Biomass foes pick attorney

Biomass foes pick attorney

There are 151 comments on the Bennington Banner story from Nov 12, 2010, titled Biomass foes pick attorney. In it, Bennington Banner reports that:

A group opposed to a biomass facility in Pownal has chosen a lawyer to guide it through the permitting process.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Bennington Banner.

First Prev
of 8
Next Last
ray shields

AOL

#1 Nov 12, 2010
The group has chosen an excellent firm, this will undoubtedly aid in stopping this project from becoming a reality in Pownal.
TruthTellert

Middlebury, VT

#2 Nov 13, 2010
If it meets the requirements for a certificate of public good, it will not be stopped. however, this action will identify the anti-everything flat-landers who need to move somewhere else.
Liberty

Rutland, VT

#3 Nov 13, 2010
My ancestors fought in the Battle of Bennington for Bennington. Did yours? So who you callin flat lander, idiot?
TruthTellert

Middlebury, VT

#4 Nov 13, 2010
Liberty wrote:
My ancestors fought in the Battle of Bennington for Bennington. Did yours? So who you callin flat lander, idiot?
Do you have anything worth saying about the proposed plant?
Liberty

Rutland, VT

#5 Nov 13, 2010
Plenty but you haven't been listening. You do not even pretend that anyone has anything worth while to say against this proposal. Your rebuttals are all attacks on the derivation of our ancestors or the intelligence of the property owners of Pownal. So to you I have nothing to say.
Alice Marie

Scio, NY

#6 Nov 13, 2010
Truth Teller - I AM a Flatlander & I am ALL for the biomass plant!! Pls. don't lump us altogether unless you know us..........I can't think of A BETTER WAY TO waste TAXPAYERS MONEY THAN TO HIRE LAWYERS TO STOP PROGRESS!!!
Scrapper

Bennington, VT

#7 Nov 13, 2010
TruthTellert wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have anything worth saying about the proposed plant?
You picked the insult squirrel, Walk Your talk !
TruthTellert

Middlebury, VT

#8 Nov 13, 2010
Liberty wrote:
Plenty but you haven't been listening. You do not even pretend that anyone has anything worth while to say against this proposal. Your rebuttals are all attacks on the derivation of our ancestors or the intelligence of the property owners of Pownal. So to you I have nothing to say.
Get over the nonsense. You characters are claiming all kinds of dangers from this plant, when in fact it is hundreds of times cleaner then the home wood stove, and even cleaner then the three biomass boilers in Bennington now -- none of which have proven to be a danger.
TruthTellert

Middlebury, VT

#9 Nov 13, 2010
Liberty wrote:
Plenty but you haven't been listening. You do not even pretend that anyone has anything worth while to say against this proposal. Your rebuttals are all attacks on the derivation of our ancestors or the intelligence of the property owners of Pownal. So to you I have nothing to say.
You have a lot to say, but its not thought-out or anything that will hold up in a legal hearing. The fact is there are three wood burning plants in Bennington, and none of them have come with the dangers that the anti's are claiming with come with this one. Most of them are flat-landers who don't want anything to change, and who don't know what they are talking about.
Liberty

Rutland, VT

#10 Nov 13, 2010
Alice Marie wrote:
Truth Teller - I AM a Flatlander & I am ALL for the biomass plant!! Pls. don't lump us altogether unless you know us..........I can't think of A BETTER WAY TO waste TAXPAYERS MONEY THAN TO HIRE LAWYERS TO STOP PROGRESS!!!
The lawyer is being paid for voluntarily by the coalition formed by the land owners and no tax money is being used.
Tired of the BS

Brewster, MA

#11 Nov 13, 2010
TruthTellert wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a lot to say, but its not thought-out or anything that will hold up in a legal hearing. The fact is there are three wood burning plants in Bennington, and none of them have come with the dangers that the anti's are claiming with come with this one. Most of them are flat-landers who don't want anything to change, and who don't know what they are talking about.
T Bag I feel the issue here is scale. The amount coming out is directly related to the amount going in.

I don't see 85 trucks a day pulling up to the schools every day year after year.
GrnMtnBoy

Roy, WA

#12 Nov 13, 2010
Liberty wrote:
My ancestors fought in the Battle of Bennington for Bennington. Did yours? So who you callin flat lander, idiot?
Mine have been here for over 10,000 years you flatlander.
GrnMtnBoy

Roy, WA

#13 Nov 13, 2010
I drove up the RT 7 valley yesterday morning from Bennington to northern Rutland. Smoke the entire way as everyone fired up their woodstoves for the day. Ditto in the afternoon on the way home.

I have been in the neighborhood of Burlington's plant, Ryegate, Whitefield, the one in mASS along 91. This smoke was far worse than any of those. It didn't bother me. Yes it could bother some with respiratory problems. But I didn't see anyone walking around with face masks on.

When it comes to lawyers, Shakespeare had it right. Give me your money, I'll spend it wiser.
TruthTellert

Middlebury, VT

#14 Nov 13, 2010
Tired of the BS wrote:
<quoted text>
T Bag I feel the issue here is scale. The amount coming out is directly related to the amount going in.
I don't see 85 trucks a day pulling up to the schools every day year after year.
Its a nonsense point. The critical point is the effectiveness of the design and pollution controls, not the amount of fuel burned.
You want it both ways

AOL

#15 Nov 13, 2010
TruthTellert wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a lot to say, but its not thought-out or anything that will hold up in a legal hearing. The fact is there are three wood burning plants in Bennington, and none of them have come with the dangers that the anti's are claiming with come with this one.

Most of them are flat-landers who don't want anything to change, and who don't know what they are talking about.
I absolutely LOVE the last sentence. It is indicative of the brilliance of some people involved in the argument. It's always the "flatlanders". Either you accuse them of wanting to make Vermont the same as wherever they came from or they are anti-everything and want Vermont to stay the way it is. Make up your mind. Try not to make yourself look so stupid and bigoted in public. They can't be both for changing Vermont and for keeping Vermont the same. That's an impossibility, or did that never occur to you? Try to use an intellectual argument instead of ad hominen attacks.

The biomass plant should be approved or rejected on its merits or its dangers, not on whether the families of those pro or con have lived here for several hundred years, one hundred years or a year. Try to use your God-given brains.
nine

Bennington, VT

#16 Nov 13, 2010
GrnMtnBoy = TruthTellert is just a hack here to wear you down. Don't let it get you down folks.

It's the same old twist to try and keep everyone off ballance. It doesn't work but it's their job to try it anyways.

Pollution controls are just that, controls. They are not pollution eliminators. They help control pollution but they DO NOT completely eliminate it.
GrnMtnBoy

Roy, WA

#17 Nov 13, 2010
Sorry, wrong nine.

There is no 100% elimination of pollution. No one has said it was going to be 100% clean. Coal and oil fired boilers are very much far from it. This is cleaner than either of those and cleaner than existing plants.

It's not the entire answer to future power problems, just part of the solution. And when it becomes antiquated, rebuild or tear it down. Same as with anything else man makes.
BingBingBing

Bennington, VT

#18 Nov 13, 2010
Of course there is a 100% elimination of pollution caused by a biomass plant. NO BIOMASS PLANT! I don't know which one of the sockpuppets is dumber.

Ok here is a question for you. Which is better, DUI Drugs, DUI Alcohol or no DUI? Same basic question correct?
Uncle Fester

East Otis, MA

#19 Nov 13, 2010
Liberty wrote:
My ancestors fought in the Battle of Bennington for Bennington. Did yours? So who you callin flat lander, idiot?
Look you slack jawed bery picker.The battle of Bennington was a scam.It should be called the battle of Wallomsac, New York.
bugsy

Bennington, VT

#20 Nov 13, 2010
"The critical point is the effectiveness of the design and pollution controls, not the amount of fuel burned. "

Not true. There is the issue of cumulative impacts. You can have relatively clean emissions, but if the total amount is very large, the small amount of toxins in the emissions will still add up to an amount that is large enough to be detrimental to public health. This will be especially true in a place like Pownal which has temperature inversions which will hold the pollutants in the valley.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Montpelier Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump lawyer forced to reveal another client: S... Wed Retribution 80
Racist black lives matter flag Apr 9 Comrade deBlowzio 5
Senator Sanders: Healthcare Reform Mar '18 He is out 2
News Vermont Gov. Scott wants to attract people to t... Jan '18 America is in tro... 2
Modern Day Brown Shirtsó-Its Real Jan '18 Electronic Gang S... 2
News Vermont poised to enact legal pot through Legis... Jan '18 Dopeheads 1
News Our View: Woodford wise to revote on Act 46 Dec '17 Sherif Fife 1

Montpelier Jobs

Personal Finance

Montpelier Mortgages