It's time for the "BS"RA to let the ratepayers off the hook. The BRSA deliberately ignored the warnings of Judge Tassini and the DEP not to undertake any construction until if and when they had all local government permissions to erect and run the industrial wind turbine. The DEP warnings are both in the CAFRA permit and a letter from the DEP to UB's lawyer that was also copied to Exec Director Fischer. It was gross malfeasance on the part of the BRSA to construct the turbine's pedestal at a cost of millions and also try to commence trucking of the turbine. Even though UB had filed for an emergent injunction to block the transport of the turbine in early July, the BSRA commenced transport and erected the first of two large cranes. They knew darn well UB might get that injunction, but rolled the dice and lost big time when the court granted it. Actually, the ratepayers lost. Now the BSRA will continue to hemorrhage ratepayer money in their pursuit of their monument to lunacy. Two things: 1) When Union Beach finally prevails, whoever gave the BSRA the lousy advise to put ratepayer money at peril must be held accountable. 2) The towns serviced by the BSRA should hold back on renewing their contract for sewer service with the BSRA until this whole mess gets sorted out, or they should simply dissolve the authority and end this mess now. Moving forward, the BSRA will surely undertake a PR effort to try to shift the blame to Union Beach, but it won't work.

This "Authority" came into existence to SERVE the wastewaster needs of the surrounding Bayshore communities. The facility "lives" in Union Beach. And yet, somewhere along the way, they decided that they should be accountable to NO ONE, Not the communities they serve and not the town that hosts their facility. They don't seem to care that
a) not one of their member towns wants this 38 story structure in a community where the largest structure is 3 stories
b) they have alternatives to lower their energy costs, including solar panels,
c) overwhelming evidence has come to light that these machines should not be located in residential or wild-life sensitive areas.

The fact that they wasted over $150,000 on this crane prior to having approval to build, shows that they just don't care about the rules. They should all resign in disgrace so the next board can pull the plug on this stupid charade and let someone else pay Conti for this bogus money pit.

And let's hear it for the Appelate Court! How many times do you hear that that the little guy gets burned by the system? Well not this time! Sea Girt and Manaquan had Chris Christie go to bat for them when the turbine was planned for the Sea Girt Army Camp. But with less money and less clout, the Bayshore towns were left to go it alone. Big money construction firms, corrupt BRSA commissioners, and arrogant lawyers from Holmdel all lined up to say screw you to home rule. We don't need to deal with Zoning boards like everyone else. No, we are an "Authority" that give us the right to trample any rule we don't like. But the Appellate court stood up for the little guy and brought the rule of law right onto BRSA's door. I saw the phrase "fundamentally flawed" in their opinion to reverse the lower court ruling. So now Granata is going to go back and ask them to reconsider their unaminous position on this!!! This is a laugh. They ruled right. They stood up for the rule of law and we should all thank them for getting it so right at at time when so many other things have gone wrong for the Bayshore.

Loads of public information about the myriad of problems linked to Industrial Wind Turbines began to surface in the summer of '09 in the Hazlet/Union Beach areas. Bye Dec'09-Jan '10 it had reached a crecendo with numerous Letters to the Editor having appeared in the APP & Independent, sudden interest/participation in otherwise unattended BRSA Public meetings wherein many informational documents were provided to the Board of Commissioners dealing with Shadow/Flicker Effect, Low Frequency Sound Wave problems, significant lose in community property values, as well as the aspects of what has become known as the Wind Turbine Turbine Syndrome. All of this information, some of it sworn testimony, and much of it from overseas where Wind Turbines have been a part of life for more then ten years, was blissfully ignored and set aside. Even before the first shovel of dirt was turned, construction of the base at approx $2 million, in 2010 it should have been more then apparent to the BRSA that they needed to rethink this whole matter. However in their normal arrogant manner they kept plowing money into the project, even to the point of not heeding the official cautions they received from the DEP and the Court. Their plea to the Appellate Courts is going to be based on the fact that they have invested too much money not to be allowed to complete it, and the financial burden associated therewith will fall to the poor ratepayers. (continued)

The BRSA's regular meetings are on the third monday of the month at seven pm at their plant, 100 Oak Street, Union Beach. Individuals can ask questions or make comments during the open public session. Anyone who us concerned about this giant, ill-advised boondoggle should come to the meetings and have their say. The commissioners (mostly) seem impervious to reason, but maybe enough people demonstrating that they want the project halted will finally prevail. It can't hurt. To get permission to get into the plant, press the buzzer in the driveway, on the left.

Yes come to the meetings so the Chairwoman can talk over you whenever you have the floor making a point she doesn't like or have her invoke the three minute rule when there are only three private citizens in attendance. Or you can hear Hazlet's newest Commissioner,seated in Feb '12, confronting the opposition with statements like where were you when all of this was been going on; it appears to me that it is now too late to turn back as there is too much money involved; to a Hazlet resident, do you realize that Hazlet would be responsible for some 40% of the ARRA money, that we have already spent, if the project is never completed & the money rtrnd to the Fed Gov't. I was told that the BRSA outflow goes to the County Retention Basin next door and the County pumps it via a Belford site to seaward. At the 13 Aug meeting in front of officials fm Hazlet the Director stated that the BRSA pumps its outflow to seaward. Which is correct? Another example of the BRSA telling you what they think you want to hear. It was the BRSA that originally took the U.B.to Court, it went to back to court to force removal of the "noturbinecom info from the U.B. public bulletin board, & believe it or not, prevent the seating of the new duly appointed U.B. Commissioner in Feb '12. In the end the BRSA failed on all three.So just who is running up legal costs. Yes, come to the meetings and listen to the Commissioners whine and moan about the "unreasonable" costs for and delays incurred in Conti (cont.)

obtaining road permits. Why is the BRSA paying storage fees on a turbine they don't own? Why did they pay storage fees on the turbine element itself when it was not fully ready for installation, as Conti did work on it in storage? Why did the Public Notice for the turbine contract state that all permits were the responsibility of the Contactor and yet the BRSA is now reimbursing Conti for the cost of same and complaining about it?. Conti, was not the low bidder but was selected anyway based on a subjective decision by the BRSA. It is my understanding that such a decision violates federally funded contracting law. Conti was in a litigation with one of the communities served by the BRSA and that community placed some heavy and expensive costs on Conti before issuing the needed road permit. One of the Commissioners stated openly that he felt that the community involved should have to reimburse the BRSA for all the costs incurred. My question to the BRSA as to whether or not Conti complied with the "Full Disclosure" clause of contracting by telling them up front that it was in litigation with one of the BRSA served communities it & that they might have to do business with has never been answered. If not, BRSA can cancel the contract for cause. If yes, then why is the BRSA suddenly complaining about the costs? Remember the $2 mil base possibly could be incorporated into a solar panel installation, incl the County, negating a need to refund ARRA funds. Oh! YES! Come laugh? or CRY!

What was the role of the Union Beach Township Engineer during the history of this debacle? T&M of Middletown, I believe. The residents of UB are already paying a NJ State Pension to one of their engineers according to the Asbury Park Press Data Universe.

Give em hell, Bill. Keep up the good work!!!

I'd like to say thank you to the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division for ruling that the BRSA must seek site plan approval from the Union Beach Planning Board before finishing construction of their wind turbine.
It's about time that the UB Planning Board has some say in this matter rather than this autonomous entity (BRSA) doing as they please. It seems they have made a lot of bad decisions when it comes to the safety of the people that live nearby.
There are plenty of reasons why wind energy isn't working in general and there is proof of these failures.
However, the bottom line in this particular case is the fact that the turbine is too big and too close to homes. The property where this INDUSTRIAL giant might have stood is within "hardhat" range of private homes.
Would people need to mow their lawns in hard hats?
It is now coming to light that the turbine site property is protected by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). No federal dollars can be spent on land protected by the CBRA. The BRSA got a waiver on this for their existing property, but the additional half-acre (recently grabbed by BRSA through eminent domain) is not covered by that waiver.
Why won't the BRSA consider some other way to reduce their energy costs?

October 2009, we disclosed:

INDUSTRY PUSHES JERSEY GOVERNOR’S BUTTON ON WIND POWER PERMIT — String-Pulling to Keep Federal Stimulus Dollars by Shelving Eco-Study Requirements

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1261

The PEER documentation says it all when it comes to how the BRSA has dealt with the Public when it comes to its Wind to Energy Project (WtEP). Look at the date of the BRSA lobbyist Desanti's e mail. Note the following two quotes, "Simply stated, if we don't get some relief were going to lose the grant money and the project is going to be cancelled." 'Which in and of their selves could kill our project." Note the ref to the APP project support and what might be the (political) fallout (if the grant money is lost-project cancelled) Now, remember this the WtEP was conceived by the BRSA back in 2006 and the ARRA was not only non-existant but hadn't even been aborning. So, it would appear that the BRSA ratepayers where going to have to bear the full $5.6 to $6.6 cost of the Industrial Wind Turbine Installation. Now go to the published minutes of a BRSA public mtng in April 2010 where you will find an eloquent statement by the Director of the BRSA when answering a question from the floor. Q-Why did you work so hard to obtain the ARRA grant money? A- We wanted to lighten the project's burden on the ratepayers. That leaves one to believe that the WtEP would have gone fwd even if the ARRA grant money has not been obtained. But, that is not what the BRSA's lobbyist DeSanti stated. The lobbyist's e mail was misleading & deceiving in a BRSA effort to gain an upper hand in dealing with a public regulatory matter, & therefore, according to my dictionary at least, constitutes fraud (cont.)

When confronted with this issue and after having three weeks between mtng to maul it over the BRSA Director advised that the "project" referred to in the DeSanti e mail was the effort to obtain the ARRA funds & not the Industrial Wind Turbine itself, which was the "project" that the Director was referring to in his on-the-record statement. if I have read the DeSanti e mail once, I have read it at least five times, and although I am not an English major, a "project" is a "project" is a "project, and I am of the opinion that Law Enforcement needs to review this matter.

If you're going to "appropriate" my work, please at least get the facts straight. The appellate court didn't order the BRSA to take the crane down. The authority is removing it because it's expensive and, at the moment, worthless. You also have the real rental cost incorrect as well, but you'll have to figure that out on your own. Or you can just take it from the next article I write.

There's nothing I can do about the fair use laws, unfortunately, but I don't like having my name or publication attached to a factually incorrect article.

You shouldn't be at all surprised Keith. She has a very slanted view concerning this subject in the direction favoring the anti turbine folks as witnessed in her writings and her presentation of the facts. I just hope she doesn't turn into another Heller Dweller!!!

Here's a fun game for you noturbine haters . Pretend that you lived in UB, Hazlet, Keyport, Middletown or even Holmdel. And pretend that you owned a big piece of property and you had $14M to spare. So you decide to put up a 38 story wind turbine in a town where the next largest structure is 10 stories. So what do think the planning board would say?

Did I miss something? Was some power granted to BRSA from on-high that would allow them to ignore their community, the law, due diligence and login ALL AT THE SAME TIME?

Ez Monn
In your latest exhaltation, if it refers to the Monday, 20 Aug BRSA meeting, you were, as it seems to be the BRSA's way of doing business, in official attendance and now U are providing false and misleading info to the reader(s). Messers Hoffman& Schewan were in attendance & spoke before the Board as did FIVE (5) other citizens. My 3rd grade math that was a total of 7 NOT 3. Like the Director comments about 40+ U.B. people appearing at a past meeting when Holly Gee the total population of U.B. is about 6,000. Commissioner DiNardo postulating that Dr Pierpont's book and other medical studies dealing with the negative Public Health issues of LARGE wind turbines equals junk science as nothing has ever been published in the various Medical Journals like the AMA. Two years ago he was lamenting to me that Dr. Pierpont's book carried no wait in that it was not PEER reviewed. I guess he found out it had been, even before it was published, but he still refuses to acknowledge publicly that there might well be some serious truths in Dr. Pierpont's finding, by now upping the ante to Medical Journal coverage. I sent two ltrs to the Head of the U.B. Elementary School, the second which included data from Dr. Pierpont's book dealing with children losing concentration/learning capabilities when living near turbines. But the Gentleman who is seriously worried about the health of his children was "put-off" by the Director and Board members. I advised him of this info after the meeting.

@ the other Bill...Hello!!! YOU stated in your post yesterday "in a TOWN where the next largest structure is 10 stories" Saw nothing about SURROUNDING TOWNS!!! You lied in your posts as you always do and now you lie in your defense of it for all to see and read. I ask everyone to read his posts. See for yourself who doesn't speak the truth. Why make an even larger fool of yourself in a public forum??? But thank you...you have saved me the trouble.
Here we go again with this "Bill boondoggle Heller nonsense. Concerning the turbine costs...yes maintenance costs are expensive and have been included in - down the road costs-and yes must be budgeted for. Sorry...but no one gave me the impression that once it's built it generates free power. That would be a stupid a statement as those of you who say most of the profit generated from this turbine will be lost in maintenance costs as I have read in some of these blogs. In order for your car to run correctly and at ultimate efficiency...periodic maintenance is required. Turbines are no different Bill. But you knew that didn't you. Litigation cost??? Is that where your getting your 14M figure from??? Another gross untruth simply because no one will be harmed by it...and thats your worst fear when it's built and people aren't walking around like brainless zombies in the streets. Bill and the other Bill will look like fools. As far as someone having lied to me, as I have proven...your the one that has a problem with the truth.

EZ - I don't want you to be so upset about building heights.
here is the first quote:
"not one of their member towns wants this 38 story structure in a community where the largest structure is 3 stories"
So in this quote, the "community" I was referring to was the one that you and I live it - which is Union Beach.

Now in a later post, I asked you to play a fun game. I don't think you had too much fun with that game, but anyway, there I posted:

"Pretend that you lived in UB, Hazlet, Keyport, Middletown or even Holmdel. And pretend that you owned a big piece of property and you had $14M to spare. So you decide to put up a 38 story wind turbine in a town where the next largest structure is 10 stories"

Now as you can see, here I was including towns beyond Union Beach, where there are taller buidlings (along Rte 36 in Keyport for example). One of the reasons for the fun game was that the crane was up and was visible from the other towns and should have made it clear to anyone that this project does not belong here.

Regarding the $14M dollar amount, in my fun game, we didn't have any government funding for our Imaginary Wind Turbine, so the property owner would have to pay the entire $14M bill so that could save $400K per year on electric, not counting all the overhead to operate the bogus money-saving thing.

So I did not intend to deceive you. If you like turbines, there is one up in Bayonne. Maybe you could move up there and enjoy all the huge savings.

Thats it!!!??? Thats your explanation for not writing the truth, getting caught at it, and defending it with another untruth? Then saying you didn't intend to deceive, not only myself, but all who read your remarks. Your the one with the building height issues. You provided those heights 38, 10 and 3 stories. Not me. I simply responded to your mistakes. To the best of my knowledge the Bayonne turbine isn't operational yet do to a parts issue. Are you suggesting there are other issues? That turbine is located right in the middle of a city. How did that happen? EnvironMENTAL wackos asleep at the wheel? As usual someone disagrees with you folks and you want them to leave. Why? So no...I'll stay here and speak the truth and challenge those who don't. It's the AMERICAN WAY right Lou? Lastly...If I had the 14Mill I would have built 2 turbines. Without question.

Thats it!!!??? Thats your explanation for not writing the truth, getting caught at it, and defending it with another untruth? Then saying you didn't intend to deceive, not only myself, but all who read your remarks. Your the one with the building height issues. You provided those heights 38, 10 and 3 stories. Not me. I simply responded to your mistakes. To the best of my knowledge the Bayonne turbine isn't operational yet do to a parts issue. Are you suggesting there are other issues? That turbine is located right in the middle of a city. How did that happen? EnvironMENTAL wackos asleep at the wheel? As usual someone disagrees with you folks and you want them to leave. Why? So no...I'll stay here and speak the truth and challenge those who don't. It's the AMERICAN WAY right Lou? Lastly...If I had the 14Mill I would have built 2 turbines. Without question.

The 5 Million dollar cancellation claim being postulated by the BRSA is nothing more than a "Bogey Man". The BRSA has not taken title to the turbine and therefore has not paid its purchase price to Conti. So that in itself reduces the "Bogey Man" claim by approx three million dollars. This procedure exists to protect Public Utilities from fraud on the part of contractors as stated previously by the BRSA Counsel. So the amount of money that might have to be "repaid" is actually closer to two million dollars that has already been invested in the infrastructure, electrical system, foundation/base, etc. There might well be an additional charge in the area of $200K for "Contract Termination". Put all of this together with the fact that all monies, except legal fees, that is being used for the project actually comes to the BRSA via the NJEIT, the actual amount of money that would have to be "paid back' would amount to less then approx 2.5 million dollars, unless political action were to taken to forgive the "loan" balance. 2.5 Million dollars divided by 22,000 rate payers
equals approx $114. Spread out over a 10 year loan repayment scheme that amounts to $11.40 per/yr or $2.85 per quarter. The pay back might even be less if most of the unused electrical system equipment could be salvaged and if the foundation/base itself could be used as part of another renewable energy project.
So the "pay back" claim size is FALSE and just another BRSA/DeSant led PR Smoke and Mirrors event.

WOW I just got into reading these messages and all I am going to say is EZ Monn "SHUT UP ALREADY" you are alone!!! You claim 7-3-4-6 people at a meeting I have never seen you at one, or as a matter of fact not one pro turbine guy ever!!! So where are is your backup!! ....... all your nonsense and horrible spelling is making me sick, as I said in previous messages get a hobby. Grow some balls show up at a meeting put up or shut up. And if you spell sorrounding that way one more time I will pay for a tutor :(

EZ Monn: OK now is your time to speak!!!!!! Tomorrow night 9/26/2012 will be a planning board meeting 7:30 PM at town hall. If you attend I will never question anything you say, if you do not I consider you a fake and a trouble making coward!!!! That stalks people in their personal life because of a difference of opinion. And just for your info you know nothing about me so don't write false info about me on the internet. Thank you........ see you tomorrow or forever stop your weak defense of this project!!!!

Marco,

Don't even bother. EZ has nothing to say. He/she is just trying to make noise. The courts ruled, the planning board will rule, and then when this farce is over, BRSA can explain why they exposed the rate payers to all this financial risk for a project that was corrupt from day 1'

EZ Monn you say you could not make the meeting because you have a full time job and and and ??? There have been fifty meetings what about them ???? You have hours and hours to write all this information on a blog!!!! Also do research on where I work, my hobbies and how fast I drive. You are one scary individual!!!!. When this is over please do not introduce yourself to me I have no desire to meet you!!! If you just had enough guts to speak in public for what you belive in I would respect you and not call you a coward. We all put ourselves out there for what we believe and you hide. I call that a coward if you have another name for it please let me know I will never say it again. With all this said and another five minutes wasted on you, no matter what you say or write I will never answer you on this or any other blog again because you are not worth the effort :/ Enjoy losing the fight

Hmmm... so who is really the coward??? What a joke. As far as your not responding to anything I post any longer...who cares? I accomplished what I set out to do. No one can ever believe a word "YOU" post from this point on. Me a scary individual? I'm not the one driving a school bus down Union ave 15mph over the posted speed limit. Now that's scary!!! SAVE OUR CHILDREN" Losing the fight???The fight has just begun and the truth is on my side. The mayor and council have been exposed as far as the zoning maps are concerned. The mayor has his picture taken next to a mock up turbine and Andreuzzi says he wanted one in Hazlet a few years back. Liars always lose. I know you received orders from Heller to stop responding to my posts. I have no further use for you anyway. You are dissmissed.