working hard to expose scammers
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Still no facts to back up your words.....?
Matt I live here and walk down the street every day talking to many people. I hear what people are saying on the street and in their homes. I know who is saying what. These are community leaders, business people, and residents. If you know Berlin as well as you claim then you can’t deny how tight of a community Berlin is. People know and talk to each other daily. Being here every day helps me stay in touch with what is going on. I don’t need to read it in the paper, like everyone here, we know it before it gets to print.
Do you not remember what happened in the 90's? Bottom line. You can't ignore State Law.
Have you ever been to Berlin NH? Do you know anyone who lives here now? Do you talk to anyone who lives here regularly? Have you ever spoken to anyone who lives here? And I mean here, not Gorham. Big difference.
I live here and walk down the street every day and talk to people all over town. It’s a small community where most everyone knows everyone. I know and speak to many people around town. My information is first hand. Everyone who lives here knows who is for and who is against Laidlaw. Where does your information come from?
You state there is a small group opposed who seek financial gain from seeing Laidlaw fail, yet you offer no proof or evidence of that. It is only your opinion.
I invest based on facts, not conjecture, opinion and hope like some here.
And I haven’t seen anyone rebut this. You can’t ignore State law. Well you can, but then it will eventually catch up with you. As it is with PSNH.
Article 83 of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire states that “Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it”. It goes on to grant the legislature the power to enact laws that will prevent those who would “endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination conspiracy, monopoly or any other unfair means”
That article of the constitution was, in fact, cited in RSA 374-F:1, when the legislature stated as policy that; “Competitive markets should provide electricity suppliers with incentives to operate efficiently and cleanly, open markets for new and improved technologies, provide electricity buyers and sellers with appropriate price signals, and improve public confidence in the electric utility industry.” In that same statute, the legislature clearly stated that “the development of competitive markets for wholesale and retail electricity services are key elements in a restructured industry”.
The staff of Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) have, in fact, previously acknowledged their obligation to provide a fair and open market as a part of deregulation and encouraging a competitive market. When testifying before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on February 5, 2008 and again on December 6, 2008, PSNH staff stated that each power project will be evaluated on its own merits and that all power providers would be treated fairly and evenly without any pre-conditions.
In enacting RSA 362-F:1, the legislature further stated that; “It is therefore in the public interest to stimulate investment in low emission renewable energy generation technologies”. The legislation went on to place the onus for this effort on the electric utilities and provided the PUC with the power to authorize long term purchase power agreements between utilities and renewable energy providers.
All of this must also be considered in the light of RSA 378:37, which clearly states that; “The general court declares that it shall be the energy policy of this state to meet the energy needs of the citizens and businesses of the state at the lowest reasonable cost while providing for the reliability and diversity of energy sources”. RSA 378:38 goes on to lay out the guidelines for each utility’s biennial least cost integrated resource plan and its review by the PUC. During that review, the commission is enjoined to consider potential environmental, economic and health-related impacts of each proposed option, and if other factors are equal, the order of priorities is prescribed as; conservation, renewable energy sources and finally all other energy sources.
When all of the factors are considered . . . it is clear that PSNH has a constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and ethical requirement to sit at the table and consider all power supply offers. By repeatedly failing to even consider a purchase power agreement from an indigenous renewable energy provider, they have demonstrated a disregard for free and fair competition. As a regulated utility with an exclusive distribution franchise (i.e., poles and wires), their failure to encourage competitive energy markets and provide electricity buyers and sellers with appropriate price signals is clearly contrary to the requirements of state law and policy. Finally, without openly considering all of the options and offers for power, it is obviously impossible for a utility to state that they are providing the lowest reasonable cost power to their customers.
Thus, by failing to even consider offers of power from renewable power projects in New Hampshire, PSNH has fallen short of their obligation to the citizens of the State of New Hampshire and their duty to their own customers.
Since this forum is for discussing stocks, more specifically Laidlaw stocks, I see no issue with people sharing the due diligence they have done. I believe that is the purpose of this forum. It is not required anyone like it. No amount of discussion here will change the course Laidlaw and Berlin are on. In the mean time it is important that this discussion take place IMO. If you don’t like the challenge someone presents to your beliefs, simply ignore it. Or better yet, present facts to assert your position. And quell the opposing view. This is what we are doing here. I present the facts as I see them, and wait for rebuttal.
One thing I know is certain, I plan to be the last one standing.
;)
Yes this all makes perfect sense now.
Especially this part.
“The company is currently in the development stages of a facility in Ellicotville, NY.”
Just the facts.
rotflmao
This is how the State of New Hampshire sees it. And it only makes sense. Do you not remember what happened back in the 90’s?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=41602260
I am happy to help you with some dd.
Article 83 of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire states that “Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it”. It goes on to grant the legislature the power to enact laws that will prevent those who would “endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination conspiracy, monopoly or any other unfair means”
That article of the constitution was, in fact, cited in RSA 374-F:1, when the legislature stated as policy that; “Competitive markets should provide electricity suppliers with incentives to operate efficiently and cleanly, open markets for new and improved technologies, provide electricity buyers and sellers with appropriate price signals, and improve public confidence in the electric utility industry.” In that same statute, the legislature clearly stated that “the development of competitive markets for wholesale and retail electricity services are key elements in a restructured industry”.
The staff of Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) have, in fact, previously acknowledged their obligation to provide a fair and open market as a part of deregulation and encouraging a competitive market. When testifying before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on February 5, 2008 and again on December 6, 2008, PSNH staff stated that each power project will be evaluated on its own merits and that all power providers would be treated fairly and evenly without any pre-conditions.
In enacting RSA 362-F:1, the legislature further stated that; “It is therefore in the public interest to stimulate investment in low emission renewable energy generation technologies”. The legislation went on to place the onus for this effort on the electric utilities and provided the PUC with the power to authorize long term purchase power agreements between utilities and renewable energy providers.
All of this must also be considered in the light of RSA 378:37, which clearly states that; “The general court declares that it shall be the energy policy of this state to meet the energy needs of the citizens and businesses of the state at the lowest reasonable cost while providing for the reliability and diversity of energy sources”. RSA 378:38 goes on to lay out the guidelines for each utility’s biennial least cost integrated resource plan and its review by the PUC. During that review, the commission is enjoined to consider potential environmental, economic and health-related impacts of each proposed option, and if other factors are equal, the order of priorities is prescribed as; conservation, renewable energy sources and finally all other energy sources.
When all of the factors are considered . . . it is clear that PSNH has a constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and ethical requirement to sit at the table and consider all power supply offers. By repeatedly failing to even consider a purchase power agreement from an indigenous renewable energy provider, they have demonstrated a disregard for free and fair competition. As a regulated utility with an exclusive distribution franchise (i.e., poles and wires), their failure to encourage competitive energy markets and provide electricity buyers and sellers with appropriate price signals is clearly contrary to the requirements of state law and policy. Finally, without openly considering all of the options and offers for power, it is obviously impossible for a utility to state that they are providing the lowest reasonable cost power to their customers.
Thus, by failing to even consider offers of power from renewable power projects in New Hampshire, PSNH has fallen short of their obligation to the citizens of the State of New Hampshire and their duty to their own customers.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XXXIV-378.htm
You can’t ignore State law. State law requires that PSNH offer the same deal to CPD as it did to Laidlaw. Remember Laidlaw’s deal with PSNH is only a MOU and must still get PUC approval. If they don’t offer CPD the same deal then Laidlaw has no deal with PSNH. Which I would guess won’t be helpful with their financing. If they do offer CPD the same deal that will only help CP with their financing. And since they have all their permits, it will not take them long to break ground IMO. On the other hand Laidlaw has many other obstacles that will prevent them from filing for a permit IMO.
Thanks, but it has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with the facts IMO. And those facts are standing in the way of Laidlaw moving ahead with an application on the Berlin plant at this point in time IMO. And should they submit an application, (which I doubt we will see) there are just to many obstacles to overcome for it to be approved IMO.
But hey GLTY!
You can choose to ignore the facts King. But you can’t ignore the law. They will be required by State law to offer CPD the same deal as they offered Laidlaw. That is if it is approved by the PUC. To many obstacles for Laidlaw to overcome IMO.
That would need to be done before going to EFSEC. And if they did, then they would also have to offer the same deal to CPD. And since CPD is closer to breaking ground then they would be first to use the remaining capacity. Which makes an application to EFSEC by Laidlaw unnecessary until the grid issue can be addressed.
And that is only one obstacle Laidlaw has to overcome before submitting an application. Just too many obstacles for Laidlaw to overcome IMO.
The agreement Laidlaw has with PSNH requires PUC approval before they can get a contract to purchase power for 20 years. It appears that PSNH has broken State Law by not negotiating with Clean Power in good faith IMO. I understand a formal ruling on that should be coming soon. Certainly PSNH will be required by State law to offer the same deal they are offering Laidlaw to CPD. But since CPD project is basically ready to go at this point that could effectively kill all other projects due to line capacity issues. After reviewing the EFSEC permit requirements it just does not seem likely that Laidlaw would want to spend much more time or money trying to get a permit when they have so many obstacles to overcome. The list is long.
Article 83 of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire states that “Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it”. It goes on to grant the legislature the power to enact laws that will prevent those who would “endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination conspiracy, monopoly or any other unfair means”
That article of the constitution was, in fact, cited in RSA 374-F:1, when the legislature stated as policy that; “Competitive markets should provide electricity suppliers with incentives to operate efficiently and cleanly, open markets for new and improved technologies, provide electricity buyers and sellers with appropriate price signals, and improve public confidence in the electric utility industry.” In that same statute, the legislature clearly stated that “the development of competitive markets for wholesale and retail electricity services are key elements in a restructured industry”.
The staff of Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) have, in fact, previously acknowledged their obligation to provide a fair and open market as a part of deregulation and encouraging a competitive market. When testifying before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on February 5, 2008 and again on December 6, 2008, PSNH staff stated that each power project will be evaluated on its own merits and that all power providers would be treated fairly and evenly without any pre-conditions.
In enacting RSA 362-F:1, the legislature further stated that; “It is therefore in the public interest to stimulate investment in low emission renewable energy generation technologies”. The legislation went on to place the onus for this effort on the electric utilities and provided the PUC with the power to authorize long term purchase power agreements between utilities and renewable energy providers.
All of this must also be considered in the light of RSA 378:37, which clearly states that; “The general court declares that it shall be the energy policy of this state to meet the energy needs of the citizens and businesses of the state at the lowest reasonable cost while providing for the reliability and diversity of energy sources”. RSA 378:38 goes on to lay out the guidelines for each utility’s biennial least cost integrated resource plan and its review by the PUC. During that review, the commission is enjoined to consider potential environmental, economic and health-related impacts of each proposed option, and if other factors are equal, the order of priorities is prescribed as; conservation, renewable energy sources and finally all other energy sources.
When all of the factors are considered . . . it is clear that PSNH has a constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and ethical requirement to sit at the table and consider all power supply offers. By repeatedly failing to even consider a purchase power agreement from an indigenous renewable energy provider, they have demonstrated a disregard for free and fair competition. As a regulated utility with an exclusive distribution franchise (i.e., poles and wires), their failure to encourage competitive energy markets and provide electricity buyers and sellers with appropriate price signals is clearly contrary to the requirements of state law and policy. Finally, without openly considering all of the options and offers for power, it is obviously impossible for a utility to state that they are providing the lowest reasonable cost power to their customers.
Thus, by failing to even consider offers of power from renewable power projects in New Hampshire, PSNH has fallen short of their obligation to the citizens of the State of New Hampshire and their duty to their own customers.
http://2much2do4now.typepad.com/
Sage, former Mayor Danderson said that he would stake his re-election on his support of Laidlaw. That is fact. I understand you believe it was about change, but keep in mind that all the other councilors who ran for reelection also supported Laidlaw and were soundly defeated. Coincidence? Folks here don’t believe so.
Talk on the street is that the small handful of Laidlaw supporters plan on running this year. But they will try to distance themselves from Laidlaw because they know it is not a platform they can win on. But their defeat will once again confirm what the last election was about; that this community does not want a 65 MW biomass plant in the middle of town.
I understand you believe it won’t matter because the State will decide. If we see an application (a big IF IMO) the State will have no choice but to deny it IMO based on many factors. But one thing is certain; Laidlaw will not be getting any official support from the City of Berlin NH IMO.
Sounds good. Your turn. Here are just a few things I found in a quick search proving that the last election was about Laidlaw and the majority spoke out with their votes. I expect the same this time around. I know some believe the State will be ram this down Berlin’s throat no matter how much the majority don’t want it. I believe the State would have an easy time denying it if the application were ever filed. That’s because I believe there are way to many hurtles for this project to overcome, and that will be it’s demise. IMO Not that the majority doesn’t want it.
For support, they point to the results of the last city election. That’s when the incumbent mayor who supported the Laidlaw plan lost the race by a wide margin.
http://www.nhpr.org/node/14237
Debate over mill site ends reign of Mayor Bob. A debate over the future of the mill site developed. A group of downtown merchants urged the city council to fight efforts to locate a biomass plant or other heavy industry on the site. But Mayor Robert Danderson and a majority of the council argued the site is zoned industrial and privately owned by North American Dismantling. Furthermore, Danderson said the city could use the tax revenue that a biomass plant would bring. Frustrated, the group formed Citizens for a New Vision and took their cause to the voters in November. The result was an overwhelming defeat for Danderson.
http://laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2008/1/2B.pdf
Danderson, who was at the helm through some of the city's darkest times, received just 585 votes to Bertrand's 1,777.
http://www.unionleader.com/pda-article.aspx?articleId=7cf62d8a-a263-4c4a-a375-377a4bda1526
“The council has been increasingly making neutral or pro-Laidlaw comments so I think you're sadly mistaken.”
Really? Can you provide more detail or links to support this?
TIA
"Conventional wisdom around town is that the permit will be rapidly approved by the State of NH (the Governor will not oppose the plant due to the jobs the plant will create)."
What town? Not Berlin. Unless you run in the pro Laidlaw circle of 12. Because the conventional wisdom is among those who oppose biomass on the mill site including a majority of residents, Mayor and Council, and others who understand the negative impact something like this would have on the community and region.
If by some miracle a permit is ever submitted, which I doubt we will see IMO, it will be purely to raise the PPS and buy some more time before being denied.
Just to many realities standing in the way of this dream IMO.
Yes Sage I am having a great weekend, very kind of you for asking. Thinking about the upcoming week and the likelihood that nothing new will transpire with Laidlaw despite efforts by some to make it sound like there may be. Of course I base that on the fact that Laidlaw has no plants in operation and has yet to produce 1 MW of power in the last 10 years. But then hope can be an investment strategy as I continue to observe on this forum.
Do you go to any of their meetings or talk to them. Sounds like pure speculation on your part Brungy.
He won't be reelected if he decides to run again IMO.
PS I know Mark. Nice guy. A bit out in right field, but nice guy.
Oh Matt, but I plan to still be here long after Laidlaw exits Berlin stage left. I hope we can get together to share some stories after that happens. I know I am looking forward to that.
Seriously?
“Seems this project has not encountered any stiff resistance from city hall.”
Who from the Mayor and Council have you spoken to recently? I am fortunate to know and speak to them when I want to.
I have provided a link to their contact information. Please let me know what the Mayor has to say.
http://www.berlinnh.gov/Pages/BerlinNH_Council/index
Name the source. I have a few guesses who that may be. And a few is all I will need. Because it is common knowledge who the handful of Laidlaw supporters are in town. But you can’t ignore the will of the voter. Last election they overwhelmingly ousted those who said they supported biomass on the mill site. And in my opinion will again this November. If so what will you and your source say then?
But once again for you to sit wherever you are and try to tell me, who lives here, things about Berlin that you can only read about is just absurd IMO.
Tell me where you live and I will tell you all about what is going on in your community from what I read in the papers and on the web.
If this investment is crucial enough for you to project your opinions and views about things you know little about when it comes to Berlin NH, perhaps you may want to try going directly to the source instead of talking to some “politico”.
Because we can all trust politicians right?
Just a suggestion of course.
:)
It’s looking great! And will be even greater once the entire 120-acre’s in the middle of downtown are free from the threat of more heavy industry.
Thanks for asking!
Matt, that letter is from Bartoszek to Max and his committee. Don’t fret Matt, I suspect that as this committee continues to meet more and more of Laidlaws true colors will come to light. Just in time for the elections too!! And I suspect those running against biomass on the mill site will have Max to thank for helping expose the truth about Laidlaw.
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
;)
Actually crooner if you spent some time here, like I do every day, you would know from talking to people that it is a very small minority who want Laidlaw in Berlin. And I believe the coming elections will show that once again. Mr. Cusson is one who was soundly defeated last time because he is in favor of selling out Berlin’s future potential.
PS Berlin is not Matt’s community. He is from Gorham, a world away when it comes to decisions about Berlin’s future.
But Matt, are you saying that I should believe you and not Max? He has direct contact with Laidlaw. Do you? He received the 4 page letter from Bartoszek. Did you? He is the AVER economic director for the valley and the chair for the EFSEC committee. What role do you play? I don’t know but seems to me his information may be a bit more accurate and up to date then yours. Please prove me wrong.
Because last time I checked 1+1 is still 2.
Cheers Mate!
That's funny Sage because when I asked him in person he told me the same thing he said at the meeting. That they did not have financing as you are suggesting. But then he is also in regular direct communication with the company so I trust he knows. I guess you have it upside down again this time Sage. Or is someone not telling the whole story? I guess living here does have its advantages. Sigh....
Max Makaitis (a huge Laidlaw supporter) is someone who has contact with Laidlaw and says they are still looking for financing. He would know.
Apparently this is far from a done deal. Laidlaw cannot address the concerns of this committee, which is why I believe they will not submit an application. They know they can never address the issues the SEC will bring up. Especially given the list of entities expected to ask for intervernor status.
Community committee reviews Laidlaw's responses
by Erik Eisele
September 02, 2009
BERLIN — The Community EFSEC Advisory Committee met on Thursday to discuss Laidlaw's responses to questions the committee submitted to the company. The lack of a plant decommissioning plan, noise issues and the role of the company as a corporate citizen within the community provoked the most discussion between committee members.
The group was formed to address community concerns with the proposed Laidlaw biomass facility on the former mill property. The questions the committee dealt with pertained to appearance, noise, air and water quality and traffic issues with the proposed facility, as well as possible community benefits. The committee didn't have time to address all the community benefit questions or the county and state issues.
Committee chair Max Makaitis sent Laidlaw's responses to committee members about two hours before the meeting, so for some members the meeting was the first time they saw the responses.
Laidlaw said they had no plan to decommission or dismantle the plant because there is no requirement to do so. Biomass plants can also be upgraded to extend their lives, so they do not intend to create a plan.
Mr. Makaitis said while there are regulations requiring nuclear and wind power plants to be decommissioned, no other facility has that requirement. Also Clean Power, the other proposed facility, was not required to come up with such a plan, he said.
City councilor and committee member Ryan Landry said the city should ask the company to exceed the basic requirements. Councilor and committee member Tom McCue agreed.
"We need some kind of protection," he said, "in terms of protecting the city's interests."
Councilor McCue said if the project were half completed and then stopped, without a dismantling plan the city would be stuck with the cleanup.
"We're here to ask them how they'll work with us," said committee member Rachel Stuart.
"What we have right now is boiler sitting there," said Mr. Makaitis. Should the deal fall apart it shouldn't be Laidlaw's responsibility to remove the existing structre, he said. If a bond were required to cover the cost of such a cleanup it would make it more difficult for the company to find financing. "It's adding a financial obligation," he said.
City planner Pam Laflamme, who is not a voting member of the committee, said there is a case to treat Laidlaw differently than Clean Power because of the plant location. The committee could ask the company to provide a decommissioning plan even though it didn't require one of Clean power. The standard applied to one does not necessarily have to apply to the other, she said. Different standards are common applied based on the site in question.
City manager Pat MacQueen, another nonvoting member, said it was worth bringing any topic to the company.
"Don't cut the issue short," he said. "You're going in for negotiations, ask for what you want."
The committee also discussed noise issues, including truck engines, turbine noise, backup alarms and engine brakes. Laidlaw said it would obey the city noise ordinance in all instances.
"What we're hoping we don't see is them delivering 24 hours a day," said councilor McCue.
Committee member Barry Kelley said the concerns are similar to other facilities in the area, like the landfill, which receives trucks early in the day. Trucks often prefer to come in early, he said, so they can do multiple runs in a day. The early trucks would keep traffic to a minimum during school hours, he said.
The turbine noise will be a problem, councilor McCue said, and the noise ordinance won't deal with the issue.
The topography of Berlin often projects sound around the city, committee member Dick Huot said, and this will be no different.
Councilor Landry said it would be good to visit a similar facility to find out what noise levels the city will be dealing with.
Ms. Stuart said she would like clarification on what Laidlaw intends to do from a philanthropic perspective. The company responded they would support the community, but how exactly, she said.
"We don't want them just taking from this community," said councilor Landry.
Paul Cusson said he didn't want to see extra burdens placed on the company that might be a hindrance to locating in the city. If the business is bringing jobs to the area, he said, that is more than enough community support.
The committee also discussed making sure the plant burns only first-use wood, not recycled wood or cleaned wood. Laidlaw said they would only burn clean wood, but the committee decided they needed more specifics on what their definition of clean wood is.
Mr. Makaitis said he would take questions back to Laidlaw that required clarification. On several questions the company answered they were willing to work with the community on a project without explicitly saying "yes" to the project. The committee said they wanted clearer answers to these questions.
There was an opportunity for public comment, but no member of the public was there to speak.
The committee scheduled the next Community EFSEC Committee meeting for September 10, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. at White Mountains Community College. Laidlaw has not yet applied to the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Committee for review. The committee hopes to have all the issues they are concerned with addressed by the start of the process.
Doesn’t sound like a company that wants to work with the community IMO. But then I never expected that to be the case given what happened in Ellicottville NY. My belief that an application would never be filed is based on Laidlaw’s own history dealing with other communities. And lack of experience ever running such an operation. MB’s comments below support that belief. I really don’t see how the SEC could even consider such an operation when the CEO isn’t even willing to consider such trivial requests. And we’re just getting warmed up.
“Thirteen members of the 16-member committee turned out for the meeting and it quickly became clear that the committee includes both strong supporters and opponents of the proposed 66-megawatt plant.”
“Bartoszek wrote that painting the stack is costly and many times the results are not an improvement.”
“Dick Huot of the Northern Forest Heritage Park urged the committee to require a decommissioning plan to ensure if the facility closes, the stack is not left rusting in the middle of the city. City Councilor Tom McCue agreed. “We need some kind of protection,” he said. In his response, Bartoszek said there is no requirement for biomass plants to have decommissioning plans because they can be retrofitted and upgraded.”
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/9/1B.pdf
That has yet to be proved. Guess we will see. But to date I have been more right then wrong about Laidlaw's ability to follow through with their PR's IMO.
Well the election is coming and I will guarantee it will come down to the same issue it came down to last time (unfortunately) when the former Mayor staked his reelection on it and lost by 2/3 majority. But hey I only live here. You read stuff and likely have better sources of information about Berlin then I do.
You can believe what you choose Matt. That won’t change the fact that a majority of folks here in Berlin do not want biomass or heavy industry on the mill site. Watch the coming elections Matt. You will soon be educated as to what the people here want for their home. I guarantee it isn’t what you believe. I will even meet with you for a beer afterwards to celebrate.
The fact is Berlin has assets and characteristics that most communities wish they had. Check out the links I provided in a previous post. The majority will be out voting again this November. And it is my guess you will hear loud and clear like you did 2 years ago that a majority of people here don’t want biomass on the mill site. Tickity Tock folks.
Oh Matt those are great pictures if you are trying to show everything that is being worked on now without the help of Laidlaw. But wouldn’t you like to show more pride in where you are from and include this link also?
http://www.localdiscovery.tv/ (follow the Androscoggin Valley link)
http://www.localdiscovery.tv/images/scrogg_menu.png
http://www.berlinnh.gov/pages/BerlinNH_WebDocs/AndroscogginValley
The true fact Sage is that I live here and can tell you first hand, not through some “friend” that while Berlin may have its share of issues like many other communities, it is anything but “typical of many towns in the USA”. But I can’t expect outsiders to understand that because all you have to go by is what you read in the local paper, read on the internet or hear from “friends”. While I only talk to people on the street. Go to meetings. Get information from officials. And generally have sources that know first hand what is going on.
Here let me put it another way to help you understand. Why don’t you tell me where you live. I will do some DD and tell you all about your community.
I do find it interesting that you claim you do not meet in person with people you meet on the net, yet it would appear to me you tend to believe everything you read and hear second hand.
I hear you on that one Sage! To bad though. I was really looking forward to a face-to-face with you someday here in beautiful downtown biomass free Berlin NH. But that’s ok. I can understand you not wanting to reveal your true identity.
Oh I suspect we will continue to see more of the same thing we have seen for the last several years. Still plenty of time to get in at these levels IMO.
I know every person on that committee and his or her position on the topic is common knowledge around town. But more importantly it will all come back to Laidlaw answering the questions they have avoided answering to date IMO. If they can’t get the answers to a City committee, one has to wonder how they will ever get the answers to the State committee. Time will tell I guess.