Profile

Cover photo
Bill Carson
27 followers|198,838 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTubeReviews

Stream

Bill Carson

Shared publicly  - 
 
Falmouth Files Wind Turbine Special Permit Appeal - Massachusetts Superior Court
1
Add a comment...

Bill Carson

Shared publicly  - 
 
Climate Change Ignored New Bedford Waterfront Casino 

The public is being kept well in the dark over this report. The report remains hidden from the public because the climate change report interferes with the new agenda of building a casino that could very well put the public at risk. They took hundreds of millions of taxpayers money to build the incomplete ocean terminal there is only one thing left your safety and your life. 

The same people who for years have been describing Polar bears stuck on little pieces of ice, global warming,sea level rise don't want you to read the recent 2014 publication about sea level rise in New Bedford Harbor ? Now your public safety and global warming take a back seat to building a casino ? 
       
Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Planning Study for Water Quality Infrastructure in New Bedford, Fairhaven and Acushnet 

http://climate.buzzardsbay.org/download/seaplan-climate-vulnerability-new-bedford-area.pdf
1
Add a comment...

Bill Carson

Shared publicly  - 
 
NFL Smears Tom Brady 

The NFL has smeared Tom Brady and the New England Patriots without proper evidence or a competent investigation, and turned an unimportant misdemeanor into a damaging scandal, as part of a personal power play to shore up his flagging authority. In other cases, he just looked inept. In this one, he looks devious.

Wednesday night at the NFL owners meetings in San Francisco, Goodell as much as admitted that the Wells report is incomplete, despite the fact that it took four months, cost millions in legal fees, and was supposed to be comprehensive. After all, the league used it to levy historically harsh penalties against Brady and the Patriots, claiming they deflated footballs in the AFC championship game. Nevertheless, Goodell opened the door to walking it back, saying he wants to talk personally to Brady, who has appealed his four-game suspension.

“I look forward to hearing directly from Tom if there is new information or there is information that can be helpful to us in getting this right,” Goodell said.

Now this is the height of disingenuousness. Because we already know the Wells report missed crucial information and didn’t consider important facts. Ted Wells either overlooked or ignored crucial text messages, he used a firm with a reputation for bending science to fit predetermined conclusions, and he cherry-picked the memory of an NFL referee. But that’s not all. The Wells report left completely unexamined the fact that the NFL has never once considered the inflation of footballs to be a matter of great integrity or competitive advantage, before now.

And this is where Brady can blow the commissioner out of a courtroom. And perhaps out of his job.

League history makes it obvious that Goodell is practicing selective enforcement, purely for his own purpose. The NFL rules simply state that footballs should be inflated within a range of 12.5 to 13.5 pounds per square inch. For nearly a decade it has let each team provide a dozen of its own balls, and let quarterbacks choose them according to preference and feel, and to fiddle with the pressure, without penalty. Aaron Rodgers has said he tells his equipment guys to over-inflate the ball, and see if the refs catch it.

That the league has never particularly enforced standards is evident in a hilarious section in which the Wells report eats its own tail. According to Wells, in a game between the Patriots and Jets it was discovered that the refs had inflated the balls to 16 psi. Brady got upset when he found them hard to handle. That’s how uneven ball inflation in the NFL is, and how weak the Wells report is. The only firm evidence that Brady ever had a conversation with anyone about ball pressure comes in this instance, when the ball was wildly over-inflated to 16 psi — by the league’s own refs.

What’s more, messing with the ball has been treated as a misdemeanor in other cases. In a very cold 2014 game between the Carolina Panthers and Minnesota Vikings, sideline cameras showed some team attendants warming footballs in front of heaters — presumably at the behest of a quarterback. There was no scandal for “tampering.” There was not even an investigation. You know what kind of edict the NFL issued in that case? A reminder. It sent a memo that softening the ball on the sideline by warming it is not allowed.

At a minimum the Wells report is poor work, and the NFL may well have skewed it. Just consider how the report used referee Walt Anderson’s recollections. It accepts Anderson’s account as accurate when it comes to how pressurized the Patriots’ footballs were in pregame. It also accepts Anderson’s account when he said there were two gauges available, one with a logo on it that gave higher readings by almost 0.4.

But when Anderson says he used the gauge that gave the higher psi measurements, the Wells report suddenly treats Anderson as inaccurate on this point — and no other. For no apparent reason, Wells insists that Anderson must have used the other gauge, the one that gave lower readings, and which makes the Patriots look guilty.

As opposed to the higher gauge, which would put it in the realm of possibility that the footballs lost pressure by halftime due to the effects cold weather and the Ideal Gas Law.

Once you’ve read this part of the Wells report, the words it so often employs — “more probable than not” and “likely” — begin to take on a pernicious tone.

The NFL created its own mischief here. It wrote a rule that says each team can use a dozen of their own balls, and left it to the teams to inflate them, without providing any sort of regulation or consistent enforcement. Now, all of a sudden, what a year ago was the subject of a mere memo has become the subject of a months-long million-dollar game of Gotcha. Why?

Don’t tell me it’s because Tom Brady didn’t turn over his cell phone. Wells had all of the phone records and texts between Brady and equipment manager John Jastremski, and there was no communication at all with locker room attendant Jim McNally. The records suggest Brady’s not withholding; he’s just a union man who objects to the precedent of giving his private phone to a commissioner who comes on like J. Edgar Hoover.

And here again, Goodell is practicing selective punishment. Brett Favre didn’t turn his cell over either, in a far more unpalatable case over sexual harassment in the workplace. Know what Goodell gave him? A $50,000 fine. With no suspension.

The commissioner needed a big case to restore his authority and prestige, after a series of judicial embarrassments. Federal judge David Doty reversed him on Adrian Peterson’s suspension. Arbitrator Barbara Jones overturned him (and found him not credible) for suspending Ray Rice twice for the same offense. And former commissioner Paul Tagliabue issued a stunning rebuke in the New Orleans Saints BountyGate case, when he not only reversed player suspensions but found a pattern of “arbitrary” as well “selective, ad hoc or inconsistent” punishments by Goodell.

The guess here is that Goodell’s support and respect among owners was eroded badly after he mishandled each of these cases and turned them into months-long scandals that undermined public trust in the league office. DeflateGate is nothing more than a bid to reconsolidate his power. But it’s an overreach as usual, and whatever Goodell gained in the short term may be his undoing in the long term. There was an initial jolt of gratification that Goodell took the much-loathed Patriots and their owner Bob Kraft down a peg. But after it will come a more rational examination of his conduct, and the flawed content of the Wells report. And with that, distrust.
1
Add a comment...

Bill Carson

Shared publicly  - 
 
Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly is considering significant new restrictions on the development of wind turbines close to residential property. It is understood he has tabled a series of changes to the planning guidelines which would see a dramatic increase beyond the current set-back of ...
1
Add a comment...

Bill Carson

Shared publicly  - 
 
Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly is considering significant new restrictions on the development of wind turbines close to residential property.
1
Add a comment...

Bill Carson

Shared publicly  - 
 
Cape Cod Commission Cape Light Compact Model Bylaw for Land-based Wind Energy Conversion Facilities Year 2004
1
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
27 people
Joanne T Vannah's profile photo
Cindy Christiansen's profile photo
Wendy Marie Thomas's profile photo
Shellie Correia's profile photo
Bore Head's profile photo
Dennis Ray Wingo's profile photo
Cris S's profile photo
Shaun Stanley's profile photo
Azerson We r Azerbaijanian's profile photo

Bill Carson

Shared publicly  - 
 
Falmouth Wind Turbine Special Permit Appeal Matter of Days 

Falmouth Files Wind Turbine Special Permit Appeal - Massachusetts Superior Court

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT for the Commonwealth


Case DocketTODD DRUMMEY & others vs. TOWN OF FALMOUTH & others


FAR-23199CASE HEADERCase Status

FAR application pending

Status Date03/18/2015

NatureZoning appeal: c 40A

Entry Date03/16/2015

Appeals Ct Number2013-P-1498

Opposition Date03/26/2015

Appellant Plaintiff Applicant Defendant Citation Case Type Civil

Full Ct Number TC Number BACV2011-00166 & BACV201

Lower Court Barnstable Superior Court Lower Ct Judge Gary A. Nickerson, J.


http://ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?dno=FAR-23199



DOCKET ENTRIES

Entry Date Paper Entry 

Text

03/16/2015 Docket opened.

03/18/2015  #1 FAR APPLICATION of Town of Falmouth & others, filed by Frank K. Duffy, Jr., Town Counsel.
1
Add a comment...

Bill Carson

Shared publicly  - 
 
WHEN: Wednesday May 27, 2015 @ 1:00 pm WHERE:Conference Rooms 11/12, Superior Courthouse Building
1
Add a comment...

Bill Carson

Shared publicly  - 
 
Truth-telling has fallen on hard times in Falmouth
1
Add a comment...

Bill Carson

Shared publicly  - 
 
Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly is considering significant new restrictions on the development of wind turbines close to residential property. It is understood he has tabled a series of changes to the planning guidelines which would see a dramatic increase beyond the current set-back of ...
1
Add a comment...

Bill Carson

Shared publicly  - 
 
Cape Cod Commission Falmouth Special Wind Permit 

Special Permit: Wind Turbines Cape Cod Commission 2004
Cape Cod Commission Cape Light Compact Model Bylaw for Land-based Wind Energy Conversion Facilities Year 2004

May 26, 2015
Share Comments Special Permit: Wind Turbines Cape Cod Commission 2004

Cape Cod Commission Cape Light Compact Model Bylaw for Land-based Wind Energy Conversion Facilities
Year 2004

Funded by a Community Planning & Development Grant (CP-04-05) from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative


Page 13 of 41 

04.0 Special Permit Regulations


The SPGA shall grant a Special Permit only if it finds that the proposal complies with the provisions of this bylaw (unless waived) and is consistent with the applicablecriteria for granting Special Permits. Commentary:

Most zoning bylaws require that the SPGA find that specific criteria are met before a Special Permit can be granted. 


These criteria vary greatly in their scope from town-to-town, but the minimal requirements are that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or derogate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. 


The criteria also generally include more specific issues to be considered by the SPGA such as noise, traffic, visual character and suitability. 


These criteria would be applicable to all Special Permit projects, not just wind energy facilities. Therefore, this section of the bylaw is intended to reference the existing applicable criteria for approving Special Permits. 


The SPGA would also have the authority to waive certain requirements where appropriate. Waiving certain Special Permit requirements would not be considered a variance, but rather the SPGA would have to make a finding that the waiver was appropriate and was consistent with the Special Permit granting criteria. 


04.1 General Proposed wind energy conversion facilities shall be consistent with all applicable local, state and federal requirements, including but not limited to all applicable electrical, construction, noise, safety, environmental and communications requirements.

http://www.capecodcommission.org/resources/bylaws/ModelWindBylaw.pdf
1
Bill Carson's profile photo
 
Vestas raises concerns about turbine noise (Letter)

Bruce Mabbott - August 3, 2010
Impact on People Noise Massachusetts
After noise complaints started coming in following the erection of WIND 1, the first Falmouth turbine at the wastewater treatment facility, Vestas required confirmation that the Town of Falmouth "understands they are fully responsible for the site selection of the turbine and bear all responsibilities to address any mitigation needs of the neighbors." WIND 2 would not be released to the town for erection until the letter was signed. The letter explaining the situation is provided below and can be accessed by selecting the link(s) on this page.

August 3, 2010
Mr. Gerald Potamis
WasteWater Superintendent
Town of Falmouth Public Works
59 Town Hall Square
Falmouth, MA 02540
 
RE:       Falmouth WWTF Wind Energy Facility II "Wind II", Falmouth, MA
             Contract No. #3297
 
Dear Mr. Potamis,
 
Due to the sound concerns regarding the first wind turbine installed at the wastewater treatment facility, the manufacturer of the turbines, Vestas, is keen for the Town of Falmouth to understand the possible noise and other risks associated with the installation of the second wind turbine.
 
The Town has previously been provided with the Octave Band Data / Sound performance for the V82 turbine. This shows that the turbine normally operates at 103.2dB but the manufacturer has also stated that it may produce up to 110dB under certain circumstances. These measurements are based on IEC standards for sound measurement which is calculated at a height of 10m above of the base of the turbine.
 
We understand that a sound study is being performed to determine what, if any, Impacts the second turbine will have to the nearest residences. Please be advised that should noise concerns arise with this turbine, the only option to mitigate normal operating sound from the V82 is to shut down the machine at certain wind speeds and directions. Naturally this would detrimentally affect power production.
 
The manufacturer also needs confirmation that the Town of Falmouth understands they are fully responsible for the site selection of the turbine and bear all responsibilities to address any mitigation needs of the neighbors.
 
Finally, the manufacturer has raised the possibility of ice throw concerns. Since Route 28 is relatively close to the turbine, precautions should be taken in weather that may cause icing.
 
To date on this project we have been unable to move forward with signing the contract with Vestas. The inability to release the turbine for shipment to the project site has caused significant [SIC] delays in our project schedule.  In order to move forward the manufacturer requires your understanding and acknowledgement of these risks. We kindly request for this acknowledgement to be sent to us by August 4, 2010, as we have scheduled a coordination meeting with Vestas to discuss the project schedule and steps forward for completion of the project.
 
Please sign in the space provided below to indicate your understanding and acknowledgement of this letter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
(Bruce Mabbott's signature)
                                                                        _____________________
Bruce Mabbott                                                  Gerald Potamis
Project Manager                                               Town of Falmouth
 
 
CC:       Sumul Shah, Lumus Construction, Inc.
             (Town of Falmouth's Wind-1 and Wind-2 Construction contractor)

             Stephen Wiehe, Weston & Sampson
             (Town of Falmouth's contract engineers)

             Brian Hopkins, Vestas
             (Wind-1, Wind-2's turbine manufacturer, and also Webb/NOTUS turbine)
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
27 people
Joanne T Vannah's profile photo
Cindy Christiansen's profile photo
Wendy Marie Thomas's profile photo
Shellie Correia's profile photo
Bore Head's profile photo
Dennis Ray Wingo's profile photo
Cris S's profile photo
Shaun Stanley's profile photo
Azerson We r Azerbaijanian's profile photo
Links
Contributor to
Basic Information
Gender
Male
New Bedford Ocean Wind Turbine Port Headed To 200 Million Is the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal ocean wind turbine port headed to 200 million ? If it is the public is never going to find out that's for sure. How many hundreds of millions is it going to cost ? The final cost of the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal is lost from public view for some reason. The New Bedford ocean wind turbine port was announced in 2010 by Governor Patrick at around 35 million. Today 6 months prior to the completion of the local terminal rumor has it that the project is already way over budget because of cost overruns. The project is nearing 100 million today with December being the completion date. The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center Senior Director of Offshore Wind has commented on the project but has never disclosed where the finances are on the project today. The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center is in charge of the project. Governor Patrick appears to be pushing for completion of the project by the end of the year at any cost. At any cost to who ? Where is all the extra money coming from to complete this project by the end of the year ? Why all the extra money to get the project done by December if Quonset Point ,Rhode Island is the construction port for Cape Wind ? The local spokesman for the New Bedford Wind Energy Center said that their is nothing being built like the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal to compete with the New Bedford Port. He is correct but Quonset Point, Rhode Island has already been built and is complete with crane service. Quonset Point, RI is the permitted construction base for Cape Wind. Richard J. Sullivan Jr., secretary of energy and environmental affairs told a house bonding committee that Cape Wind was going to do all the construction from the 200 million dollar wind turbine port In addition to New Bedford a wind turbine blade testing facility in Charlestown was built at a cost of around 40 million dollars two years ago. The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center also built the Charlestown facility.The wind turbine blade testing facility has only tested one large blade and the manufacturers name was not disclosed. The terminal has been idle. Cape Wind signed a lease with Quonset Point, Rhode Island. - Massachusetts Clean Energy Center CEO Alicia Barton said the port will transport fruit, sand and heavy industrial boilers rather than wind turbines . Massachusetts officials need to be brought up on RICO, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations charges.
• • •
Public - 9 months ago
reviewed 9 months ago
1 review
Map
Map
Map