Decades ago, I worked for a politician in California who was running for the state legislature. Given his platform and history, the unions should have supported his campaign. Yet most of them did not. While they didn’t necessarily support his opponent, they sat on their hands and didn’t help.
The reason? The candidate and many of the campaign staff were forces behind the passage of some strict rent control ordinances in the state. The trade unions felt that the ordinances, designed to prevent illegal, unfair and inhumane rent increases, sometimes of 100 percent, would lead to a loss of jobs. They argued that if there was a cap on rent increases, no one would invest in either building or buying rental property, resulting in a loss of jobs in that sector.
It was rare that the issue of affordable housing for working class folks, such as members of the building trades, was ever raised as a countervailing element in the discussion of rent control. History has shown that “job creation” frequently trumps such concerns as the provision of affordable housing, environmental protection, the impacts of solid waste facilities on abutters or whether a project’s scale is in keeping with its neighboring projects.
To this day, I am bemused at how anyone can look at job creation and land use in isolation, without looking at the overall societal impact of an action that is supported because it will “create jobs.” This is nowhere as evident as in the dialogue about how the construction of industrial wind facilities will create green jobs.
At every public hearing that LURC holds on an industrial wind project (the DEP does not hold public hearings on industrial wind projects, so the discussion doesn’t exist for projects that go before the DEP), there is an argument put forth on the part of the applicant that the project will create jobs, lots of them, as well as having economic trickle-down into the community.
Yet there is no acknowledgment that the jobs are short-term construction jobs, the economic trickle-down into the community is likewise short-term, and the remaining jobs, at the facility itself, are few and are often contract workers placed by the supplier of the turbines, not local workers. Using this simplistic, one-sided analysis avoids a discussion of the downside of these jobs, as much as the unions’ opposition to rent-control avoided discussing the downsides of allowing unfettered rent increases in their communities.
A true and open discussion of the green jobs argument in Maine would discuss the costs of such jobs and question whether the costs are worth the benefits. If we provide short-term construction jobs in Down East Maine and put guides, innkeepers, camps and restaurants out of business, is it worth it? Why are we making working people sacrifice their livelihood to create jobs? This will result in a net loss of long-term jobs.
But job creation is not what this is about. Rather, it is about using the green jobs argument to promote industrial developments that are just one more profit center for those who seek to exploit Maine’s natural resources.
It is about time that the impacts of these industrial projects are internalized, so that the agencies that are reviewing them have data available to weigh the economic benefits of the projects against the cost. And that cost must include the closure of small businesses, due to the project’s impacts on scenic values, environmental protection, wildlife, real estate values and human health. We must not allow our communities to be destroyed in the name of so-called green job creation.
The definition of green jobs must be altered. Green jobs should not be defined as those that depend on what is essentially industrial development. Rather, green jobs should be defined as those that sustain our communities, are an intrinsic part of those communities and do no harm to those communities.
Those supplying green jobs are local and it is an oxymoron to even suggest that some national or multinational corporations can supply green jobs. The guides, innkeepers, camp owners and restaurant owners are green employers; the industrial wind developers are not.
Tourism creates 170,000 nonsubsidized jobs in this state and the tourism industry is hearing from its visitors and clients that “when the wind turbines go up, we’re not coming back.” Do we really want to destroy an industry that has sustained our state for over a century for one that is only trying to profit off our state? Think about it — much is at stake.
Lynne Williams is a land use attorney living and working in Bar Harbor.
The technical term is ‘magical’.
Lynn Williams
Please follow the green jobs money right into the pockets of Democrat party operatives.
Green jobs…like Solyandra? Where is the green job czar
Van Jones when we need him? Oops! He is too busy occupying.
thanks Lynne for setting straight just one of the many misconceptions these supposed green projects present- sadly the Oakfield project boasts on its website about creating electricity for New England- you know why they don’t say Maine? because it does not GO to Maine..ask Vinylhaven where electricity costs have gone up..costly transmission lines and and an as yet not refined technology will remove the nature that provides longterm jobs in Maine as it always has- lake cabins, hunting guides, hikers,views of Katahdin and more- all these will be forever negatively impacted (and some already have been) not to mention the wildlife (forests- birds- moose to mention only a few) these tourists come to enjoy and the peace and QUIET (turbines are not quiet) that has always been the gem and jewel of Maine.
That is a wonderfully written piece. Bravo.
Thankfully, I believe Governor LePage is on to the con of the wind industry’s false jobs promises. He noted in his weekly radio address on Saturday that the severe electricity increases that the proposed renewable (WIND) mandate would rain down on Maine would dwarf the relative small handful of temporary jobs.
The governor repeated his opposition tonight in his state of the state address. “I believe it is morally and ethically wrong to take more money from those who can least afford it to line the pockets of those that are politically connected here in Augusta.” I assume he was talking about Angus King, Rob Gardiner, Kurt Adams, Reed and Reed, NRCM, and the big name law firms, all who have deep connections and influence in Augusta. They also were instrumental in creating the policies under John Baldacci from which they are now profiting at enormous taxpayer expense.
NRCM and other wind cheerleaders have stepped way out of their bailiwicks and weighed in on job creation. You’ll hear them talk about the 300 Maine companies that have benefited from wind projects. What they don’t tell you is some of those they’ve counted have done little more than sell a few boxes of nails. No matter how trivial they count them. Another thing they will not tell you is that 300 companies, with all due respect, represent but a tiny fraction of Maine’s 34,942 firms according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/
Moreover, there is no mention about the strain that wind power’s inevitable higher electricity rates place on all 34,942 firms. Without question, our high electricity rates are a MAJOR obstacle to our existing businesses and attracting new businesses. So while some of the largest companies can afford to dispatch their workers complete with construction vests to hearings to testify for wind projects (and they exit in mass at 4PM), these are but a vocal minority. The vast majority of Maine businesses will be affected very adversely if we keep protecting these wind companies at the expense of lower priced electricity providers.
Also, tourism and “Quality of Place” will be hurt.
Thankfully, the U.S. is finally waking up to the great green jobs scam and so are Mainers.
Read about the myth of green jobs and please join us at:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/myth-of-green-jobs
Thank you, Ms. Williams, for a well written commentary. Tourism has been Maine’s biggest (and most reliable) economic engine since the late 1800’s and will continue to be so only if we protect the natural scenic viewsheds these folks come from all over the world to see. They come for the beauty, for the dark night skies, for the absence of industrial development in her forests, on her mountains, around her lakes and up and down her coastal shoreline. They come to Maine because Maine is unique in its undeveloped nature. They spend a lot of money here, ten billion dollars a year, and provide year round full time jobs to over 170,000 Mainers. The wind industry can’t hold a flickering candle to tourism as far as job creation or “trickle down economics”, but it has the capability of gravely jeopardizing it. We’d be foolish to allow that to happen for the sake of making a handful of wind developers wealthy. We don’t need what industrial wind has to offer, not the sporadic, pricey and unreliable electricity or the environmental degradation.
Thank you for taking the time to write this Lynne.
In Maine, the Wind Scam is the Wind Fraud is the Wind Farce.
First Wind’s non-creation of long term jobs is a secret thus far untold
In Lincoln, there has been no growth because of a $130 million project. NONE!
NO GROWTH, as confirmed by the town manager and tax assessor.. NONE!!!
BUT:
-Property values fell.
-Environment is fractured, and made unusable for further long term development.
-Vacationers leave and don’t return, why bother, you can see industrial sprawl in the cities, why drive to see it?.
-Existing recreational properties from long term summer residents are put on sale near the project at much lowered values.
-Summer recreational money slows with loss of recreational uses.
-Short term jobs do not become long term.
-The project becomes an eyesore, as heinous unnatural landscape from sci-fi movies past.
-Noise is created on the once tranquil lakes, with infra-sound spreading ,annoying abutters who now live in an industrial zone, zoned residential by law!
-Animals leave (how was the hunting this year there folks , huh?)
-RED LIGHTS FLASH EVERYWHERE, advertising the mistake for all to see!
Green Jobs? You don’t see ANY !
Community devastation is the reality!
Wasted tax subsidy money, on a project that produces next to no electricity (indeed the power cannot even be exported because of grid restrictions in Orrington), have made Rollins Wind a farce.
What would a real business project with an infusion of $130 million have done in Lincoln ?
No one will ever know.
Now Lincoln can only dream, as the reality of the huge mistake takes hold for years to come.
Green $$$$, you bet , to Tom Gardner and Jay Haynes.
(The only real benefactors of green subsidy scamming , and self-serving non-job creation.)
The grid congestion in Orrington exemplifies the folly of industrial wind and the policies and mandates that sustain it.
The subsidized wind power IS exported from Orrington, because it is given transmission preference. The other generators, a gas plant and a pooling hydro, providing baseload power from Orrington are curtailed or backed down to accommodate transmission of wind power. The curtailed or backed down baseload generators had contracted to sell their power in the day ahead market so they will be paid for the power they are not producing anyway. The rate payers are paying for the gas and hydro baseload power as well as the intermittent, unneeded, more expensive wind power.
Those rent control ordinances in California and NYC didn’t exactly work: They preserved below-market rents for those lucky enough to live there, but permanently priced out working people and their kids while leading to mass abandonment, gentrification, and degradation of the existing housing stock.
All of which is to say that ‘view preservation’ and development restrictions seem quite attractive now, but permanently short-change the next generation of workers, residents, and families, especially when you consider that the population of the USA is still growing 1%/year.
Who is shortchanged are the people who have dumped their life savings into a home which is made unlivable because of poorly sited wind turbines which vibrate their homes with infrasound. They cannot sell their homes and move somewhere else, who would buy from them? Mars Hill residents just settled 17 such cases with gag orders to keep the story from coming out. Maine is about the views and quality of place. I understand that may be alien to a NYC person.
Brilliant piece, Lynne. Maine’s true ‘green jobs’ are those that support tourism.
Wind developers are required BY LAW to provide the permitting authority with specific information regarding how many fulltime permanent operation & maintenance positions their proposed project will create. Blue Sky East/First Wind’s initial application for the Bull Hill project did not include this specific information. One would think that with all the wonderful green jobs they were going to create that they would be anxious to shout that information from the rooftops! Apparently not.
In his prefiled testimony, First Wind’s Matt Kearns made all the typical vague promises. He emphasized that the project will result in direct benefits to the local economy. He said it will create approximately 850 jobs representing millions of dollars in wages. He maintained that wind power developments typically result in wages of approximately $182,000 per megawatt installed.
Then he predictedthe project would create “three to eight full-time employees during the operational lifetime of the project”. THREE to EIGHT jobs!! What’s going on here? That’s not much.
This reference to three to eight jobs was too vague for the LURC Commissioners and they demanded more detail. They had to resort to a formal procedural order demanding “the number of on-going full-time employees, separate from periodic maintenance work which would be hired by Blue Sky East for the operational phase of the project.” Left without any wiggle room, First Wind responded on 06/15/11 that they “anticipate hiring three permanent, full-time employees to operate and maintain the facility”.
Wait a minute… what happened to Matt Kearns’s three to eight jobs? Now it’s down to only three?? Under questioning First Wind admitted that five of those eight were going to be maintenance people provided by the turbine manufacturer for the 3 year warranty period.
Pretty darn sneaky of Matt Kearns to count those as local hires in his sworn testimony, eh?
But wait! There’s more!
During the LURC deliberations this matter was raised again. One of the Commissioners commented that First Wind has other projects near the Bull Hill site. There’s Stetson I, Stetson II, Rollins and maybe soon there will be Bowers Mountain. The Commissioner asked if there wasn’t any job sharing going on among the various projects. First Wind answered with a very reluctant and sheepish “yes”. The Commissioner then asked if a more accurate figure for the total number of operational jobs created wouldn’t be two. First Wind agreed.
So there we have it. It was like pulling teeth but the truth is now on the record. All of this is in the documents and transcripts available on the LURC website for all to see. Let the world know once and for all that:
First Wind’s Bull Hill project will, by First Wind’s own admission, create exactly TWO permanent full-time operational jobs!
We have to ask ourselves: Are two jobs a fair trade for defacing Bull Hill? For polluting the scenic value of the lakes, mountains and hiking trails in that area? I think the answer is obvious.
Of course, this type of information never makes it into the Maine media. It could be – and should be – embarrassing to First Wind and other developers that they’re using this maneuver.
In a similar sleight of hand, Angus King’s Highland Wind estimated in its application that it would employ 4 -6 people in permanent positions to operate its 48 turbine facility. Construction time would be about 9 months. A revised application pared the project down to 39 turbines. Strangely, the permanent jobs estimate increased to 8 and the construction time went to just over a year. (First Wind’s 40 turbine Rollins project was built in just 6 months.) King plans a smaller project, less roadbuilding, fewer turbines to maintain, but more permanent jobs and a longer construction period. Hmm.
These developers seem to be inflating numbers to fluff up their dubious economic benefits predictions.
I hadn’t heard that , interesting. A little bit of misinformation coming to light. What other surprises await us?
Thank you Lynne Williams for standing up to an industry whose product is the destruction of Maine and the downfall of Maine ‘s world known attraction : its beauty and wildness .
Thank you Lynne, for defending what has become undefendable because a collusion of politicians , lawyers and wind industry lobbyists have infiltrated the regulatory processes and lobby endlessly in front of the Energy Utility Committee for more laws favorable to their expansion without any permanent jobs forMainers but with an assurred destruction of its assets.
For more information on the deceit of green jobs , please check the following link.
http://utahclimate.org/articles/news/obama-administration-recruited-left-wing-lobbyists-to-sell-bogus-%e2%80%98green-jobs%e2%80%99
The wind industry is perfectly aware that it will destroy the scenic assets of Maine and to counterattack citizens appealing wind project permits a new life is given to an old profession : landcape architects are now paid to utter total insanities : that 400 feet steel turbines spinning on precious ridges have adverse effects on a scenic area but not unreasonably adverse effects , they will tell you without laughing that if you hike or canoe or fish and dislike turbines, just turn your head in another direction.
Maine with 1000 or more 400 foot tall rotating spikes in her landscape will become a futuristic industrial dump, not a tourist destination.
Not happy enough to destroy Maine’s landscape, this industry will also destroy current business . Indeed, wind industrial parks needs new transmission lines to transport electrons from remote locations to urban regions which will add a tremendous cost to electrical rates.
This in turn will chase away current business providing permanent jobs with benefits to states with lower electrical rates.
It is perfectly clear to understand why the wind industry needed a law to allow the rejection of scenic consideration from the permitting process, without that there would have never been any steel in the ground.
We are urging Governor LePage , Kenneth Fletcher and the Energy Utility Committee to bring common sense to Maine’s energy policies.
Let us not destroy Maine’s Quality of Place nor increase the electrical rates .
If we do, Maine will be “closed for business”.
Monique Aniel
http://www.windtaskforce.org
A nice moment of clarity on the realities of wind jobs claims. Many thanks to Ms. Williams for setting the record straight.
The wind industry has been using the “jobs blackmail” tactic effectively up until now. In the last legislative session, it was their “go to” maneuver in opposition to bills designed to give Mainers some relief from wind development pressures in their communities.
While I hope that this exposure forces a little more honesty about jobs associated with wind development, I’m really not expecting much of a change in the wind industry’s behavior.
Sock it to ’em Lynne. Great letter.