build an 80-megawatt development in and around Ira.

VCE executive director Annette Smith moderated the meeting, which opened with a reading of a poem by Marshall Squier of Tinmouth and a performance of the Vermont state song.

Smith, who advised Ira residents who were against the proposal at a meeting in April and whose group has petitioned the Public Service Board in opposition to the placement of wind testing towers in association with the proposal, objected to being called an opponent of the development.

Smith said she reached out to VCWF early on, offering to help them work with the community in a constructive way, and was ignored. No one from VCWF was seen at the meeting.

Richard James, a sound engineer from Michigan, said he has studied more than 30 wind projects since 2005 and seen some designed well and some designed poorly. The well-designed ones, he said, had no homes near the turbines.

"Normally, we recommend wind turbines be 1.25 miles from the nearest home," he said. "When turbines are lined up in rows, we recommend that distance be 2 miles to 2.5 miles."

James said having wind towers in a row, as along ridge lines, amplifies sound effects in a way often not accounted for in computer modeling used by wind companies, and that developers need to be required to adjust for it.

James also said the intermittent nature of noise from wind towers causes it to agitate people at lower sound levels than that of other noise sources, so different standards should apply to them.

Carmen Krogh, a retired pharmacist from Canada, described suddenly getting sick when she vacationed near a wind tower. She said a significant body of medical literature on adverse health effects from tower-generated noise is dismissed by wind companies and ignored by the government.

Krogh said she has found many people near wind farms describing symptoms just like those listed in the studies and that there needs to be third-party studies of the health effects.

"We have competing claims right now," she said. "The industry says don't worry, the government says don't worry and we have victims saying we're worried."

In previous statements, VCWF spokesman Jeffrey Wennberg has said that improperly sited towers can cause problems, but that 80 percent of wind farms do not generate noise complaints and that the company believes it will be able to meet standards with half-mile setbacks.

Kevin Jones, former Rutland City alderman and current director of power market policy for the Long Island Power Authority, said that while he supports wind development, Vermont does not necessarily need it.

Jones said Vermont can meet its goals for renewable energy production without building any wind towers with a blend of imported wind power, biomass, hydro and solar.

He also said Vermont has an electricity surplus and that closing Vermont Yankee should not be used as an argument in favor of building wind towers because the state has enough power to close the nuclear plant now.

gordon.dritschilo@rutlandherald.com








READER COMMENTS


Mitch - Thank you for your thoughts on nuclear. One of the problems with our politicians and our society is that no one offer an solutions. We just complain about what we have or what is proposed. I to think nuclear is a better option than others, especially for the NE where the weather a location on the map limit other possible sources of energy.
-- Posted by Allen Seiple on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 5:30 pm EST

report this comment



Excellent comment by Rob Pforzheimer.
Yes, I know my comment seems naive, but it also intentionally, reeks of sarcasim. My intention is, that if Vermont PSB should read any of our comments, they will hopefully understand our concerns and know that they will be held accountable. A handful of individuals should not be able to determine the fate of 500 million year old mountains with it's pristine mountain streams and fragile headwaters, in favor of some glossy sales pitch from WIND INC. This is politics, and that always means big money and big lies, and companies like VCWF are developers who are just trying to push this through quick, before government incentives expire in 2011. This must not be taken lightly, a movement is afoot, people are asking the right questions. People cannot rely on others to get this done. We need to be organized and resourceful.
Rob's comment about all the oil for one gearbox, for one tower, and the electricity needed from the grid to maintain them is sobering! If VCWF is really concerned about our energy needs, then let's have a moratorium on Wind development, until all the facts and technology are carefully sorted through...Okay, now I am being naive because at an Ira meeting that question was asked of VCWF spokesman Jeff Wennberg, and he abruptly, said no, to any moratorium. Jeff Wennberg was also responsible for an incinerator in town that belched black soot and toxins all over the county and beyond, that ultimately, had to be torn down! The point is, this politician,(Jeff Wennberg of VCWF) will say anything for any cause as long as his name is on the check! Don't be fooled by their spin on big wind. Our opinions matter, our individual rights matter! We should all be involved in a good solution and not just be told what's good for us!
-- Posted by p c on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 11:59 am EST

report this comment



the comment by pc that "the PSB will consider the effects of industrial wind on people, animals & the environment" is wishful thinking & naive.
The PSB has already approved industrial wind projects in Sheffield & Deerfield (Searsburg expansion) without much if any concern for the effects on bears, streams, wetlands, tourism, peoples health or property values.
The PSB's main concern is to please the legislature clamoring for these useless wind projects.

Mitch Adams, Thanks for the posts pointing out all the negative aspects of big wind. One thing you forgot to mention in your post about turbines drawing elctricity from the grid is the fact that turbines contains hundreds of gallons of oil in the gearboxes & transformers that must be heated in cold weather. The unreliable 16 Clipper 2.5 MW turbines proposed for Sheffield contain 870 gallons of oil each. This will require alot of electricity in the freezing temperatures of VT winters, especially at high elevations.
Wind developers claim data on electricity useage is proprietary & won't release the true facts. The fact that these wind developers, many foreign llcs, are receiving hundreds of millions in gov't grants should require transparency so that people can judge whether industrial wind is worth the sacrifice of our ridgelines and quality of life.
-- Posted by rob pforzheimer on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 10:45 am EST

report this comment



We can do it with nuclear power. In 2007, the use of Vermont Yankee was estimated to prevent the release of 2,800,000 short tons (2,540,000 t) of CO2, 6,700,000 short tons (6,080,000 t) of sulfur dioxide, and 1,300,000 short tons (1,180,000 t) of nitrous oxides.

Increase Vermont Yankee from its current 620 Mw. to a capacity that can be exported and will eliminate the need to destroy our mountains. Look at France, where 80 percent of its cheap and clean electricity is nuclear, and exports 18 percent of its nuclear electricity to wind generating countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands. Why is this? Wind is unreliable at best and needs a reliable backup.

The main problem is that wind energy is ridiculously expensive. An easy way to determine this is to look at government subsidies. Most forms of energy generation in the U.S. receive government support. Petroleum and natural gas get about a quarter per megawatt hour of electricity. Coal gets about 44 cents. Nuclear power, gets $1.59. But for every megawatt hour of electricity produced by wind towers, our government shells out more than $23. No wind farms would exist anywhere without such subsidies.
-- Posted by MItch Adams on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 9:13 am EST

report this comment



Mitch - Vermont does not need to build wind farms to destroy tourism. They are currently doing this with act 60/68. Come to Ludlow where taxes have gone up 500% in the past 10 years on property. We have for sale signs everywhere. As someone whos business involves second homeowners, I have asked them why they are selling and the answer is clear. "We do not get enough enjoyment out of coming to Vermont relative to the cost of keeping our house." Also, the homes for sale are not selling, so there is no line of others waiting to come see our beautiful state. That leaves the rest of us that live here wondering where our power will come from. All I read about is "close Yankee." I believe Yankee provides a rather large percentage of power to the State of Vermont. For those that think solar is an option, it is not. We have too many hills, are too far north and when needed most in the winter, have far to many cloudy days to get productive output from solar panels. They need 4 quality hours of sun per day to productively produce electricity. On a small residential basis, it can work, but as a commercial option it is not viable. You have presented many links as to why NOT have wind, now present some solutions.
-- Posted by Allen Seiple on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 6:40 am EST

report this comment



NIMBY is one thing, but building something that destroys the tourism industry in the name of green (oh, it's "green" it must be good), especially considering there are alternatives to destroying the area mountaintops. The industrialization of the mountains will have an ill effect not only to the people surrounding them, but will forever change the pristine perception that keep vistitors coming back here.
-- Posted by MItch Adams on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 9:15 pm EST

report this comment



"VCE executive director Annette Smith moderated the meeting, which opened with a reading of a poem by Marshall Squier of Tinmouth and a performance of the Vermont state song."

Is this the same Squier that hosts Solarfest, the "renewable energy festival"? I guess renewable energy is great as long as it is not in your backyard. There are NIMBY's (not in my backyard) and there are BANANA's (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone). Count Annette and the Squiers among the hypocrites.

"Smith, ...objected to being called an opponent of the development". WHAT??? Are you kidding? Not all of us can make a living as lemon farmers. After successfully running Omya out of town (with 100 or so jobs) and stonewalling the natural gas pipeline (where we could have heated our homes for about half the cost and emissions of oil), she continues to make a living running jobs out of state. Good for her. She takes Visa, just contribute on her website. Something has to subsidize her lemon farming operation. Vermont is tough for citrus crops. Not everyone, though, can make a living as a professional opposer.
-- Posted by Ima_Fended on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 6:47 pm EST

report this comment



According to National Wind Watch. Symptoms of people living near Wind Turbines; Sleep Disturbance, Headache, Ringing or Buzzing in the Ears, Ear Pressure, Dizziness, or Vertigo,
Nausea, Racing Heartbeat, Irritability, Problem with Concentration and Memory, Panic Episodes.
Shadow Flicker- Sun behind the Turbine Blades creating a Strobing Effect,,on the ground..
Data from ;
www.wind-watch.org
Dated 9/3/09
-- Posted by angelo None on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 5:39 pm EST

report this comment



Sorry folks on my earlier post: Noise and Health effects of Wind Turbines the Web-Site should have been

www.wind-watch.org

Quite a few links you can click on,,,
-- Posted by angelo None on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 5:25 pm EST

report this comment



"Kevin Jones, former Rutland City alderman and current director of power market policy for the Long Island Power Authority, said that while he supports wind development, Vermont does not necessarily need it.

Jones said Vermont can meet its goals for renewable energy production without building any wind towers with a blend of imported wind power, biomass, hydro and solar.

He also said Vermont has an electricity surplus and that closing Vermont Yankee should not be used as an argument in favor of building wind towers because the state has enough power to close the nuclear plant now." (*Someone ask him what a comparable electric bill would be today if that were done?!!)

SURPLUS? Where are they storing it Mr. Jones? You support wind power but claim Vermont does not need it. WOW!! Pretty bold comment. Hydro, Hydrogen, Solar, Biomass, Yes! all cleaner and safer. Perhaps enough to power Grafton, right now. What are Burlington, Rutland, Brattleboro and a few of the larger users of electricity going to do??? Cost effective Solar in Vermont? Only very small applications....the professors of invention and progress say 10 to 20 years at least before it may be workable. Then wait and see how the NIMBY's, Real Estate Valuenuts and all those other "who will be responsible for the effects of solar farms" type people will react to the 100 acre plus plants. JEEEZUMCROW!!! Just build a new and improved Yankee. Ice can fall off your roof and kill you without a windmill blade. Can you say "collateral damage....side effects....warnings included." Nothing in life comes without them. Just do the best we can and work together towards a solution instead of dwelling on the negatives.
-- Posted by Ben Dover on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 3:17 pm EST

report this comment



lets comtinue to use coal... there are some 1,300 smoke and chemical emitting power plants in America right now!..We get the power,we get the other results of generating that power .Vermont has the cleanest smoke free are possibly in all America..THE ANSWER IS WE NEED A NEW YANKEE !
-- Posted by bruce meyer on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 12:50 pm EST

report this comment



Industrial wind turbines use a great deal of electricity themselves. Most of them cannot even run without input from the grid. Although they produce electricity intermittently, they consume it continuously. Input from the grid is not accounted for in the figures of net output. Specifications from turbine manufacturers do not include the amount of electricity they require.

It may be that large wind turbines use as much electricity as they produce. Whether the wind is blowing in the desired range or not, they need power to keep the generator magnetized, to keep the blade and generator assembly (92 tons on a 1.5-MW GE) facing the wind, to periodically spin that assembly to unwind the cables in the tower, to heat the blades in icy conditions, to start the blades turning when the wind is just getting fast enough to keep them going, to keep the blades pitched to spin at a regular rate, and to run the lights and internal control and communication systems.
-- Posted by MItch Adams on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 12:19 pm EST

report this comment



The industrial wind delusion:

Industrial wind turbines use a great deal of electricity themselves. Most of them cannot even run without input from the grid. Although they produce electricity intermittently, they consume it continuously. Input from the grid is not accounted for in the figures of net output. Specifications from turbine manufacturers do not include the amount of electricity they require.

It may be that large wind turbines use as much electricity as they produce. Whether the wind is blowing in the desired range or not, they need power to keep the generator magnetized, to keep the blade and generator assembly (92 tons on a 1.5-MW GE) facing the wind, to periodically spin that assembly to unwind the cables in the tower, to heat the blades in icy conditions, to start the blades turning when the wind is just getting fast enough to keep them going, to keep the blades pitched to spin at a regular rate, and to run the lights and internal control and communication systems.

They require subsidies and regulatory favors to make investment viable. They do not move us towards more sustainable energy sources and stand instead as monuments of delusion and the impact of our tourism industry in Vermont.
-- Posted by MItch Adams on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 12:09 pm EST

report this comment



Good read:
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
-- Posted by MItch Adams on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 11:40 am EST

report this comment



The head of Xcel Energy in the U.S., Wayne Brunetti, has said, "We're a big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers have the greatest needs, it's typically not available." Throughout Europe, wind turbines produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity. Yet both the British and the American Wind Energy Associations (BWEA and AWEA) plan for 30%. The figure in Denmark was 16.8% in 2002 and 19% in 2003 (in February 2003, the output of the more than 6,000 turbines in Denmark was 0!). On-shore turbines in the U.K. produced at 24.1% of their capacity in 2003. The average in Germany for 1998-2003 was 14.7%. In the U.S., usable output (representing wind power's contribution to consumption, according to the Energy Information Agency) in 2002 was 12.7% of capacity (using the average between the AWEA's figures for installed capacity at the end of 2001 and 2002). In California, the average is 20%. The Searsburg plant in Vermont averages 21%, declining every year. This percentage is called the load factor or capacity factor. The rated generating capacity only occurs during 100% ideal conditions, typically a sustained wind speed over 30 mph. As the wind slows, electricity output falls off exponentially. [Click here for more about the technicalities of wind as a power source, as well as energy consumption data. Click here for conversions between and explanations of energy units.]

In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%.
-- Posted by MItch Adams on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 11:38 am EST

report this comment



Ice Throw: A serious and deadly concern.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EmYe2u6J6g
-- Posted by MItch Adams on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 11:13 am EST

report this comment



More footage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QSrS4rRSrQ
-- Posted by MItch Adams on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 11:07 am EST

report this comment



Another : Runaway turbine crash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOO7YdrFXkM
-- Posted by MItch Adams on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 11:05 am EST

report this comment



Lookout in the Valleys! Runaway turbine and crash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2x7u4GAqPc&feature=related
-- Posted by MItch Adams on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 11:02 am EST

report this comment



Here is a web-site,,Noise and Health of Wind Turbines

www.wind-watch.org/ww-noise=health
-- Posted by angelo None on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 10:12 am EST

report this comment



The question of whether or not large wind turbines are a good alternative to imported fossil fuel (which in New England's case means natural gas) was what the forum was all about. And what people who attended learned is that mountain top wind turbines require sufficient setbacks from people's homes so they don't get sick. The distance is greater for mountain top turbines than it is for turbines on flat land, but even then the turbines need to have adequate separation distances from homes of at least a mile and a half. There are lots of homes within a mile of where Vermont Community Wind Farm proposes to put wind turbines. What happens to the people who get sick and have to abandon their homes? This is real. If we're going to embrace this technology, we have to come up with a plan to address the problems. Right now, large wind turbines do not look like a solution, they look like a huge problem. Go solar!
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 8:52 am EST

report this comment



There is no silver bullet with the search for fossil fuel alternatives. I believe most agree it is not in our best interests to keep sending hundreds of billions of dollars to nations that do not like us. So, as a society we need to come to some agreement on how to solve this problem and become more energy self-sufficient. However, all I read about is what does not work. People do not like nuclear, yet Europe has safely powered much of its society with that form of energy. Residents of Vermont do not want wind farms on their ridgelines, yet they pay extra for a view of ski lifts!!! If we shoot down all of these alternatives, then we can get our electricity from the mid-west coal powered plants that are producing acid rain and other unwanted pollutants. Maybe that is acceptable to Vermonters, because it will not bother their precious little environment. It is time for Vermonters, especially those that have been screaming the green theme for years, to make the tough decisions and find alternatives to imported fossil fuels.
-- Posted by Allen Seiple on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 7:40 am EST

report this comment



Real Estate Values???????
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 7:10 am EST

report this comment



Wind Farms = Service roads, Eye sores, large environmental footprint to those concerned with environmental footprints. Ah! do I look out my kitchen window at the scarred mountains that have ski towers on them or do I look out my window and see the scarred mountains with wind farms on them.

All the steel.

all the maintenance.

A Texas Oil field resemblence.

the dangers from flying or tumbling towers.


Does Vermont really have enough Electric energy to shut down Vermont Yankee? I would like to challenge that dumb comment. We are on a grid and when demand goes up the power on that grid could end up (so to speak) in New Jersey where it is needed. Just barely getting by during off peak grid time is NOT having enough power. If that was the case why are we buying so much from Hydro Quebec?

Vermont Yankee is operating on 125 acres and is producing 620 MEGA WATTS of power that can cheaply keep Vermont full of energy as well as meeting the Peak Grid demands.
-- Posted by Name Change on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 7:07 am EST

report this comment



How are these industrial towers going to affect our tourism industry and the second homes that so many people have in Vermont? Then think about all the services required to maintain those homes that support many of the jobs in the area. Suppose they instead go to the Catskills, the Adirondacks, the Whites. I think there may be a lot of money to be lost in tourism if we destroy our mountains, and we need to think about if modest feel-good inefficient industrial projects in the name of "green" is worth this unseen cost. Is this project worth this sacrifice?
-- Posted by MItch Adams on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 6:46 am EST

report this comment



PC, I am glad you use sheep to mow your lawn. Nice job! I do, however, want to add a couple comments to help educate you and others about CFL bulbs. While they do contain mercury it is in very small amounts and in the better bulbs it is encapsulated or is amalgam like the mercury in the fillings in teeth. The amount of mercury in these bulbs is much less than the amount of mercury released into the environment from burning coal, and using CFLs saves electricity hence less coal is burned. I agree that CFL bulbs should be outlawed in trash as should all compostable or recyclable materials. Every town hall and every retailer who sells CFL bulbs should accept them for proper disposal. You don't need to bring them to a hazardous waste facility.
-- Posted by John Ward on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 10:17 pm EST

report this comment



Ms. Shaw,
with all due respect, the industrial wind farm proposed in Ira, Vt. and surrounding towns is considerably more than three wind towers you mentioned. The proposed wind towers are almost 400 feet high and the developers want approximately sixty (60) towers. Your analogy using milk trucks and lawn mowers is only accurate unless your neighbor mows their lawn 24 hours a day 365 days a year! Nice lawn though. We use sheep to mow ours, it's quite and much cleaner. And please educate yourself on the use of CF bulbs! A recent NPR (National Public Radio), article points out that CF bulbs contain mercury. Mercury, is a potent neurotoxin, and it's especially dangerous for children and fetuses. Many states, cities, and counties have outlawed CFL bulbs in the trash because they are in fact, dangerous. If you use a CFL bulb in your home you must dispose of it at a hazardous material facility! People opposing industrial wind farms are not anti - environmental, in fact, just the opposite, most are very self reliant and in favor of greener technologies, such as, solar or hydro power. They are just concerned citizens who don't want a rush to judgement in favor of industrial wind, much like the CFL bulb was rushed into the public without all the facts. I just can't fit a wind turbine in the back of my car to dispose of it at a hazardous waste facility. Once built, it will always be there... a monument to our ignorance.
-- Posted by p c on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 1:28 pm EST

report this comment



I was impressed with the amount of research and information that was provided. Initially, I thought wind would be a good alternative for our energy needs, but clearly more research needs to be done. The facts presented were impressive and thought provoking. After the director of power market policy in NY, stated that Vermont can meet it's renewable energy production without building any wind towers at all, I was amazed! To be fair, i've attended the meetings that the wind developers, (VCWF) have sponsored in Ira. There was no mention of any harmful effects at all! Someone even made a comment about the noise of the turbines at an industrial wind farm in Maine. People were told that someone left a piece of tape on the blade during construction and the resulting swishing sound was from that. Yikes! It's that kind of misleading nature or propaganda that people need to be alert for. Normal everyday Vermonters, just want to know the facts about the effects of industrial wind. Just "google" negative impacts of wind towers, and read for yourself. These research studies are done by impartial scientists, engineers, and highly qualified trained people. A physician in the audience asked the sobering question, "who will be held accountable for the detrimental effects of industrial wind?"
I'm sure the Public Service Board of Vermont, who ultimately, will bear the responsibility for their decision will consider these facts on industrial wind and its effects on people, animals, and the environment. Knowledge is power, or at least empowering.
-- Posted by p c on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 12:24 pm EST

report this comment



The questions you are asking were answered at the forum. Why don't you get in touch with the organizers and ask them?
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 11:54 am EST

report this comment



In the 1980's I lived on a mountainside farm in Arlington VT, about .5 to 1 mile from the 3 wind towers on Little Equinox. They were put there by the Carthusian Monastery during the oil crisis and looming conflict with Iran in the 80's. This was an act of peace and self-reliance on the part of the monks. There was no great hue and cry from the neighbors. We all wanted independence from Middle East oil dependency back then. When the wind was right, the barely audible whoosh of the blades was exciting to hear (they didn't run very often). Working at Wild Farm, we would look up and cheer. Call me hopelessly sentimentally patriotic, but this is the truth. In VT, we value self-reliance. Could someone please explain to me how the intermittent noise (whoosh whoosh whoosh) from a distant wind tower could make them sick? Does the intermittent noise of your neighbor's lawn mower, a loud angry whine, or chainsaw, or snow blower, or the milk truck comin' down the hill with whining air brakes, or all the other intermittent noises of internal combustion we are flooded with daily and sometimes nearly continuously make you sick? How about the intermittent noise suffered by the neighbors of the shooting range where VT Yankee trains its security guards until 9:00 at night with assorted "special weapons" and then the roar of their pickup trucks as the guards leave the Leyden gun club, running over the feet of protesting neighbors on the way out. Does that differ from the noise made by the generation of clean energy that each of us can harness for free, that won't leave a legacy of cancer and radioactive waste behind, and that, thoughtfully developed, would allow this earth to begin to heal and our children to enjoy a healthy life free from the threat of latent cancers, genetic defects passed on to their children's children, and life in a police state? There is nothing patriotic about a police state. I would urge all who oppose the development of corporate wind in VT to invest to the full extent that they can in efficiency (replace old refrigerator, washer, dryer, dishwasher,boilers etc. with energy star models, replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents, install programmable thermostats to turn back temperature when asleep or not there, put all electronic appliances on power strips and turn off all "phantom load" when TV, Video, sound system, microwave, etc. is not in use. Then, invest in your own solar or wind system to provide for your remaining energy needs. Go geothermal. We must each dig in and create the world we want to pass on to our children. Do we think we can have it all and not destroy their prospects? NIMBYism just perpetuates the status quo.
-- Posted by Sally Shaw on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 11:42 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout