What would you protect?

Last Spring I asked a few of the selectman candidates in an interview a very pointed question: "what would you fight like hell to preserve or protect about Nantucket?" Here's what I would fight to hold onto.

The quality of the water in our harbors.

Traditions.

The scalloping industry.

Beach access and recreation.

Locally owned small businesses. (And locally owned large ones for that matter.)

Community.

The continued viability of Nantucket Families.

Tomorrow I'll write about the stuff I'd like to see changed.

Questions and answers about the Second Chance Program

Here are some common questions surrounding the Second Chance program. If you have any others, please use the comments button at the bottom of this post and I’ll do my best to answer them. Cheers. --Grant

Q. What is the goal of the Second Chance program?
A: There are two goals. One, to reduce the ultimate number of homes to be built on the island. Two, to add to our stock of affordable housing. In the proposed bylaw, all new second dwellings after January 1, 2010 would be affordable and available for sale or for rent under affordability guidelines.

Q. How will Second Chance reduce buildout?
A: The program eliminates the incentive of seasonal rentals. In addition, some people have no intention of building a second dwelling, so this bylaw ensures that when their property changes hands, the new owners can only build a second dwelling if it meets certain criteria.

Q. I have no intention of building a second dwelling. Why should I support Second Chance?
A: If you have no intention of ever building a second dwelling, you’re giving up nothing and gaining the knowledge that after you’re gone, your property will be less likely to have a second dwelling. And if it does, it will be affordable and able to help a year-round islander to live here more easily. This will add to the quality of life for everyone.

Q. I might want to build a second dwelling. Does this proposed bylaw take away my rights?
A: It restricts you in some ways, but not in others. You are free to build an unrestricted second dwelling until January 1, 2010. After that, you still have the opportunity to build a second dwelling as long as it is not created for seasonal rentals and meets affordability criteria set forth in the proposed bylaw. There are tax benefits, waived connection fees and exemptions for family members. Read further to learn more.

Q. I need to build a second dwelling to provide housing for my family. Does this article restrict me?
A: Not at all. In fact, under the proposed bylaw, you can build a second dwelling and rent it to a year-round family member for any amount (even one dollar) regardless of your family member’s income. Plus, your assessment will be less (under the Housing Needs Covenant, your house cannot be assessed for more than it’s potential sale price) so your property taxes will be lower.

Q. I already have a second dwelling. Does this effect me?
A: No. This proposed bylaw does not restrict any second dwelling that was built prior to Jan 1 2007. You still have the option of turning your second dwelling onto a covenant house if you so desire, however.

Q. Under Second Chance, can I rent my second dwelling for a period of time and then sell it under the Housing Needs Covenant Guidelines if I ever need the cash?
A: Absolutely.

Q. If I build a second dwelling in the next few years, does Second Chance have any affect on me?
A: No. Second Chance has been intentionally phased in to limit the impact on existing dwellings or anyone’s current plans to build a second dwelling.

Q. What about the building trades? Won't this article negatively impact local
builders?
A: Not likely. There are 200+ houses built on Nantucket each year. That’s double the amount from 2000. Today, we probably have more off-island builders than on-island builders. Most people agree that there will be plenty of building work to be done here for years to come.

Sales and Rental Questions

Q. Can I change my mind between renting my second dwelling to a tenant, selling it, or renting it to a family member under the proposed bylaw?
A: Yes. You may choose from any of the three options as your situation changes.

Q. Who is going to enforce the rental covenant to make sure they stay year round and affordable?
A: The Housing Authority or its designee, currently the Nantucket Housing Office are responsible to enforce the NHNC. In fact, they are enforcing them right now.

Q. Can I move out of my primary house and move into my secondary dwelling and sell or rent the primary when I’m older and may need the money?
A: Yes. If you income-qualify. That’s a primary benefit of the program.

Q. How can I compute the rent I could get under the covenant? I need to figure out whether I should vote for this or not.
A: Maximum allowable rental income is over $3,000 a month, under current guidelines, adjusted annually. Actual rent will be determined in the transaction between landlord and qualified tenant in the open marketplace. $3,000 is still higher than market rates which are currently sagging.

Q. If my renter starts to make more money than 150% of the area median income (Currently $120,825) does she have to move out?
A: No. The income requirement is only to qualify the renter initially. Second Chance is designed to help year-round residents get ahead. If your renter is gaining ground financially, that means it’s working!

Q. Who decides who rents my second dwelling?
A: You do. The Housing Office or Housing Authority will pre-qualify renters. You, as landlord, are free to select any qualified renter you wish.

Q. Can I build a new second dwelling and just rent to summer people?
A: Under the Second Chance plan, No. Rentals would need to be year round to a qualified renter.

Tax Questions

Q. What are the tax implications of the proposed new bylaw?
A: Your assessment is capped at the Nantucket Housing Needs Covenant (NHNC) limit (currently $445,164) or lower. And a reduced buildout for Nantucket in general will reduce future property tax increases for a host of things we won’t need to build like new roads, schools, etc.

Sewer Questions

Q. What about a sewer connection fee? I hear those may go up. Won’t any savings in taxes be offset by a high sewer connection fee?
A: No. Under Second Chance, sewer connection fees are waived for new second dwellings. A win-win situation.

Q. What impact will Second Chance have on sewer upgrade/expansion costs?
A: A positive one. By reducing the potential buildout, we reduce the size new plants need to be made and we lengthen the useable lifespan of existing plants. (Keep in mind, 75% of all potential buildable dwellings on Nantucket are second dwellings.)

Zoning Questions

Q. Why don’t we just ban second dwellings outright?
A: Many year-round islanders simply need second dwellings to make ends meet here. Second dwellings have allowed many Nantucketers an entrée into the housing market that was otherwise not possible. Others build second dwellings to make it possible for family to live here. Second Chance will not only ensure that these opportunities continue, but it also gives hope and opportunity to buyers in the $400,000 range who can buy under the Nantucket Housing Needs Covenant. (NHNC)

Q. Why don't we just re-impose the building cap?
A: A building cap may slow down building but it doesn’t lower the ultimate buildout potential. And, as we know, building caps can be repealed.

Q. This is America. What about my property rights?
A: Any zoning bylaw is, by definition, a limitation on property use. Currently, unless you live in a residential/commercial district, you can’t put a pizza parlor in your home, and you can’t rent your backyard out as a parking lot. Most of America doesn't even allow second dwellings. And keep in mind, this process is a wholly democratic one. Changes to the zoning bylaw require a supermajority of 2/3 at town meeting to go into effect. If the island does not want this change, it simply will not happen.

Have more questions? Email me: grant@yackon.com. Or post a comment below. Anonymous comments are welcome.

Nantucket first!

The Second Chance Program.

The Second Chance program is so named because it gives year-rounders a second chance at staying on the island. It gives them affordable options. It is also a chance to create several affordable housing units per year and add to the year-round affordable housing stock. Plus, it gives us all a fighting chance to curb growth in a very meaningful way.

It’s also called second chance because this idea is not new. It was first proposed in 2004 by Finn Murphy and Matt Fee and the article that would have made it possible was buried by a Planning Board that did not understand or appreciate the intricate balance this program represents. I think the climate has changed and the time is right to bring this program back up for consideration at town meeting.

Some background

We currently have approximately 10,500 dwellings on Nantucket – 9,000 primary dwellings and 1,500 secondary dwellings. The potential total build-out of the island is another 7,500 total dwellings, 6,000 of which are secondary dwellings. The number of secondary dwellings is sharply on the rise and these structures have a profound impact on sewer usage, as well as the load on our existing island infrastructure. For these reasons, efforts to manage second dwelling creation and use must be at the forefront of any meaningful movement to manage growth and maintain island character.

Make no mistake, this makes second dwellings a big target. A hot-button issue that many people in government are afraid to touch. Why? Because many year-rounders are counting on someday building a second dwelling for their kids to live in, or to rent out in order to make ends meet. And year-rounders are, for the most part, voters.

What's wrong with the bylaw we have?

It's true, we do currently have a second dwelling bylaw, but it does not go far enough and the intent of the bylaw is not enforced. Second Chance codifies the intent of the wording in the second dwelling zoning by-law written well over a decade ago:

“The principal purpose of secondary dwellings is to create housing opportunities through the provision of affordable rental housing for year-round residents, including senior citizens, while affording the owner of the primary dwelling the with the opportunity to earn supplemental income.”

Second Chance would create new housing regulations that require second dwellings built after a phase-in period to be affordable housing under the Nantucket Housing Needs Covenant rules. It also provides for new Housing Needs Covenant rental options under chapter 100 of the bylaw, as well as specific income, fee and tax benefits for homeowners and their family members.

At the same time, it eliminates new seasonal second dwellings.

In other words, this idea keeps all of the positive things about second dwellings and eliminates all the negatives. But it’s not without compromises.

Before we talk about what this proposal does, let’s talk about what it does not do.

• This measure does not take away year-round residents’ right to build a second dwelling.
• It does not reduce any income potential derived from year-round rentals.
• It does not lessen anyone’s ability to create housing for year-round family members.
• It does not effect any second dwelling built prior to 2010.

Okay, what does the plan do, then?

It creates affordable housing. Under Second Chance, all new second dwellings built after the phase-in period would be subject to a Housing Needs Covenant. This covenant currently allows for secondary dwellings to be legally separated from the primary dwelling and sold to qualified home buyers. To qualify a buyer must make less than 150% of the Nantucket median income of $80,550 annually, or less than $120,825. The current selling price (which is tied to the median income number) is no more than $445,164. This program allows sellers to realize up to $445,164 of income that was previously not available to them, and it allows buyers to purchase a home in a price range that is otherwise nonexistant.

It provides market-rate rental income. Second Chance makes it possible for home owners to retain ownership and rent to qualified renters. This “rental covenant” uses the same income standard of 150% of the Area Median income of $80,550 to qualify. Home owners may charge up to $3,000 which is well above market rent averages. The landlord is free to charge any rent they like below that number. This rental covenant will be administered through the Nantucket Housing Authority or its designee.

Exceptions for year-round family members. Under Second Chance, a homeowner who builds a second dwelling will be able to rent to any year-round family member, regardless of their income, for any rent amount they choose. Even one dollar.

It offers tax advantages. Since a covenant home can only be sold for no more than $445,164, it cannot be assessed for any amount greater than that.

Sewer connection fee waived. Under Second Chance, builders of second dwellings within sewer service areas would not be required to pay a sewer connection fee to be on the service. This fee is currently $2,000 but is expected to rise significantly in the coming months. Other breaks for affordable housing can be considered as well. The idea is to encourage this action, for the good of the whole island.

Feedback wanted

Those are the bare bones of the Second Chance plan. The wording of the bylaw change still need to be worked out, but after talking to several people who work in the areas of affordable housing I have been assured that this is legal and doable under Chapter 100, and that it will not require a home rule petition or an okay on the state level.

What do you think? Send me your questions or comments by clicking on the comment button below or posting on YACKon.com

There are plusses and minuses to every compromise plan. In tomorrow’s blog post I will answer some of the questions that are raised and have been raised in the past about Second Chance.

Until then… Nantucket first!

Second Dwelling Facts

Many people are confused about second dwellings and what they mean to Nantucket. Here are some stats and facts that the island really needs to come to grips with when they approach the issue of growth.

Some second dwelling facts you may not know:

• 75% of all future buildout is comprised of second dwellings. (NP&EDC)

• Second dwelling build-out has sharply increased. 22% of all existing second dwellings have been built in the past five years. (RKG Report)

• Most existing second dwellings (57%) are owned by seasonal residents. (NP&EDC)

• A surplus of second dwellings makes it harder for year-round residents to rent their smaller cottages in the summer to make ends meet.

• The increase in seasonal rental stock, along with the real estate boom has resulted in a sharp decrease in guesthouse/hotel business – industries that employ many year-round islanders.

• Second Dwellings add significantly to our potential sewer usage. 70% are located in existing or proposed sewer districts. (NP&EDC & RKG)

As you can see growth is mostly about second dwellings. And as you may know, and feel, this is a very emotionally charged issue. It hits home. It touches on important private property rights issues and has a direct impact on people's net worth.

But we have to talk about it and work it out as a community. Unless we do, we will never get the growth issue under control. Happily, there is an excellent compromise solution.

I envision a slight tweak to the Chapter 100 bylaw that will mean year-rounders can retain their right to build an affordable second dwelling to house family, or to make additional rental income to make ends meet. While simultaneously limiting other uses of second dwellings in order to reduce the impact on the cost of sewers, roads and other infrastructure.

I'll outline the entire plan in tomorrow's blog post. Stay tuned!

Light bulb.

As you may know, I write a humor column for the Independent. Here's one from last October.

How many Selectmen does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Seven.

Two to propose screwing in the light bulb, and then to work very hard setting up the ladder and researching the correct light bulbs and the optimum wattage and the various techniques for screwing in a light bulb and whether the town can actually afford to have more light over the next 20 years. These two Selectmen work their tails off to gain consensus and to talk to the press about the need for the light bulb while the other three selectmen basically do as little as possible. They also mention that if someone had actually changed the light bulb 15 years ago when it needed to be changed, we would not all be sitting around in the dark right now wondering if our taxes would go through the roof because the electricity that will flow through the new bulb will be so darned expensive.

Eventually, the two light bulb champions get up on the ladder and are just about to screw in a nice, shiny new light bulb, but are prevented from going through with it by the other three. Because of this, they decide not to run for re-election and are replaced by two other selectmen who are elected partly because they have said, in a rather ambiguous fashion, that screwing in the light bulb is something worth looking at, and partly because they have raised a huge pile of money.

The new board of Selectmen get together — or at least they try to — but because three of the five do not attend the meeting, there is no quorum and everyone goes home grumbling.

The next week, the selectmen all agree that the light bulb should be screwed in but that there’s a process for such things and in order to maintain the appearance of fairness and transparency of government, the process for screwing in the light bulb needs to be followed. In the process of discussing the process, the selectmen draft a set of rules for talking about the light bulb and publish a list of definitions of terms like filament, wattage, foot candles, bulb, and the like. The board also creates new rules for the general public to bring up the topic of the light bulb during public meetings so that discussions of the light bulb do not run into the wee hours of the morning.

At this point, one of the selectmen stands up in a meeting, and with a great flourish makes the assertion that light and dark are not simply a black and white issue. This act alone worth it for the comic relief and he is largely derided on YACK, the Nantucket Online Community at www.yackon.com and at the counter of the Downeyflake.

The selectmen hold several hearings and eventually claim they've actually screwed in the light bulb but they never actually go through with it. And the fact that the room remains dark is obvious to everyone except the selectmen themselves.

Around this time, the original two selectmen come back waving several expensive bulb studies conducted by private consulting groups, and they try to screw in the light bulb from the private sector. These two are blocked and ignored by the selectmen who have the light bulb protected in their hands and who claim that the light bulb should not be screwed in by the outsiders because they have “special interests” in the light bulb matter and therefore have no say, largely because they do not represent the desires of the entire island.

A figurative light bulb goes on over the heads of the selectmen when they realize they have no idea if the island wants light or not. It’s easy to assume the island wants light, but maybe the majority of islanders like it dark. It’s been dark for a long time, after all, and Nantucketers do not like change.

Eventually the issue of whether the light bulb should be screwed in or not becomes a ballot question, but the question is worded in such a way that it's hard to tell if one should be in favor of more light or whether less light is better, even if you are a studied bulb aficionado. Plus the room is so dark at the polls that a lot of folks fill in the wrong oval and the town clerk marks them down as Libertarians.

Time passes and the question of screwing in the light bulb goes away for a while and then, one day, someone from the press brings up the light bulb issue and the selectmen then tell the reporter that the light bulb issue is not their responsibility and that the Planning Board needs to come up with a light bulb plan. The Planning Board largely ignores the issue partly because (it is rumored) they have friends who make a good living selling candles, flashlights and oil lamps and partly because, they claim, they cannot address bulbs without clear direction from the Board of Selectmen.

The Selectmen then attempt to give the town administrator authority to change light bulbs without consulting them, but the light bulb is number 153 on a long list of other things that the administrator has on her to-do list.

Eventually the public outcry for light is so loud that the selectmen, worrying whether they will be re-elected or not, hastily write an article for town meeting that the Finance Committee does not completely understand. They discuss it and cannot agree and decide to give their opinion on the light bulb thing on the floor of town meeting so that nearly everyone who attends has no clue how the town stands on the issue. Some bulb hand-outs are created by local non-profit organizations with large check marks on them and somewhat conflicting data and interpretations of the implications of the selectmen’s article. The light bulb issue takes up three hours at town meeting, causing the Moderator to vow to never run for Moderator again.

Eventually the whole thing passes with only 14 people dissenting. But a year later the light bulb is still not screwed in because the money for the light bulb was re-directed to pay for town employee health benefits.

YACK on.

Grant Sanders is host of YACK the Nantucket Online Community at www.yackon.com and he sends his thanks to YACKer Val D for posing the light bulb question in the first place, thus sparking the idea for this column.

Is healthcare a right, or a privilege?

I say it's a right. I think in a society like ours where there is so much prosperity that we have no other moral choice but to spread the wealth around and deliver a decent, basic, minimum amount of healthcare to everyone in our community.

Do you agree or disagree? Let me know. Zap me a note via the comments link at the bottom of this post. Or email me:

grant@yackon.com

Send Mail

I know what you're thinking. We can't afford it.

But we can. How can I say that? Because I know the dirty little secret about health care on Nantucket: the way we deliver health care now, to both insured and uninsured people, is grossly inefficient. And not at all cost effective.

Here's the thing. We provide healthcare to town employees, but it's not working. Why? Because it's hugely expensive and the cost is increasing by 6-7% a year. That means that in less than a decade, we could double the cost of delivering healthcare to town employees — the largest class of workers on island. We simply cannot afford to continue on that path.

Here's the other thing. A massive portion of our workforce is uninsured. As a result, they do not get preventative care, and end up using the emergency room like a doctor's office, only coming in when they have a real problem. Many require costly emergency treatment. Many can't pay. The hospital, by law, cannot turn them away, so they end up footing the bill.

look at this example: A 55-year-old carpenter comes into the emergency room with a severe stroke and requires rehab and long term care in our island home for the rest of his life. Now rewind the clock. Had his high blood pressure been checked all along and had he received inexpensive anti-hypertensive medication, he could have avoided the stroke, prolonged his life, improved his productivity and saved the hospital and the community hundreds of thousands of dollars. Perhaps millions.

Why didn't he get preventative care? Because he was uninsured and doctors visits without insurance are expensive. So he went without. Now can you see how a change in the way we deliver healthcare can actually save us money instead of costing us money?

How can we deliver healthcare to the community in a more effective way? Well, I will not sit here and tell you that I have all the answers. But I do know how to get there. We need to establish a Healthcare Commission. And we need to appoint five members of the community with the brainpower, the financial and insurance expertise and the knowledge of health care delivery to create a program for this island.

We have a water commission to ensure we are delivering clean water to the community. We have an airport commission that delivers exceptional transportation benefits to us. Both run like businesses. Both have balance sheets and enterprise funds. That same model can be used to deliver another basic right — health care.

Many people believe we need huge insurance companies with massive networks of providers. But we don't, really. We can take charge of our healthcare destiny as a community.

It's doable. In fact, it's been done. In Ithaca New York. Click here. The Ithaca Healthcare Alliance has been in existence since 1997. And they offer a kit to show other communities how to do what they have already done. I'd say that's a good place to start.

The Vineyard is also taking similar strides. Click here.

Nantucket is a different kind of place, so we may need a different kind of solution. We need to look at every aspect of our healthcare situation. We need to put the best brains in our community to work on it. For the sake of everyone's health.

Let me know what you think.

Nantucket first

When my campaign begins, I will not be handing out bumper sticker with my name on them.

Why? Because a campaign for Selectman is fleeting. Especially this one. And often times, stickers for a campaign will stick around long after the contest has been won or lost, and sometimes even beyond the campaigner’s term.

(When was the last time you saw a “Don’t be risky, vote for Isky” sticker? I saw a couple last week.)

So instead of handing out stickers that say “Sanders for Selectman,” (it sounds very weird to me!) I’ll be handing out these:



The message, obviously, is “put Nantucket first.” Hopefully, this simple icon on bumper stickers and t-shirts will help us all remember to ask ourselves some pointed questions in our daily lives. Are we making choices that are good for a small group, or for the island as a whole? Are we looking out for ourselves or our neighbors. How will this effect the community, and not just my small circle?

“Putting oneself first,” “looking out for number one,” “taking care of your own” had become a driving force for many people during the 90s (the “me” decade), and nowhere on earth is that more apparent than here on Nantucket. In a few years we have seen locals build small fortunes and seasonal people build monuments to large fortunes. We’ve seen the entire island landscape change. Some for the better, but some not.

My friends and family members who grew up here talk about a time when kids and dogs roamed the island freely. Everyone knew everyone. The streets were safe. This is not true any more. But maybe it could be if we wanted.

If we are going to survive as a community — if we are going to maintain a vibrant year-round population and grow our economy and protect the island’s quality of life — we will need to discard the old way of thinking and start putting our neighbors before ourselves.

Win or lose, if I can get this idea out into the community, then my run for selectman will have been a success.

21 Objections to Cape Wind, Discussed

In case you did not know, I'm an avid supported of wind energy and Cape Wind. I originally posted this on the old YACK to answer many of the misconceptions and bits of misinformation that the opponents of the Cape Wind project have spouted over the last couple of years. If this changes one person's mind about wind power, I'll be happy. What follows are the top 21 objections I've heard about the project and a discussion of each.

1. We've had windmills on Nantucket before. They don't work.
From what I have heard from people who were there, the windmills did, in fact, work. If I remember the story correctly, one could go out to Bartlett farm and see the electric meters running backward! That meant that the power company was actually paying the owners for the excess power they created. A pretty good deal.

Now those old first generation turbines were loud, and when you add salt air and a lack of maintenance to such machines they will break down, as they did. Today’s wind turbines are far better engineered and have been tested in nearly every environment and when properly maintained, they run quietly and efficiently. In fact, the decibels produced by the latest generation wind turbine at 600 meters is approximately equal to that of ambient room noise.

2. We should put this wind farm further out to sea
This would be a great idea if it were not for three factors. 1. Being in the open ocean makes it far harder and therefore less cost effective to maintain wind turbines. 2. Being further away from the grid and the ratepayers make the generation of power less efficient. 3. We still do not have the engineering tools and know-how to construct deep-water towers. In short, it’s not feasible at this time to put turbines in deep water with high wave heights. The Sound, by comparison, is ideal because it is extremely shallow and is protected from deep ocean swells on all sides.

Interestingly, in the future floating wind farms, or other technologies will surely be available, but it takes some time to develop prototypes and test them in real-world conditions. See these promising (on paper at least) developments:

Click here.

Click here.

3. This farm should go on land
Also a good idea if there were 25 square miles of open space to use. New England is perhaps one of the most densely populated regions in our nation. Which is one reason Wind Power will work here – there is a need – but it also means the space in which to site them is scarce.

The National Guard has stated publicly that Otis is a bad place for such a project. They need it for training, they claim. The median on Route 6 sounds like a great idea, but is it really practical or safe for motorists to be driving past these large, possibly distracting whirling machines? I have seen no studies on this. Also, in the winter, ice does build up on rotors and chunks of ice from those blades can be thrown up to 100 meters in certain conditions, so siting them near walkways and roadways is not a good idea in colder climates. Frankly, I would love to see as many wind turbines generating as much power on land and in the ocean as possible. But they need to be in the right place. A place with access to the grid, near rate payers (but not so near that they are not safe) and situated where the winds are favorable.

4. We hear they are noisy. We worry about that.
This just isn’t the case. As I said before the latest generation of wind turbines produce the same amount of sound, at 600 meters as a computer or fridge — approximately equal to ambient room noise. No one on land will ever hear them. Few people at sea will hear them over the sound of waves and wind.

5. It will have a negative impact on tourism for Nantucket
Studies done in Australia, Scotland and Germany have all shown that tourists are more likely to be attracted to wind farms than to be repulsed by them. In Denmark, eco-tourism has become a sizeable business for many who operate boat charters to the wind farms there. Here on Nantucket, where the wind farm will have the least visual impact, and will only effect the northern, less popular beaches, the effects will be negligible or none at all. Nothing about Nantucket will change, except for two things. 1. Specs of blades will be visible from the north facing beaches on really clear days. 2. The air will be cleaner. Seems like a net gain for tourists, if you ask me.

6. Water, vibrations and sand will cause these towers to fall over
What goes up must come down, as the saying goes, but based on the engineering models I have seen, the monopile construction proposed for this project is extremely stable. Essentially, it is a thick steel open-ended tube up to 18 feet in diameter that is driven — hammered — into the sea floor to a depth of up to 90 feet. Geophysical and geotechnical surveys have been done to determine that these monopiles are suitable for this location and that they will withstand potential maximum wind, ice, earthquake and wave forces on the shoal. See section 4.1.1.3 of the DEIS for a complete description of various foundation options and a rationale for this choice.

7. The blades will ice up.
This is true. But it’s really a non-issue. Ice will collect on the blade and will be thrown from the blades when they begin to rotate. This is a normal part of the operation of an off-shore wind farm, and the GE turbines specified have been designed to operate within the climate conditions seen on Horseshoe Shoal. If they cannot, GE will repair or replace them as part of their service contract and warrantee.

8. 22,000 birds were killed by wind turbines in California
That is also true, but irrelevant to this situation. Most of those bird kills in the Altamont Pass were due to poor siting in a raptor migratory area, as well as the use of open-lattice towers which promote nesting. (pictured here: Click.) The monopile towers used by Cape Wind discourage nesting. And while there is no doubt that some birds will meet their demise as a result of the tower, this will in no way be a significant number. It might interest you to know that Over 100 million birds die each year because they fly into buildings. This may be because birds have brains the size of navy beans. In addition, seven million of our painfully stupid feathered friends were eaten by cats in Wisconsin alone last year, according the Audubon Society. So, if you have a cat, tie a bell around her neck. In all, there are a dozen man-controlled situations, from livestock feed tanks to automobiles to commercial fishing that do much more damage to the bird population than wind turbines. Including logging, strip mining and the extraction of oil and natural gas from the earth… Hmmm….

9. What about an oil spill from these things?
Both the nacelles and the service platform are designed with double-wall construction, holding tanks and catch basins which can hold 150% of the oil used. In addition, the oil used is a low-toxicity mineral oil that is not nearly as dangerous for the environment as gasoline, crude or fuel oil. Cape wind is looking at ways to use a vegetable-based oil for lubrication in the future as well.

10. Because this is such an excellent spot for wind, we should wait and not squander our resource
and…
11. The technology just doesn't work
I’m not sure how to answer these two except to say that over 6,900 GE wind turbines are in service around the world right now and they do produce clean power every single day. Will technology improve? Sure. But that’s no reason not to begin harvesting the power from wind now.

If technology and efficiency does improve, there’s no reason why the Cape Wind farm cannot be upgraded as time goes by and as profits allow. A smart businessman will always look for ways to improve efficiencies and output. That’s one of the reasons why the private sector works for this industry.

12. Nantucket sound can be like the North Sea
The North Sea is far larger and much more hostile than Nantucket Sound. (Click.) It is on average 95 meters deep. It is colder. It is windier. Still, one must admit that the Sound can be a very cold and hostile environment. It should be noted that there are plenty of wind turbines in operation in the North Sea (Click.) and if they can operate there, the Sound should pose no problem to their service either.

13. The wind turbines will create an island of sand there
The general consensus among scientist at Woods Hole as well as consultants who did geophysical surveys of the area was that scour was more of a potential issue than sand accretion. The towers are far enough apart so that they do not pose a threat as a barrier to sediment migration and the general result of the research is that after an initial impact caused by the construction process, the project would have little effect on the composition of the shoal. See section five of the DEIS for detailed info on surveys and conclusions.

14. Who is going to remove the windmills when they are no longer in use?
The developer has said publicly that they will post a decommissioning bond at the onset of construction (and not before, because, it makes no sense to tie up money in that way before necessary) which will cover the cost of dismantling the park.

As I’ve said before, distrust of developers is a healthy thing. But if there are other additional assurances beyond a public promise of a sizeable bond that are necessary I cannot think of them. I can call Cape Wind and see if they would be willing to pinky swear to it if that makes anyone happier.

15. It's a blight (I heard the word "blight" over and over)
This is blight. Click. In this instance, using “blight” to describe the proposed project is just an attempt to charge up the debate. It’s kind of like the designation of wind farm versus wind factory. To me, wind farm is more technically correct because one is harvesting power from the wind. One if not manufacturing wind with windmills. Of course I absolutely do not advocate changing the names of the following for technical accuracy:

Pitted prunes (do they have pits or not?) Jumbo shrimp (how big could they be?) Un-retouched photos (Have they been touched? Or just not touched a second time?) Fox News (ooops…)

So I say, call it what you want. It’s all in the eye of the beholder anyway. One can argue aesthetics all day if one wants. But it serves no purpose in this debate. Either you are willing to put up with the sight of them, or you are not. Just as there are people who don’t like the looks of them, there are other who think they are lovely. To each his or her own. One thing is certain, the output of the wind farm is far more aesthetically pleasing (and healthy) than that of any other power generation method except for solar.

16. It interferes with radar
This issue arose in the UK when the Ministry of Defense stopped several wind farms from going forward because the turbines, it was feared, would interfere with aviation radar operations for military installations. This problem has been fixed using software radar filtering and several of the wind projects on hold in the UK are back up and moving forward. That's air radar. Ship's radar is a different thing. The fact that these turbines show up on ship's radar mean that the radar is working!

17. Cape Cod Sound is our Grand Canyon or our Painted Desert.
This type of argument is purely emotional, and falls under the category, like the aesthetics debate, of an argument that cannot be won. One man’s Sound is another’s painted desert. Although having just visited the painted desert in the past three weeks, I would say that it is far more beautiful than Nantucket Sound, even, or especially, at sunset. In addition, I would say that there are parts of Nantucket that put Arizona to shame. The sound isn’t one of them. Still, it might be a good idea to take a look at the contestants in this beauty contest side by side…

Nantucket Sound on a nice day:

The Grand Canyon on a nice day:

The painted desert on a nice day:

18. The developers are just in it for the money and will cut and run when it suits them.
I think it would behoove those who distrust private enterprise to realize that aside from our trip to the moon in 1969 (which was developed with the help of private enterprise) the vast majority of important advancements in science, technology, transportation and communication were the direct result of private enterprise initiatives:

The Early Explorers The Wright Brothers The Union Pacific Railroad Vaccines Overnight shipping The Fax Machine The Personal Computer Cell Phones And most important, coffee commodities trading.

In this country, government usually doesn’t do this stuff, and when they do, they rely on private enterprise to do much of the heavy lifting, or they often fail miserably. Look, recently, on how a small start-up funded by a rich entrepreneur, got a reusable vehicle into space and back in a few years — a feat that took NASA spending many billions of dollars and employing hundreds of engineers (both publicly employed and privately) over a decade. And they still haven’t really done it “right.”

Many have called for a comprehensive federal regulatory guide to offshore wind development prior to any siting. Please excuse my skepticism at this idea. Personally, I would hate to have to wait for this particular administration to put forward clean energy initiatives given the depth with which they have their hands in the pockets of big oil. As I told a friend recently, asking the Bush Administration to pave the way for offshore wind development is kind of like asking a crackhead to open up an IRA.

Vilifying private enterprise for trying to kick-start offshore wind development is just plain silly. And yes, they are in it to make a profit. That’s the idea behind private enterprise. It’s a system that works. There’s a market, a need and an opportunity, and the guy with the best business plan wins.

Now I will tell you from speaking with several Cape Wind folks that most of them have backgrounds not in development but in advocacy for the environment and in cleaner energy. There is a rampant true-believer-ism in that group that one should not discount. The process is not easy. If their true goal was to bilk the government out of tax credits, I think they could have come up with a far easier plan to do that. If you talk to them, you will see that they are driven by the belief that they are doing a good thing. And that’s very reassuring.

19. If we put this wind farm here, who knows where else someone will want to put a wind farm?
Wow. That’s an excellent point. If we can put a wind farm here, they one could go anywhere there is wind and access to users and the grid. Which would be a good thing. Thanks for mentioning that, whoever you are.

20. The developer has no experience in this area.
The developer has years of experience in the area of converting polluting plants to cleaner burning gas-fired plants, so they know the business and economics of electricity generation. And they know the benefits of cleaner energy. Make no mistake, no one has experience in putting up this many wind turbines in the US. It has never been done. But that does not mean it cannot be done. In my estimation, Cape Wind has done everything right. They have met the opposition with care and respect. They have gone through proper channels by going before 14 state and federal agencies as part of the permitting process. They have exercised due diligence. So what if it has never been done? Fortune favors the bold. Just ask Charles Lindberg.

21. I'm an advocate of wind power but I'm against this plant.
I personally don’t have a great deal of tolerance for this point of view. But I understand it. Change, even change for the better, is painful. Just ask Rosa Parks. One December evening in 1955, Rosa Parks left her job in Montgomery, Alabama, to go home. Ms. Parks made the decisions to remain seated in the front of the bus instead of giving up her seat to a white person. No one had ever done this before. Probably because they feared the pain and aggravation it might cause them. Probably because, despite the fact that the segregation situation was quite onerous and unjust, changing it seemed like a process that would cause real, personal, pain. Rosa Parks was arrested because of what she did.

Thank goodness Rosa Parks got the ball going. She inspired, in 1955, a whole generation of activists to change the fundamental underpinnings of society in the South.

The Cape Wind project is the Rosa Parks of the wind movement in the US. This movement will be painful. And for those of you who are not willing to sit in the front of the bus, and face the consequences, I understand. You’re not willing to give up something you have for something that in your mind, may or may not be better. Fear is a powerful motivator.

To me, saying you are an advocate of wind power but you don’t want it here strips all of the arguments about birds and ice and mineral oil and boats and planes away. By saying this, you are essentially saying, you would welcome a wind farm anywhere that it will not have an impact, even a small one, on your life. Fine. I accept that. You are entitled to feel as you feel.

Personally, I welcome the wind farm. I don’t necessarily like the look of them, but there you have it. You have to take the good with the bad. And when I say good, I mean the public good, not just the good as it relates to me and my family.

I will say again what I said the other night into the microphone. The energy policy path we are on right now is simply not sustainable. Our resources are being used up as our energy needs increase. In the meantime we are literally poisoning ourselves. The stuff that goes into the air is not just breathed in, it is in the food we eat and the water we drink. One needs to take a look at these windmills and then think about a future without them and take a stand. This project will not solve our energy problems, but it is a good first step.

Imagine if Rosa Parks had not taken that first step in 1955. Where would we be right now? Facing riots in Watts? Who knows?

All I know is this: sometimes it hurts to do the right thing. But one has to do it. That’s how I feel about the Cape Wind Project. And it only took six pages to say so.

The Myth of Second Dwellings

(This was originally written on yackon.com in February of 2005, so it is a little dated. But there are some interesting points in it. And the ultimate conclusions are still true.)

Bruce Watts said at the BOS meeting the other night with regard to second dwellings: “People on Nantucket who have second lots have them for their kids, for their parents, for income when they get old,” he said. “To take away a lot is wrong, and I will stick to my guns on this until Hell freezes over. You can not tell people they can’t have a second lot.”

Similarly, Tim Soverino said, “In many ways, second dwellings have been the salvation of the average Nantucket resident. They’ve become the new tool that allows Nantucketers to live here. My sense is that the equity in a person’s home is the key to their future, and by placing covenants on that equity, you’re taking future away.”

These comments just show how out of touch Soverino and Watts are. They clearly do not understand the economic realities of the situation. All it takes is a little math to realize that the time when second dwellings become a way for islanders to really get ahead is over. In fact, it’s practically impossible to build a second dwelling affordably any more.

They are clearly not a new tool, as Mr. Soverino states, but a tool that has long since lost its real value.

Doing the math

It used to be, not too long ago, if you had a second dwelling, you could rent it out and pay your whole mortgage with it. A lot of people still do, but I put it to you that those are the people who bought and built their second dwelling before the year 2000.

The days of doing so and getting ahead are pretty much over. Here’s an example using conservative numbers.

Let’s say our sample homeowner here has a home, they bought in the late 90s or so let’s say they were lucky enough to find a house for $350K (not even a reality any more, but like I said, these are conservative numbers) and they got a first-time homeowners deal for 10% down (lucky) and have a mortgage of $315K at 5%.

Pretty good. Better off than many.

Their monthly housing expense is what? Around $1690 a month. But things are still tight. So they think, yeah, let’s build a second dwelling and rent it out and we can make extra money to get by.

So they hire an architect and they dig a hole and they put up a house that’s a modest 1200 square feet. But today it costs, on average, $250 a square foot to design and build anything.

So they spend $300K on their 1,200 square foot second dwelling and they are lucky to refinance for $615K, at 5% (probably more) with a thirty-year fixed jumbo loan and what does their monthly housing expense come to? $3300 per month, minimum.

So they go out and they see the rental market and they find that their little cottage in the mid island can rent out for what? $1600 a month?

So now they have $1600 extra coming in a month from the rental, but the rest of the mortgage is $1700. How much further ahead are they a month?

They’re not. They’re in the hole for an additional $10 a month.

Upping the ante

So what do they do then? They rent instead during the season for $1700 a week for 10 weeks. As do all their neighbors. They have to. It’s the only way to make the numbers work. And all of these obnoxious awful people from Fairfield county and Newton come there every week, and the couple makes jokes about which visitor is more annoying… And they make a tidy $17,000 during the summer. On which they pay income tax. 22%. So it’s more like $13,300

They rent the place out for $1500 a month during the rest of the year, because the people doing the shuffle cannot afford much more.

But averaged out over the whole year that is equal to $2,320 a month of income. Plus, their rental needs to get cleaned every week in the season for four hours x 50 x 10 weeks = $2000. And they have to perform upkeep on the property to keep it looking nice for the tourists, maybe $500 per season. And that adds another $2500, or $208 per month onto their expenses, so when all is said and done, they still have a net expense of $1,202 a month. They’ve cut their original $1,690 mortgage, by $408 per month.

Which is still better than before, but not a whole lot better. They could work a part-time job (which is essentially what they have as landlords catering to rich folks all Summer) and make more than that every month.

The bottom line is, the second dwelling was not their savior. They are still not “making” money. They’re not getting ahead. And look at that, the town comes along and says, hey, your property is now assessed at $600K, and up go their taxes, adding even more expense. And they find that those $80 bags of groceries are really taking their toll, and the schools are not the best in the world and lo and behold their improved property goes on the market for $1.2 million, they sell, pay off their $615,000 mortgage, move to Plymouth, buy a house and have $70K left over.

Another scenario

What about a first-time homeowner today? They are lucky to find a starter home for $600K they build a 1,200 square foot second dwelling for $300K and they have an $800K mortgage, and their monthly housing expense is $4,294. Most mortgage companies will tell you that you can spend up to 1/3 of your income on housing. So this couple needs to find someone who makes $155K per year to rent their second dwelling so they can break even.

It’s not going to happen. The market is pricing out first-timers unless they have an “in.” A wealthy relative. A parent willing to subdivide. A gift or inheritance.

So I ask Mr. Watts and Mr. Soverino, is the second dwelling the savior it once was? Clearly the days of renting out your second dwelling to cover your whole mortgage are long gone or pretty much gone. The numbers just don’t add up, unless you originally bought your home for next to nothing, or it was gifted to you, in which case you are better off not incurring the construction costs in the first place.

That ship hit the iceberg back in 2000, and we’ve been bailing, but the vessel is sinking fast.

A better solution?

Now let’s look at the second dwelling tied to the Housing Needs Covenant. Say you want a place for your kids to live when you get older. You can build the second dwelling with the proviso that it is condo-ized and is established under the auspices of the Housing Needs covenant and sell it to them for well below market rates. They, in turn, can build equity and hope to someday put a down-payment on a non-covenant house.

Perhaps you rent it out under the proposed rental covenant. Maybe to a family member. Or a close friend. (As in the example above, you’re not covering your expenses, but at least you are helping your kids and the community by creating affordable housing stock.) Maybe you sell it to your spouse for below market value, live in it and rent out your larger house when you retire at market rates for extra income (My wife and I may do that someday…).

Maybe you don’t build at all but declare your lot under the proposed housing needs covenant lot program, and you sell part of your lot, essentially as a condo, for below market rates allowing a local family to build affordably, perhaps with the help of a “non-profit builder.”

Maybe you build the covenant house for $300K and sell it for $425 and use the additional dollars to pay down your mortgage.

Look at it this way. The second dwelling “right” may be something that a lot of folks are not going to want to give up. But are they going to want to live on an island that is overrun with smaller cottages all hooked into sewer or incredibly expensive septic systems? Are they going to want to live with all the cars and the increased taxes to pay for it all? Are they going to want to have to build a bigger school and pay for that? Are they going to be able to stomach the decline in water quality, scallop harvest and tourism dollars when people form America realize that Nantucket has just gotten too overrun with human beings?

These are not easy choices. I think we need some leaders who are willing to look at all of the choices. Pick up a pencil and do some math. Be willing to make a decision that is the right way to go even if it means taking a political hit with their base.

It’s time to stop living in the past. Look to the future. Let’s make some decisions that will ensure that at least some of us can still be here in 40 years and that the island has not changed so much that we still want to be.

Voting bloc

On yackon.com, a YACKer, asked a question regarding a voting bloc I objected to during last year's election. Last year i objected to a possible three-way bloc and this year I could be part of one. What gives? Here's my answer:

It's not the bloc I objected to last April, it was the policies of said bloc.

I see Kopko and Willauer doing some pretty good work. Last year, I saw Glowacki, Watts and Chadwick dismantling or dropping much of the good work done by Finn, Matt, Frank and Steve Bender. Years of work.

Here's what I said in the "Stop The Voting Block" thread back on April 9th:

Here's the thing.

It's been hard for me to watch how the BOS has been run this year. What have they done? Where are we with a comprehensive sewer policy? What's going on with one big beach? What about the car limits and speed limits home rule petition that was thrown under the bus despite a clear mandate? And what have they done about growth? It's terribly discouraging and disappointing.

I'm not alone in my feelings. 70% of those polled on YACK feel the BOS' performance this year has been between so-so and awful. Do we want more of that?

It is my belief that not only is it the right thing to remind my friends about this possible three-way voting block, doing so may actually result in better, more effective government and the possibility that a wider more divergent view will be considered and acted upon by the BOS.

So, now, as was the case then, if you like the new programs that started to come to the fore when Mr. Kopko was elected, you can vote to strengthen them. If you don't like them, then you can vote to put a person in place who may work to disrupt or dismantle them.

Call it a bloc if you like. I call it a way to continue some very smart policies.