The BRSA Industrial Wind Turbine Blame Game
On Wednesday July 18, the Appeals Court issued an injunction prohibiting transport and assembly of the Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority's 38-story industrial wind turbine until the court finally hands down their decision on a case that might prevent that from ever happening. The IWT is planned for their plant in Union Beach. The five pro-turbine BRSA commissioners knew all too well that the motion for the injunction was under consideration and timely issuance a very real possibility, and yet the BRSA trucked in and assembled two huge cranes needed for the turbine's assembly at great cost to all of us ratepayers.
The eight towns serviced by the BRSA are Aberdeen, Hazlet, Holmdel, Keansburg, Keyport, Marlboro, Matawan and Union Beach. Only Hazlet, Holmdel, and Union Beach appoint commissioners - two each.
The BRSA was warned not to undertake further construction efforts. On June 23rd, 2010, Judge Tassini wrote in a decision that, "The Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority proceeds at its own risk of removal and remedy, should it not ultimately succeed on the merits of this case." Lawrence Baier of NJDEP stated in a letter copied to the BRSA that, "I am certain that BRSA is acutely aware that any construction undertaken while this matter is in litigation would be at their own risk." Yet the commissioners keep spending our (ratepayer) money on their boondoggle project without having fully secured the full legal right to build it.
I am sure the BRSA will ratchet up their rhetoric as the issue moves forward, attempting to blame the Borough of Union Beach and local protesters for causing the BRSA to hemorrhage ratepayer money on the project. A former commissioner even suggested at a recent BRSA open meeting that the BRSA consider suing Union Beach to recover the cost overruns once the turbine is built. Given the ongoing appeal, and given the stern warnings by the court and the DEP not to proceed until when and if they prevail in court, the fault clearly lies with the BRSA. I am sure the courts will see it that way too if the BRSA tries to sue Union Beach yet again. And imagine if they trucked the IWT into Union Beach, built it, and were then forced by the court to disassemble and remove it. I think the truck route towns of Marlboro, Matawan, Keyport, Hazlet, Aberdeen and also the county would be more than a little bit upset. It's time for new management at the BRSA.
Charles E. Hoffman. Jr.
11:11 am on Thursday, July 19, 2012
At least one BRSA Commissioner stated openly in a public meeting that those communities that placed strong prerequisite on the BRSA contractor, CONTI, for infrastructure protection under the planned roads to be used, which required lengthy inspections and video-ing action, should be sued to reimburse the BRSA for the storage fees being incurred at the storage facility for the turbine parts in Port Newark. THE BLAME FOR THE BRSA's IWT problems rest soley with the BRSA, from the very beginning when an in-depth Cost Benefits Analysis was not done, next selling the APP Editorial Board a bunch if misleading, incomplete information as to the soundness, both environmentally and public health-wise of the project, their Lobbyist feeding a rep in the Governor's Office such misleading and serious misreprensentation of the facts, that the correspondence appears to border on being fraudulent, to not reconsidering the project as the public outcry against rapidly grew, even before the first shovel full of dirt had been turned, and right up to
the BRSA seizing property through what the Court has question to possibly be an unlawful condemnation action. All the BRSA, its Council, and its BRSA does is make every effort, repeating the same untruths and misleading statements over and over again, hoping that the Public will buy off on it.
Vincent Camarda
12:29 pm on Thursday, July 19, 2012
I wish I knew more on how we got to this point, I'm sitting on my second floor balcony looking at a 60 foot crane in my back yard, this is all so very upsetting to me and my family that words cant even explain. When I was building our home with my own hands all I could think of is how beautiful our home is going to be and how amazing the town is that I'm building it in, when we finally moved in after a year and two months of extremely hard work, me my wife and my son stood in front of our home hugging each other, we were so happy that we finally had our own home in such a great town, since then my wife and I have had another child and we were looking forward to raising our family here, we are to a point were we are very scared ,nervous, and all the negative emotions you can feel to even think that a 38 story wind turbine could be in our back yard, we are basically being forced to leave our home and our dreams crushed, we would not live with this monster hovering over us, we feel helpless.
Charles E. Hoffman. Jr.
11:30 am on Thursday, July 19, 2012
At least one BRSA Commissioner stated openly in a public meeting that those communities that placed strong prerequisite on the BRSA contractor, CONTI, for infrastructure protection under the planned roads to be used, which required lengthy inspections and video-ing action, should be sued to reimburse the BRSA for the storage fees for the turbine parts in Port Newark. THE BLAME FOR THE BRSA's IWT problems rest soley with the BRSA, from the very beginning when an in-depth Cost Benefits Analysis was not done, next selling the APP Editorial Board a bunch if misleading, incomplete information as to the soundness, both environmentally & public health-wise of the project, BRSA Lobbyists e mail the Governor's Office with such misleading & serious misreprensentation of the facts, that the correspondence appears to border on being fraudulent, to not reconsidering the project as the public outcry against rapidly grew, even before the first shovel full of dirt had been turned, attaching an under sized turbine model on the BRSA plant model in their lobby & moving the plant model into the office area, so the public would not have a good view of it, after pressure was exerted to have a proper sized IWT model attached to the plant model,& right up to the BRSA seizing property through what the Court has questioned as to possibly being an unlawful condemnation action. All the BRSA,& its BoC does is make every effort, repeating the same misleading rhetoric, to convince the public it is right.
Charles E. Hoffman. Jr.
8:00 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
Please refer to my comments to the 14 July PATCH article about the movements of the IWT parts through the local communities. Those comments raises some issues dealing with the ongoing maintenance, repair, & ultimate decommissioning requirements of the BRSA IWT, if it should become a fact of life. It is based on actual discussions at BRSA Open Meetings. I did not address one facet of the "sell-off" possibility that should be surfaced. The BRSA is using a NJIET(?) Loan for off-setting part of the immediate IWT costs. If the BRSA were to "sell-off" the IWT, the funds so derived could be used to pay off the NJIET loan. Again a short term "smart business" decision front loaded with some very serious short comings for the community of U.B. It is imperative that the Board of Public Utilities intervene in this issue, and require the BRSA to establish and maintain a $1.5 Million Decommissioning Escrow Account and that the BRSA not be allowed to shed its ultimate responsibility for removal of the IWT should the "new owner(s)" find some legal loophole for walking away from that requirement. The funds in the Escrow Account would always belong to the Rate Payers, it would avoid the cost of Bonding payments, and would revert to the general operating fund, if in the end, doubtfully of course, it was not needed to effect the decommissioning of the IWT. Let's face the facts ratepayers, if this BRSA IWT is constructed in U.B., all of us "savers" owe such a guarantee to the U.B. taxpayers.
Peggy Devlin Blazewicz
1:18 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
Charles, who would you suggest we write letters to or phone call to support your ideas?
bud
2:35 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
Charlie and Bill, keep up the good fight. You two remind me of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington!"
mary54
5:10 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
It looks like the BRSA cmmissioners, lawyer and executive director figured they could just bull their way through any opposition since they had "special" powers granted to a public utility. But, there are good arguments made against the turbine, and a few people in power listened and pushed back. The BRSA attorney also seemed to misjudge how the courts would react and he helped dig a hole for the authority. It's not over yet, but if the people opposing the machine win, there should be a general house cleaning at this decrepit organization. Sticking to your position, no matter what the facts are, is not an admirable position to take.
Bill Carson
10:49 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
This video shows a home turned into a torture chamber. State and town officials are committing atrocities against civilians. http://kingstonjournal.com/only-kj-com-video-who-could-ever-imagine-this/
This video clip will some day show the events as a documentary. Massachusetts has a renewable energy goal of 2000 megawatts of renewable energy by the year 2020. This means as many as 3000 commercial land based wind turbines in Massachusetts.
The state in their zeal for renewable energy made scores and hundreds of residents sick from the poor siting of commercial wind turbines.
The planning, the preparatory measures and execution of Massachusetts Model By Laws to be used by local towns is well documented.
History shows us that those that have conducted and condoned human experiments in the past have always been brought to justice. The state and towns are committing crimes against its citizens.
Today the state and local government blame what has happened on the victims.
Watch this video : https://www.wind-watch.org/video-falmouth.php
Freedom from Unwarranted Experimentation