Rezone Hearing for 4/22/09

I'm for nuclear energy, but not in an agriculture zone. That will with out a doubt hurt our farmers.

YoB,

I am not trying to call you out on the carpet, to begin with.

Why do you favor nuclear energy? It has been interesting to hear why some favor it. Feel free to disagree with me.

Tim, it was nice to meet you last night. You are a very smart young man and I am sure you will do well in life. Thank you for attending. I was sorry that there were not more young people present as this will become their legacy. I was disappointed with Courtney Hiler/Ireland (prior P & Z Comm.) and K.C. Deurig (current P & Z Comm.) and their "presentations." It was clear that both had a motive/agenda of some sort, IMO of course.

I found it very interesting that AEHI and the "pro" folks were not forced to stay on topic---rezone only. When the "anti" spoke, they were reminded of the "rules" and to remain on topic---rezone only and some were even cutoff during testimony. Funny how we were all in the same room at the same hearing yet had very different standards for testimony.

That was my 4 cents.

Hi everyone,

I was not able to make the meeting last night, can someone please fill me on on what happened?? Did the rezone get approved or disapproved?

There will be no decision till later. There were 30 who signed up to support it and 47 opposed to it. Both sides had some that should have given us the silent treatment but thats life. They had to get on people's case to stay on topic.

what is your take on the topic?

AFBADGER, the commissioners said they would not make their decision that night before any of the testimonials started. There was a huge turnout (a lot of people from Boise too)and many testimonials from both sides. There were also several testimonials from people representing groups like the Snake River Alliance. Then the AEHI was allowed to respond at the end of the testimonials. It was very interesting but long (almost 4 hours if you stayed till the end.) I think both sides presented intelligent and impassioned testimonials. OM, I don't know if you were "zoning out" when the pro-folks spoke, but they were told repeatedly to stay on topic - rezone only. They were also cutoff during testimony way more than the folks against the rezone IMO.

So how does that work? So does that mean it is going to be disapproved? When will we find out the decision? I think Nuclear is a good idea, and its worked well in this country so far, but the waste is my concern. From what I've been reading the country has kept everyone safe from it so far..

No, it just means that the decision will be deliberated upon for a few days. I have heard from some that it will be Monday.

OM-

They are citizens just like everyone else..both Ireland and Duerig voted NOT to deny the rezone during the P&Z meeting with AEHI.....Ireland can say what she wants as she has resigned, and Duerig, as a current P&Z member, will have to deal with the consequences of his actions I suppose. I imagine ALL members of P&Z, City Council, ECC's have some sort of agenda, otherwise, why be on the board if you are not passionate about certain issues and making decisions on them? No one is completely impartial on anything.......its very unrealistic.

Thats my 3.5 cents.....

Thank you for your answers. I enjoy reading these blogs about this topic, its been very intresting. I would like to see the plant built for the jobs, and it would be pretty cool seeing Idaho leading the fore front and taking the first step in 30 years for a new Nuclear plant. I also understand how everyone can be skeptical about it too. I'm also curious that this whole thing hasnt got more national media attention about it too.

Wow, what a great turnout at the nuke "hearing", but what a silly format with instructions to never mention nuclear power. I think the legal advice given to Commissioners by Mason and Prosecutor Shindelee were wrong and frankly illegal. We all stuck to the good instructions about how this relates to the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan protects the rural quality of life, and yes, evacuation plans are demanded by NRC in case of terrorism or catastrophic accidents, and your kids will need to know what to do when the alarms go off. Even the pro-nuke chant for jobs can be seen as protecting the rural quality, but when the NRC admits forced evacuation and impoundment of crops is their plan for emergencies, it is fair to state that gamble too.

But it is stupid to demand no mention of how this specific nuclear proposal will effect the Comprehensive plan.

For example AEHI's Peccinino claimed the nuke plant fit the CP definition of light industrial. I testified that definition prohibits hazardous materials, and the spent fuel rods get stored onsite without containment, and the NRC admits they are a soft terrorist target. The Chairman nearly popped a vein claiming that explaining why spent fuel is hazardous is not allowed! I was just stiking to explaining the beloved C Plan, and needed to add details why that contradicts the AEHI claim. That IS related to the directions to stick to the rezone issue. The demand to not be specific is just ignorant and wrong.

Mason obviously has a hard time reading, since he denied I had asked for permission to speak for my group. It was clearly in the title, and the second sentence was "I would like to speak on behalf of my group." Hard to miss, but Mason tossed it aside claiming no such words existed. That is as accurate as his legal advice! But hey, on the positive side Shindeleee did not demand I get arrested for trespassing!

What an arrogant jerk......

Whoever it was that was the former P&Z commissioner that stated that it was their duty to consider the nuclear aspect and in fact by law they had to consider it left alot to be desired. Being rude and pretending to know more than anyone else so that they push their agenda above that of others is despicable but the world has a few of those.

twilcox,

From what I know about nuclear energy, I know that it has the POTENTIAL to be dangerous. It all depends on who is handling it. Frankly, I don't trust AEHI to keep the energy safe. They seem to like to tip-toe and sneak around things. If that is how they handle the public, why would that be the case with the energy they make? I don't want to live in Springfield with people like Homar Simpson working at the plant.

Does anyone know if AEHI has an answer the the harm that this will cause for farmers where they plan to build?

yoB, you go, girl.

YoB,

I think you and I might actually agree here. I support nulcear power but do not trust AEHI. I am from the old school where I was taught to trust my gut feeling and my gut feeling is that this company is not to be trusted. I did not like they way they handled themselves in Owhyee nor did I like the way the handled themselves at a MHCC meeting. They seemed to think we, the citizens of Mt Home, could understand what they were saying and that they could walk all over us. You know it is like when you met someone and for some reason that you cannot pinpoint, you do not like that person, well that is the feeling I got from AEHI. How about you?

Old guy, that isn't really the feeling I get. I don't really read or listen to the things AEHI says only because, yes, they make it so complicated. And I started to watch the DVD and it didn't explain anything about AEHI's plant... only about nuclear energy. I know a bit about nuclear energy already. That isn't what I was looking for. I have read/listened to the people on the pro and con side of this. People on the pro have only (from what I've seen) talked about how nuclear enerygy is good. They haven't answered the questions about this specific plant. Only that it will bring jobs. I am also very turned off by their want to build in an Ag zone. Nuclear energy should not be trusted with anyone. Mountain Home needs to make their standard very high for AEHI to insure people aren't put in danger for health risks and business risks. Old guy, my Grandpa says your intuition is the best thing to trust.

YoB:

I have got to hand it to you. The last two posts you have written are wonderful. You should be in there making some of the big decisions. Best posts I have seen in a long time regarding the pros and cons. Great posts.

I wanted to further explain what I said at the hearing about how splitting this decision opens Elmore to a winnable lawsuit from AEHI that will force in the plant.

The Commissioners will vote on this step one, deciding "whether the rezone of the site would be possible." If they say "YES", since we are not thinking of nukes, then we will consider the proposal, this vote is on public record. This sets you up for illegally discriminating against a legal nuclear business if they TRY to vote NO later when looking at the specific proposal. If the Commissioners are on recorded vote saying sure by golly, we might consider any wonderful industry, like a lavender oil factory or an ice cream maker, then pandora's box is open for ANY legal business to force there way in.

That's like the Jerome Sempra coal lawsuit I mentioned, when the county finally balked during public pressure. Sempra and AEHI have the right to do business in a Industrial zone. Once they vote to take a look-see at AEHI it will be to late to stop the lawsuit happy AEHI.

Sure hope they use the one legal tool they have, and vote to keep this zoned as AG.

Sempra only went away when so many people spoke up until the politicians ears burned.

By the way MHG4316, I respect your right to call me an arrogant jerk, but my intentions are just to protect my children, and all innocent children downwind of potential nuclear disasters, who know not what their fathers do...Peter

bazookaman please forward yourself to the "jobs vs. quality of life" blogs and this will help you better understand why wind-power is not being more redilly sought after in Idaho. I do understand that the wind will often blow your vehicle around a little but as a VW BAJA owner myself I also know that it doesn't take a lot to blow this car around and I'm willing to bet it takes more to move the blade on a windmill.

As far as how Gillespie speaks about things, have any of you ever considered that it's not that he's trying to trick you...it's more that he's not experienced in public speaking. I am a part of the military and I can tell you, in the military you don't exactly get a whole lot of practice in the debating area.

"oh, won't somebody please think of the children!?" in reference to the Simpons...I don't like Maude's attitude much better than Homer's handling of material. Get off the children thing please. I know that some of you are sincere and for those I thank you for being concerned but so many people use the children as a ploy to get what them themselves desire that it is sickening.

Also, I believe that it is not Mountain Home's responsibility to make/enforce operation codes for this plant if it does come in. This is why we (the U.S.) has safety boards, regualtion and inspections on these plants regularly.

As for it being farm land. I do not remember her name but at the meeting for the con. side, a woman got up and spoke of having farms the land in question 2 years ago with potatoes and mint, that this land is "wonderful farming" land. Later in the statement she said that if their was a leak from this porposed plant, that it would go straight to the water table because the soil is not much more than sand and it would simply race through the soil. My question is...how is this such wonderful farming land if it's all sand? You can't farm sand...just like it wouldn't hold the ooze from getting into the water table then how did it hold water at the plants roots?

This is what is killing me. PLEASE do some research on what is said...do not rely on other's testimony expecting that they have done the research that you yourself have not done. It is not hard. Whether you are pro, con, neut...I don't care but please, please know what you are being fed before defending it. You wouldn't eat dog food because you don't know what's in it, right? I have tried before to put facts up here so that maybe we can all learn something and that way change our defense for whatever you/I believe but the vast majority of you ignore it becasue it simply does not fit with what you want to believe or what you already believe to be true...I even pulled one fact straight off Idahogov and still the wind mill thing is coming up again. Learn more about what you're fighting for, not matter which "side" you are on. PLEASE

Sand is farmed in lots of areas. Uses lots of water and makes really good spuds.

Funny, that entire area where this plant is proposed to be is in alfalfa. Most of the surrounding area is in nice crops as well...GREEN! It is prime farm land. That "sand" must grow some pretty good stuff. Half of the water needed for farming in this county is provided by the Snake River (per the EC Comp. Plan). If this body of water was to be polluted with radioactive material, it would put MANY out of business and render most of EC land worthless. I have done my research. I do not follow the sheep. Most of the people who post on here have also done the research. What good are all of these "jobs" if we cannot drink the water?

Dear Farmerswife,

Gillispie is more than a bad speaker, he has made MANY false statements I can document. For example twice in Idaho newspapers he claimed the Raft River geothermal power cost a whopping 62 cents per Kwhr! I corrected him in those papers, providing the Idaho PUC contract for 5.25 cents! Why would he repeat that twice if not to deceive people? Geothermal power runs 24/7, in a renewable closed loop, and could provide 5 times our 1990 US electric use!

I am not sure why you are sure wind power is not readily sought in Idaho, but may I please share a few thoughts and the 2008 Dep't of Energy report that says the US can provide 20% of our power with wind by 2030. If you look into the actual study, Idaho can DOUBLE our present electric supply! This would be well underway if Id Power had not dragged wind producers through court for years, claiming incorrectly it was impossible to integrate intermittent wind power into the grid.

The China Mt wind farm proposed for south hills in Twin Falls can provide 500 MegaWatts of power, but Id Power is refusing it, so Nevada is going to be in control of this project, while Butch and Gillispie claim we are short of energy.

I have spoken with a TF rancher 3 years ago, who had his land studied for 4 years by Enexco, and he had class 4 winds that peaked all winter long, and peaked in the summer during the AC demand from noon until 7 PM. They offered Id Power a FIXED rate of 4.5 cents /Kwhr for 20 years. Id Power refused, stayed in court with the little guys, so Enexco walked away 2 years ago. The rancher would have made money, kept on ranching as would the company who would foot the building bill make money, and we'd all have cheap power. The China Mt proposal doesn't even include this guys ranch.

Please visit my website for the 2007 Stanford report on how connecting wide spread wind farms provides a baseload as reliable as coal, and cheaper. The INL spokesman for wind says the current rate is 7.5 cents/Kwhr, but that is still way cheaper than nuke power, and no chance of a meltdown that would force evacuation of Elmore and beyond, for the rest of our lives. Why bet the farm everyday nothing will go wrong?

The DOE report can be found at this url, but I paste the intro snippet FYPerusal...Peter

http://www.energy.gov/news/6253.htm

May 12, 2008

Wind Energy Could Produce 20 Percent of U.S. Electricity By 2030

DOE Report Analyzes U.S. Wind Resources, Technology Requirements, and Manufacturing, Siting and Transmission Hurdles to Increasing the Use of Clean and Sustainable Wind Power

WASHINGTON, DC -- The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) today released a first-of-its kind report that examines the technical feasibility of harnessing wind power to provide up to 20 percent of the nation's total electricity needs by 2030. Entitled "20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030", the report identifies requirements to achieve this goal including reducing the cost of wind technologies, citing new transmission infrastructure, and enhancing domestic manufacturing capability.

I don't think people are really against the nuclear power ( I certainly am not, I'm all for it!) but against AEHI and Don Gillespie himself. Mike Crawford, (an attorney I work for and who testified at the hearing), was explaining to me that if the rezone gets approved, that will bump up the stock for AEHI. BUT if AEHI doesn't get approved by the Nuclear regulatory commission or any of the federal regulatory yahoos to build that power plant, then that land sits AS ZONED FOR HEAVY INDUSTRY for 4 years before it can be rezoned back to AG, according to Idaho Statutes. Then, AEHI is under "fiduciary" obligation to it's stock holders to bring in money and can sell or lease that land to any HEAVY INDUSTRY wanting to stink up our air or pollute the river or farmland that surrounds that area. THAT's what the people who are for don't understand. And having AEHI dangle that carrot of jobs and economic gain in front of these poor people that are salivating at the prospect of jobs is despicable!

Yes indeed sas212, I have to agree with you and Mr Crawford on that scenario. That is what I tried to say at the hearing correcting the P&Z man's statement about coal plants are not a possibility at the site. He wanted folks to disregard the fact AEHI & Gillispie's written application states they could build a coal plant instead. Funny how that contradicts his "nuclaer power will save us from coal and global warming" speeches I attended.

Lawyer Crawford's reasoning is why I told the Commishes that once they vote to approve this initial acceptance of willingness to rezone to Industrial, they have opened Pandora's box to a lawsuit that ANY legal industry will win.

"If you don't think Gillispie will sue you, then you don't know Gillispie."

DrPeterRickardsDPM I am not trying to say that wind power is not a good source. I was trying to point out that it IS Idaho Power that is not allowing us to go forward. I do agree the wind power could help us but with Idaho Power pushing so hard against any incoming sources that would have put in a Wind Farm...we cannot keep going back to this unless we start fighting Idaho Power and let's face it...it's hard just to get ahold of a person. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm saying that how Idaho Power is handling it, that this option is not really any longer an option.

I apologize for not having made that point clear earlier.

Thank you for the kind explanation farmerswife! I guess I am a "hopeless optimist" about fighting Id Power, and I am always hoping to recruit fellow fighters. I see energy independence as a National Security issue, and I consider the local fight a duty to our soldiers dying in the oil fields.

Idaho was one of the few wise states not to opt into deregulation when it was popular, so I think we have more hope of eventually winning. Butch and most our other politicians take Id Power money and nuke money. It is indeed hard to fight the wall of misinformation they can afford, like a DVD sent to every house, and an INL speaker sent to every school and Rotary Club, but "we shall overcome someday".

Since folks love jobs, me too, one of the best parts of the DOE wind study was just like Donnie G's drool list of all the millions in economic benefits from well paying construction, local taxes, etc. One well paid workers is needed to maintain every 5 windmills, so the jobs continue to add to the economy, with cheaper power than nukes to boot.

Butch's Energy Czar is a joke, who just repeats Butch's claim, "Idaho has 3 N's in it's energy future: Nuclear, Natural gas, or NOTHING."

I have to feel in my heart that this kind of blatant lying can eventually come to light, and Idahoans can have a good laugh at the joke we are presently the butt of...Peter

So why did Bonnie Sharp with P & Z (before she retired) state on the record that if the land was rezoned from Ag to M2 that it would remain M2 regardless of if the plant was built or not. She was VERY clear that the land would NOT go back to Ag. It has more value to the owner as M2 anyway and I doubt he would allow it to go back to Ag without a fight. So, who is right? I would think that Bonnie would know how it works.

Public Hearing

When: Monday, May 4, 6:00 p.m.

Where: Commissioners Room, 150 S. 4th East, Mtn. Home

Description:

Zoning & Development Ordinance and revised Future Land Use and Zoning Maps

Yep...just change the rules we have to allow what we "want." Here is the chance to speak up before they do it.

" Once the rezone is done and the CUP is issued that land will NEVER revert back to Ag as it is worth far more to the owner as M1/M2. Who knows what we will end up with in the end. That is the larger picture.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Wed, Apr 22, 2009, at 11:33 AM "

You seem to know the answer to that question already, so why ask? But since you did, I will try to get an answer for you.

Thank you sas but I am really not sure which side is correct, which is why I asked. I think that is an important part of the puzzle that we need an answer to BEFORE this matter is decided. Thank you if you do get the answer. Mr. Crawford is a smart man and I trust what he says either way. He did very well at the hearing! He presented another side that I am sure nobody had thought of. I was impressed that he spoke out (same as he did on the other big issue in town).

Even if it wasnt rezoned back to AG, you can farm in M2 zoning......

Wind power would not employ as many as nuclear due to the level of sophistication and the scale. I feel that most know that already. The jobs would be short lived and not as profitable as that of nuclear. On the other hand, average joes from Mtn. Home, GF, Hammett can help put up wind turbines, solar panels, etc. Average joe construction workers does not have the skill nor experience to build a nuclear plant. This operation has to be precise with no error and being that virtually no one here has experience this entails a steep learning curve. This steep learning curve will mean that they get the labor from elsewhere. Training employees is expensive. Especially when there is no room for error.

Here are some links regarding some of the "misinformation" regarding AEHI and Mark P. as stated by WAYL. Thanks for the facts WAYL.

http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2008...

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/02/owyhe...

You'll never guess what I stumbled across!

Two More Planners Exit Ada County

May 9, 2007 (4:37 pm)

Article taken from Boise Guardian - http://boiseguardian.com

URL to article: http://boiseguardian.com/2007/05/09/two-...

I guess Pecchenino was in trouble a year ago or so with planning commission in Ada County because he was moonlighting for Elmore County.

I guess as far as his behavior as consultant with Elmore County planning and zoning while being given loads of AEHI stock is legal somehow I still am troubled by it.

-- Posted by senior lady on Sat, Nov 15, 2008, at 10:34 AM

And if you read the BB right around November 12, 2008...there are interesting facts there as well.

Two More Planners Exit Ada County

May 9, 2007 ⋅ Email ⋅ Print ⋅ Post a comment

The GUARDIAN has it on good authority two more employees of the Ada County Development Services have left. They are dropping like flies.

The sudden departure Monday of veterans Mike McClenahan, who ran the "support services" and Scott Cook, a planner, have tongues wagging in the courthouse. Some speculate the departure of these two highly regarded professionals has something to do with a reorganization of duties among the Commishes.

Commish Paul Woods was overseeing the planning functions, but he recently switched with Commish Fred Tilman who now is the liaison to the development services staff.

Last week Development Director, Gerry Armstrong, announced his resignation to join Hubble Homes as director of planning for the private development firm. Armstrong will officially leave his position May 16 and join Hubble the next day. He joined former Commish Judy Peavey who is Hubble's director of governmental affairs.

Earlier this year county planner Mark Pecchenino left the development services office after it was revealed he was moonlighting for Elmore County. He is currently a private consultant for developers.

So much turnover and a law suit filed by Save the Plateau activist Tony Jones claiming unfair treatment from Ada County at a public hearing could make for an interesting summer on the development front."

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Mon, Apr 27, 2009, at 11:45 AM

Even if it wasnt rezoned back to AG, you can farm in M2 zoning......

-- Posted by mhg4316 on Sun, Apr 26, 2009, at 9:16 PM

I don't think farming in M2 zoning is the issue; the issue is staying M2 zoning even if the Nuclear plant isn't built. That would leave it open for any other Heavy Industrial business to snag that area, something that could be much worse than a nuclear powerplant....something smelly, dirty and ugly by comparison!

One consequence of this plant (nuclear or not) is the unused infrastructure. Roads, emt's, sewers, traffic light adjustments, traffic signals, extra city employees, schools, hospitals, housing, etc. that will be underutilized in the end. Some things can be undone but what are they going to say to Ms. Jane Doe working for the city who becomes expendable afterwards. After the construction process is complete, there will be vestiges that cant be recycled or utilized. Mtn. Home is not LA. There are not swarms of people waiting to move here. Once this is built and the workers leave, the city and county will be left with vacant homes, underused but publicly financed roads, unhappy but laid off workers, underutilized schools, etc.

One example is 5000 car trips as per their study. Those 5000 trips will have predictable consequences such as extra EMT's, traffic signal adjustments, extra police, road improvements, time spent planning this buildup, and expansion or improvement of health care facilities. These are expensive as we all know. After 5 years, dont tell me that there will be 5000 car trips still taking that path. There will only be 500 permanent employees and if you want to be realistic probably less. Old oregon trail hwy will be expanded and then what? Oh, back to only 350 to 500 per day and the public still paying for it. those who sold their land or were forced off it to facilitate the road being built will not get it back. The traffic signals installed will have to be taken down or be remnants of the boom. The point is that they are vastly underpricing the effect that this boom-bust cycle will have. A bit of realism on their part would help.