| At
Large Business Briefs Cartoons District Court Report Editorial Gone Fishin' Letters to the Editor Real Estate Transactions Sports Sports Highlights |
| Art Bestsellers Dance Edibles Film In Print Music Theater |
| This
Week's Happenings Save
That Date Ongoing Events Groups Libraries Museums and Tours Children's Resources Hotlines 12-Step Programs Religious Services Volunteer Opportunities |
| Achievements Astrology Birds Births Community Shorts Dean's List Engagements Garden Notes Honor Roll Obituaries Off North Road Short Subjects Town Meetings Visiting Vet Weddings |
| Aquinnah Chilmark Edgartown Oak Bluffs Tisbury West Tisbury |
The
Martha's Vineyard Times is a weekly publication.
March 10 - March 16, 2005 Edition
Web
Comments
- Email Submissions
March 3, 2005 Historical Society explains land sale To the Editor: This is a copy of a letter dated March 1, sent to James Athearn of Edgartown: The following is in response to your letter, printed in the Feb. 25, 2005, issue of the Vineyard Gazette and the March 3 issue of the Martha’s Vineyard Times, regarding the Historical Society’s sale of the Beetle Swamp property. I would like to describe how we came to our decision. We first offered the property to the Land Bank. The Land Bank responded stating it was willing to pay $20,000. We told our board that even if the Land Bank offer were lower, but close to that from another purchaser, we would prefer to sell the property to the Land Bank. We believed the Land Bank made what it considered to be a reasonable and fair offer to the Society as an Island non-profit organization. Some time later we received an unsolicited offer from an abutter to pay $100,000, with conditions which might rise to a payment of $200,000. As you know, we added several key conditions to the sale to protect the future uses of the property. The land cannot be subdivided nor sold separately from the abutter’s property, and, if zoning were ever to permit any building, it would be limited to one habitable structure. There is no access to the property except over abutter’s lands. A professional engineer reported to us that it was essentially unbuildable because much of the property is wetland. We sought the advice of respected Island real estate professionals as to what to do with the property, what was a reasonable price given its condition and lack of access, etc. Our intent was to get a good price for the property while limiting its development. In retrospect, perhaps we should have gone back to the Land Bank for a second round. But if we had done so we placed at risk an offer five to ten times higher than what the Land Bank had offered. It is not the purpose of the Historical Society to hold land. We felt we had a duty to our members to generate proceeds from selling the land to support our expanding educational, curatorial, oral history, and research library functions. We have the highest respect for the Land Bank and the work it does on the Island. If the facts had been different, we would have been most pleased to have sold the property to them. We remain convinced that our actions have been responsible in meeting the needs of the Historical Society as well as demonstrating our concern for the future of the land itself. Warren Hollinshead President Martha’s Vineyard Historical Society Complementary, not competitive To the Editor: Paul Schneider hit the nail on the head in his letter of support for Vineyard Youth Tennis (VYT). Vineyard Tennis Center (VTC) feels threatened by so-called competition of VYT offering free lessons to all Island kids. VTC needs to see that these two tennis centers are apples and oranges. VYT and VTC serve different needs, and there is room for both. I think VTC needs to see some of the bigger picture. I doubt if most year-round Island kids would bother to check out tennis if they had to pay for it. Tennis lessons are not cheap and could be an expensive experiment to see if your six-year-old likes tennis. Now with VYC, many of these six-year-olds become hooked on tennis, and then you have got them for life. As adults many of these VYT alumni will need a place to play tennis in the winter and will use VTC. Also consider this, my husband and I have taken lessons at VTC since our boys started at VYT. Tennis is a family sport; we look forward to spring when we can hack around with our boys on Island courts as we all continue to take lessons. The backers of VYT see the big picture. They see that the Island is in need of activities for our kids, big time. Tennis is a sport that you can play your whole life, from the time you can hold a racket until you can’t. It builds confidence in kids who are not comfortable with contact sports and those who are. It’s a sport for all. VYT is for kids, about kids, camaraderie and learning a sport for life. We are so lucky to live in a community with such a diverse population where someone, such as the backers of VYT, see an opportunity and can afford to create such a positive center for kids. And in the background, there is still someone crying sour grapes. Tina Miller West Tisbury And, the Oscar goes to – us To the Editor: I would like to thank everyone who donated their time and talents to help make our 2nd Annual Oscar Party at the PA Club a big success. After expenses, we raised more than $800 to help provide relief to the victims of the Asian tsunami. Our celebrity chefs, Stewart Rounsville and Bobby Kistner, spent all weekend preparing an exquisite Asian buffet. The Times’ Ralph Stewart turned in another great performance as our Hollywood paparazzi. Festive Islanders turned out in good number for the cause — and revelry (especially for a Sunday night event in the wintertime.). Great thanks go to the Holy Ghost Association, a very accommodating and helpful hosting venue; we are grateful for their endless good work in the Island community. Kudos are also due to our DJ’s, the “Love Doctors,” who famously refuse compensation and duck praise, but who donated their time and incomparable entertainment skills to our event. The Vineyard certainly deserves an Oscar for Best Supporting Cast. Hope to see everyone next year. Caroline Derrig Vineyard Haven Look more carefully To the Editor: If it is true what Audra Parker, assistant director of an organization called Save Our Sound, has said, then the Cape Wind’s proposal to desecrate Nantucket Sound is really and truly asinine. Think what she recently said at an Army Corps hearing: “An upgrade of a fossil fuel plant, like the Canal Electric Plant in Sandwich, could achieve the same environmental benefits as the Cape Wind project at a fraction of the cost.” The gist of what this all means is of course this. Before building something new, make sure what is old is as energy-efficient and pollution-free as possible. And remember this. The Cape Wind project is based on immature technology. The limited operating history with offshore wind installations that do exist shows numerous problems. The Horns Rev installation in Denmark, the largest offshore wind plant, is currently being dismantled. All 80 two-megawatt turbines are being brought ashore for costly and lengthy repairs. Let’s all take a more careful look at what is being proposed. Robert S. Douglas Vineyard Haven Unaesthetic now, aesthetic later To the Editor: So much has been said and written about the proposed wind energy turbines in Nantucket Sound that it seems redundant to add another opinion. Nevertheless, here goes. It seems that our Martha’s Vineyard Commission is taking a back door stand that is opposed to wind energy on the sound and there was an editorial decrying the turbines as well. From the commission we hear that “since they have more experience with these matters that they should be listened to more than regular people” or something to that effect, and from the editor we hear that nuclear and advanced coal are a more efficient solution as well as more drilling. What is wrong with this picture? If the general public is not smart enough to make an intelligent decision one way or the other and if nuclear power and coal are indeed preferable to renewable energy, then why bother to even weigh in on the matter? Nevertheless, there seem to me to have been plenty of decisions by the more intelligent people in political office that have gone awry. Should I give examples? Well, I suppose not. Everyone can think of numerous examples, I am certain of that. But just in terms of aesthetics, which this seems to be what this is all about, really, there is one example that I would like to mention. Everyone who has ridden the ferry from Woods Hole has had the opportunity to see the expansive house on the point as you leave the dock. It is formally known as the “airplane house” because of its shape. Well, you might not know it but at the time it was proposed it was supposed to have been the ugliest idea since warts or some such thing. Everyone was up in arms. Well, now don’t you know, it is regarded as beautiful, and indeed, is listed as an architectural masterpiece. Some people say that the turbines would not be objectionable aesthetically. Some say that they would be uglier than warts and would ruin our economy. Many of these latter types are the same people who are angry that the United States has not signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. It is perplexing. Here on Martha’s Vineyard we regard ourselves as enlightened. Well, only if it doesn’t threaten our sense of beauty, I suppose. If the turbines were to be regarded as wonderful and beautiful by future generations then their use and purpose would be justifiably regarded as benevolent in all respects. I, for one, would like to think of future generations thanking us for our foresight. If they are indeed ugly, and a hazard to navigation, or don’t work, well it would be an expensive mistake. But it would not be a mistake that could not be rectified. If they are never built, then we deserve to have more nuclear power, I suppose. “Nuclear Is Beautiful.” Interesting concept. James Polzniak Vineyard Haven In our interest To the Editor: I would like to respond to two letters that appeared in last week’s MV Times about Cape Wind by James Glavin and Desmond and Ann Margetson. Mr. Glavin writes that it is foolhardy to put wind turbines in a tough environment like the ocean. He offers the example of two land-based wind turbines on Martha’s Vineyard that were dismantled in the 1970s as evidence for his point that wind turbines are unreliable, and he says that government incentives encourage projects like Cape Wind to be proposed but leave the risk of the wind turbines not operating properly and later being abandoned. I would like to correct each of these points. There has been a quantum leap in wind turbine technology and performance in the past 30 years, and comparing new wind turbines with those from the 1970s is a akin to comparing desktop computers sold today with the first generation home computers being sold in the 1970s. Indeed, wind turbine design, reliability and performance have improved so greatly that wind power is the fastest growing source of energy in the world today. There is also now 14 years of real-world experience with offshore wind turbines in Europe. Most offshore wind projects in Europe have been extremely successful. Although there were technical problems at the Horns Rev offshore wind farm in Denmark, the problem has been fixed and those wind turbines are back up and running. As to government incentives to wind power, it is important to know that all forms of energy are subsidized in various ways by the US government. For every dollar spent encouraging renewable energy, the US government spends $10 on nuclear and fossil fuel energy incentives. Also, at the federal and state level, wind power incentives are given out based on the actual successful performance of the renewable energy projects, not on their construction. These incentives actually help ensure that wind farms are operated successfully. Cape Wind is also willing to provide for decommissioning for the wind farm at the end of its useful economic life, and the US Army Corps of Engineers made decommissioning a permit condition for the Scientific Data Tower that we constructed on Horseshoe Shoal in 2002. The Margetsons’ letter stated that Cape Wind would not produce much power and could not ensure that any conventional power plants be closed as a result of its operation. In fact, in average wind conditions, Cape Wind would provide 170 megawatts, which is almost 75 percent of the average electric demand of Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket combined. When the wind blows and the wind turbines on Horseshoe Shoal produce power, the operations of conventional power plants will be reduced, reducing the amount of pollution being released into the environment. This may not result in there being fewer conventional power plants in existence, but Cape Wind will result in their operating and polluting less. The question underlying the permitting process being performed by 17 federal and state agencies is, “Is the project in the public interest?” We believe that at the conclusion of their review they will find that Cape Wind is resoundingly in the public interest by providing clean energy, new jobs, electricity price stability, and greater energy independence for the region. Mark Rodgers Communications Director Cape Wind Yarmouth Port Low blow against Vineyard Tennis Center To the Editor: Being on the defensive side of a personal attack is a losing matter, whether right or wrong. Paul Schneider’s inflammatory letter about our club being represented at the Martha’s Vineyard Commission was a personal, not a professional attack. Because we have a tennis facility, we want to know what the Vineyard Youth Tennis is asking for, in terms of changing the original charter. We did not speak at the hearing, only listened. Comparing this to Cronig’s not going against Island Food Pantry for low-income residents is a low blow, as were the other comparisons. Mr. Schneider should know there are enough walls going up on this Island. I would like to see more bridges. Since Mr. Schneider’s wife is on the board of directors of the Vineyard Youth Tennis, he is surely aware of the fact that during the original building of that facility, and recently when the facility was damaged during the big snowstorm, that our tennis center was opened to the use of youth tennis lessons taught by VYT pros so that they could continue functioning. Phyllis Kugler Director of Fitness Vineyard Tennis Center, Workout & Spa Thanks, Ned To the Editor: I want to thank Ned Robinson-Lynch for all he did to make Martha’s Vineyard Community Services into an organization we can all be proud of. Last summer my family suffered severe medical trauma as a result of a nightmarish emergency room visit. We reached out to Community Services for help, and the response was immediate. Two wonderful members of Community Services came to our rescue with the support we needed. Many thanks to Ned for building the organization and staffing it with such caring people. Seth Mosler Chilmark |
|||
| Send this page to a friend: | |||
|
©The
Martha's Vineyard Times 2004 - www.mvtimes.com
|
|||
