Windmills in Aroostook (Fairfield, Fort Fairfield, Mars Hill: house, buy, taxi)

[Craigster]

I am just wondering about the future development of more windmills in "The County". Recently there has been much talk about the possibility of installing nearly 100 windmills in the Fort Fairfield area scattered along many different land owners properties. While I certainly appreciate the extra income for some landowners, are we moving ahead a little too quickly?

Mostly, I am wondering why the State of Maine or at least the County of Aroostook does not think about some type of mandate that require all newly developed wind farms must supply 25% of their generated electricity into our local grid. Surely it would make sense to reduce our electrical bills in trade for the privilege of utilizing our natural recourses.

If Aroostook County is to continue on this trend of an environmentally sustainable marketplace, shouldn't we at least be a bigger part of it? Maybe I'm missing the big picture here but, I think Aroostook could and should be a recipient of at least some of the benefits the wind farms claim to have. There is seemingly no logical reason we all can't tout ourselves as an environmentally friendly County.

Please, explain to me someone, what am I missing here?

[MadJack]

Why would YOU, or anyone else in the county benefit from a company spending millions to put these wind generators up?
Kind of like the folks from away whining they can see clearcuts from the road...

If seeing them is hard on ya, don't look, but don't expect to benefit from someone else's investment!

[Craigster]

Good Point! I was just wondering if there is really any true benefit at all with peppering hundreds of windmills all over Aroostook? I haven't seen any real data offering Aroostook a legitimate compensation for land use be it monetary or environmental. Surely Aroostook's natural resources is not simply overlooked for the sake of the highest bidder...or are we?

[Maine Writer]

Give it time.

Aroostook county gets legitimate compensation for land in the form of county taxes. Why should a county be compensated for wind? Or any other alternative energy that it doesn't own? If we start compensating towns or counties the state is going to have its hand out. Then the feds are going to jump in, declare ownership of the wind and tax the heck out of all of us some how or other. There are towns already taxing for something they don't own - the view from a window. None of these entities need a push toward taxing something else they don't own. Does that make sense?

[SteveMartin]

It makes sense that if our skylines across the county are eventually to be coated with 400' tall wind towers that local rate payers benefit at least to SOME degree. There is a cost to having the pristine nature of our county changed forever.

Alaskans all get a check each year from (the oil companies that own) the Alaska pipeline that can only be seen by a very small number of people that live near it--and then only from pretty close up (unless you're on a ridge looking down). Here, there are a lot more people within easy viewing of these towers--some within view of the strobe effect for long portions of each day--and these giants can be seen from many miles away.

[Craigster]

Very interesting point Maine Writer but, wouldn't you also have to agree with SteveMartin, at least to some degree???

[Maine Writer]

Originally Posted by Craigster

Very interesting point Maine Writer but, wouldn't you also have to agree with SteveMartin, at least to some degree???

No. If you start charging land owners for scenery more than some are already being charged it's going to come back to kick us in the butt.

Here's a comparison. People who drive by your land have decided they don't like what you're doing with it so you have to change it. They're now going to tell you what you can and can't do. It's not negotiable, they just get to because they think they have the right. What you want to do with your land, your lawn, your garage, whatever, is now their decision. It doesn't matter that what you're doing is legal, it just isn't pretty to them so tough, you're out of luck. Oh wait, maybe there is a way to meet in the middle. If you give them money they'll be quiet for a little while. It's your land after all so you should have a say - as long as you pay someone else for your right...I mean privilege...I mean... well, maybe you get the idea.

We don't need more people cramming more rules to suit their personal whims down our throats. By the way, I don't like the color of your house (said in jest) but I'll mind my own business for $50.

[MadJack]

Originally Posted by Maine Writer

No. If you start charging land owners for scenery more than some are already being charged it's going to come back to kick us in the butt.

Here's a comparison. People who drive by your land have decided they don't like what you're doing with it so you have to change it. They're now going to tell you what you can and can't do. It's not negotiable, they just get to because they think they have the right. What you want to do with your land, your lawn, your garage, whatever, is now their decision. It doesn't matter that what you're doing is legal, it just isn't pretty to them so tough, you're out of luck. Oh wait, maybe there is a way to meet in the middle. If you give them money they'll be quiet for a little while. It's your land after all so you should have a say - as long as you pay someone else for your right...I mean privilege...I mean... well, maybe you get the idea.

We don't need more people cramming more rules to suit their personal whims down our throats. By the way, I don't like the color of your house (said in jest) but I'll mind my own business for $50.

My point exactly!
If YOU want to preserve your un-obscured view.... BUY THE LAND IN THAT VIEW and pay the taxes on it!
But don't come up here as a visitor or newby and tell us we can't hunt or own guns, can't paint our house camo if we want, cut trees that you like to look at, or dig a hole in the ground on our land that we paid for, own and pay taxes on!!!
The highway goes both ways....and we don't mind if you use the southbound lane.

[Craigster]

I agree we don't want to pave a road that encroaches on our civil liberties or invent any more back door tax gimmicks. I'm not suggesting that by any means. The only point I'm trying to make is that it seems we all too often end up giving big business a free pass.

If your industry has an adverse impact that affects the majority of that community then compensation is simply a cost of doing business, ie; The Super Fund. Clear-cutting is a good example of just that. The new forest management programs put into place have reversed a devastating trend and that is a cost of doing business.

I was born and brought up here in Aroostook. I'm an avid outdoorsman and have always savored our natural beauty. So if "some newbie" comes in to change what we have for the sake of padding their pockets I think we should get all our neighbors involved for their input.

I see the windmills atop Mars Hill Mountain every day and it is nearly impossible to ignore them. And again, here is big business coming in with a couple local jobs and none of that energy goes into our local grid. our natural beauty is one of our largest commodities and I don't think it should be gift wrapped and surrendered so easily.

I really couldn't care less about padding my own pockets, I'm suggesting Aroostook as a whole should balance its losses and gains. No, you can't pay us off to shut us up. What you can do is present us with a thoughtful plan of what you believe offers the greatest balance. This is in no way a tax on scenery, this is about developing a fair and reasonable long term relationship. Balance!

[amacop]

Oh I just love these discussions...........How about we all join together and put our thinking caps on and just do what the newbies, granolas, tree huggin, view lovin, sacred animal protectors want and then Maine would be a wonderful place to live.............................................. ...........................NOT..................lo l