Solar array on E. Hadley Road, Hadley (just over Amherst border)
Perhaps emboldened by their Amherst NIMBY counterparts who successfully torpedoed a 4-Megawatt solar project at the most perfection location on God's green earth -- an old landfill -- Shutesbury residents are now taking up pitchforks and torches over a proposed 6-Megawatt installation out in the middle of nowhere.
30 acres out of a total of 830
While the 30 acres the array will require may sound like a lot, it is located on a 830 acre site known as the "Wheelock lot" owned by the state's largest private landowner W.D. Cowls Inc. The property will be leased for 20 years by a big time Chicago firm, Lake Street Development Partners LLC.
Since Shutesbury, like Amherst, is a "green community" the permitting of a commercial solar array shows the quaint hilltown can walk the walk rather than just lip-servicing sustainable energy.
In addition the economic benefits from a facility that requires no town services is alone more than enough reason to support the project.
The current offer on the table for Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) is $8,000 per megawatt or $48,000 total, which over the 20 year lease comes to pretty much $1 million dollars.
The entire parcel is currently in the forest conservation program (Ch 61) so total payments to the town in 2015 come to only $891.
The opposition seems to be led by Michael DeChiara which comes as no surprise. He orchestrated the ill fated M.N. Spear Library expansion Override yes campaign that bitterly divided the town. And lost.
And Mr. DeChiara has spent the past three years as the Shutesbury representative to the 4-town Regional Agreement Working Group, which overwhelmingly voted to support the expansion of the current 7-12 Regional School District all the way down to Kindergarten & grades 1 thru 6. DeChiara voted No.
The obligatory new website dedicated to opposing the solar project Alliance for Appropriate Development, seems to be drawing plenty of time and attention from Mr. DeChiara:
Click to enlarge/read
(UPDATE: Friday morning: Since this was first published the website removed the Recent site activity" button at the bottom of the page. Hmm ...) Which is fine I suppose. After all Mr. DeChiara does live there. But he's also a recently elected member of the Shutesbury Select Board, so you have to wonder when Conflict of Interest law applies.
Larry can you post some of the energy and financial analyses that the owner(s) would use to make their decision? Otherwise this is just political, on either side.
ReplyDeletePlus, isn't this just up to the landowner of record (on the deed)? Read L-A-N-D O-W-N-E-R. If they don't get to decide what to do on the property, they are not the owner and should be taken off the record with the real owners put there..It is important that those that own and can decide what to do with property are accurately reflected in the public record. If the community gets to decide collectively about what happens to this land, it belongs to the community, they are the real owners. They should make the decision and pay all expenses for the property.
For example, I assume all Amherst deeds have the police listed first, town administrators listed as secondary owners, with all voters having some tertiary rights, and fringe groups getting to place their names on there on weeks they need to, thus accurately reflecting who gets to make decisions about that property. When no one else is stepping up and exercising their ownership rights, the occupant/person who paid for the property can ask for permission to do something from those with higher ownership rights on the property (listed above).
Ownership is one of the most simple and fundamental rights. How is it that groups of 100s or 1000s of people can simply step up and take it away, isn't that looting? How do we justify investment on this scale when one little vote can nullify it? Ownership allows us to be confident in the future...allows folks to make investments, investments the community needs, like jobs, food stores, more homes and other resources people desire daily. The collective will not provide these things. The individual has since the beginning of time.
As long as the concept of ownership and property are on their side, these types of childish "I want what he has" debates will continue.
A suggestion: put solar arrays on the tops of the buildings consuming electricity. All the stores in Hadley come to mind, as well as the UMass buildings, etc. Is this the best use of forest and farmland, especially some of the best soils in the country?
ReplyDeleteHow is the land that solar farm will be on qualified to be Chapter 61? That's for forest preservation. Sounds to me like that portion will be disqualified and taxable at a higher rate, including for prior years, which means a windfall in property tax for the town.
ReplyDelete"Whenever land which is valued, assessed and taxed under this chapter no longer meets the definition of forest land, it shall be subject to additional taxes, in this section called roll-back taxes, in the tax year in which it is disqualified and in each of the 4 immediately preceding tax years in which the land was so valued, assessed and taxed..."
Umm ... No.
ReplyDeleteBut nice try.
Mr. DeChiara is toxic plain and simple. He feels like a bully and a child pushing to get his way all the time. He cries foul when he does not. He seeks government assistance to shut other peoples voices down. Shutesbury better start to pay attention and get this guy out of office before he ruins the town and community spirit.
ReplyDeleteOnce again a vociferous NIMBY opposes something like solar in an 840 acre wood. Come on! But another poster did have it right, why are we still allowing huge big box stores to be built without solar panels up top? Think of the acres and acres of unimpeded sunlight that is shining down on every Big Box Wal Mart and Target?
ReplyDeleteHow come there are not bigger developments that use mall roofs? How come nobody is talking about the Hampshire Mall roof as a potential site, or atop other huge flat buildings?
Maybe big box stores don't subscribe the the new religion.
DeleteIs there some requirement that the big boxes have to subscribe to the new religion?
DeleteSeems like a very worthy project. It does seem like Cowls Co. spends a lot of time getting tax breaks for preservation, getting accolades and dollars from the state, and then turns around when they see a money making opportunity and reversing course. They had a similar plan for The Retreat, which consisted of handing back the preservation money so it could be a housing development. I think the intent of these preservation designations is not just to shield the land from development until you can make more money developing it than preserving it.
ReplyDeleteCowles is a business that owns and lets you enjoy thousands and thousands and thousands of acres. It's ridiculous and unappreciative to bitch and block when managers move to make some money on like a half percent of the land.
ReplyDeleteOr more accurately 3.6 percent of the land. Nice try.
ReplyDeleteI think he/she was referring to the overall state land holdings of W.D.Cowls. They are after all #1 in the entire state.
ReplyDeleteGood luck Cowls & Co. Looks like a worthwhile project. Ultimately comes down to who has standing and whether there is environmental impact that actually merits attention or if it's just inconsequential and well-managed. I suspect with their record Cowls and the developer will manage the project closely and beneficially.
ReplyDeleteThe Landfill project in Amherst was a quite different set of variables, and should never have gone forward as far as it did. There is a second set of residents, unaffiliated with the plaintiffs of record in that case, prepared to bring a different suit if another inappropriate project is suggested on that site. And I support them.
...and I live abutting the landfill. (Or did you forget to mention that?)
ReplyDeleteUnappreciative? Thanks for doing us a favor. Oh, and thanks for taking millions in taxpayer money for Brushy mountain.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you whinging about land use, why don't you pool your money and buy it? As far as I know Cinda is open to offers.
ReplyDelete