Kennedy gives Bay State strong voice
May 3, 2006
I AM writing in support of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s efforts, along with those of his colleague from Alaska, Senator Ted Stevens, to give Massachusetts an important voice in the siting of what amounts to a large-scale power plant in the middle of one of its most pristine natural resources, Nantucket Sound (“Kennedy caught in crosswind,” Page A1, April 30).
The Cape Wind proposal to build a wind power facility over 24 square miles of ocean represents the worst of an ends-justifies-the-means mentality.
No one can credibly argue with the need to find renewable sources of energy. But to allow a single private developer to stake claim to our natural resources without public bidding or a comprehensive siting process, and with almost no state oversight, is just irresponsible.
I applaud Senator Kennedy’s leadership in preserving Massachusetts’ right to balance the need for developing renewable sources of energy with the responsibility of protecting its most precious natural resources and giving Massachusetts a critical voice in this process.
THOMAS F. REILLY
Boston
The writer is attorney general of Massachusetts.
a person would have to: A.) believe Kennedy is “running away from the issue;” AND B.) believe that there is a “view that Reilly is consistently just plain wrong on the issues and completely out of touch with the public.”
<
p>
While Kennedy’s handywork may have been revealed this week, I hardly see him running away from the issue. As for public perception of Reilly (and, yes, I am a supporter), the latest Suffolk poll suggests that more people find his positions to be correct and “in touch” than any other candidate for Governor.
<
p>
Thank you for printing the entire Letter to the Editor, since it succinctly explains Reilly’s concerns and will allow readers to objectively assess his position and your analysis.
Well B is clearly just my opinion, but based on many reactions I’ve heard people have to Reilly when they find out about him in detail for the first time, which the CBS debate was for many people. As for that poll, it’s a source that seems to often overestimate Reilly’s support compared to other polling sources, which doesn’t discount it but reinforces that it is quite wide open at this point.
<
p>
However, A is true, as Kenendy has been trying to hide his responsibility in this matter, and while not backing off his opposition, trying to keep it quiet in public while continuing in the backgrounds.
<
p>
Thanks for the appreciation for including Reilly’s full text though.
I talked about the letter yesterday (see you can’t rely on just one blog lol). I agree with you MavDem that Reilly isn’t running from this issue (see Reilly and Deval supporters can agree!). My conclusion however, is not the same as yours. I think Reilly, and Kennedy whom I respect and admire, are showing a fundamental disregard for the sovereignty of the people of this state. They are abdicating our power to decide the fate of a project completely within the borders of our state. Because they are not getting the results they want per se here in Mass they are looking to someone from Alaska to do their bidding. If Cape Wind fails that’s fine, I can live with a decision I don’t agree with, but if the project fails because of involvement from the federal government at the behest of our governor (assuming Reilly wins) then I am gravely concerned.
<
p>
As for the Suffolk Poll, yes it shows Reilly ahead. As for interpreting that poll as saying people find Reilly more correct I cannot agree. There are people who support Patrick and Gabrieli only because they do not like Reilly. The converse is also true, some maybe supporting Reilly not because they agree with him but because they fundamentally disagree with the other two.
Andy, I agree that Reilly and Patrick supporters can agree on a number of issues. You are correct that the poll does not necessarily show that voters believe Reilly is correct, but it does show that a plurality find his positions attractive enough to support. I was simply citing it to refute the post’s assertion that there is some kind of widespread notion that Reilly is off the mark.
<
p>
Regarding Cape Wind, I made this obervation yesterday on a separate blog: Kennedy’s amendment is an imperfect solution to an even more imperfect quagmire that the federal government has created by siting Cape Wind with an ad hoc process. (As you will see below) Reilly’s position is that the state currently has no say over the citing of Cape Wind. His argument is that we have no power to abdicate. If the process continues as is, it will be the federal government who makes the decisions, ultimately “showing a fundamental disregard for the sovereignty of the people of this state” that you are legitimately concerned about. Should the Governor have complete veto power over the project? I don’t think so. But guess what? The private developer and the Army Corps are going to treat the state with a great deal more respect if they face the threat of a veto. As a result, maybe we will finally get the kind of process that the people of this state deserve and that both you and Tom Reilly appear to care about.
The Cape Wind project has been in development for how many years? If the real issue is the lack of a public bidding process, why wasn’t that discussed from the get-go? I didn’t hear Kennedy (or Reilly) saying these things until now, because I don’t think they thought this project would ever gain the traction to become a reality.
<
p>
They ignored it and hoped it would go away, and now that it hasn’t they’re pulling back-door maneuvers to kill it. I’m pretty pissed off at Kennedy about it and even though I wasn’t supporting Reilly before, I at least had a bit more respect for the man.
It all makes sense now! lol
read below.
Here is a February 11, 2003 press release from Attorney General Reilly that lays out the exact same argument that he makes in his Letter to the Editor. From the release:
<
p>
<
p>
Or maybe this March 11, 2004 press release will help fill you in on Reilly’s consistent position and work:
<
p>
<
p>
I found this information by simply visiting the Attorney General’s website and running a basic site search.
<
p>
Tom Reilly and Deval Patrick may have a difference of opinion on this proposal, but Tom Reilly’s position is not new. In fact, Deval Patrick has only had a public position on this issue since October 17, 2005. I don’t criticize him for that because he wouldn’t have been expected to have a position on an issue that he may not have been familiar with before running for the state’s highest office. However, given the candidates’ respective records on the issue, who represents a more compelling case for “ignoring” the issue?
<
p>
You are a Patrick supporter and you are apparently satisfied with Cape Wind as is – that is, how the private developer and the Army Corps want to give it to us. Fine. However, your criticism of Tom Reilly is factually incorrect and historically inaccurate.
<
p>
As I noted in an earlier post, Tom Reilly has an energy plan and supports renewable energies. If you want to treat Cape Wind as some sort of litmus test, that’s your choice. However, there are other, albeit smaller, wind projects in Massachusetts or on the way, while the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative is working on additional offshore wind possibilities.
to the notion that Reilly is willing to allow Congress to run this state instead of the state?
in my reponse to your previous post above.
<
p>
Reilly’s position is diametrically opposed to the notion of allowing the federal government – Congress, the Army Corps, whoever – decide the fate of this project.
<
p>
I urge you to simple read his position.
Sorry I didn’t realize you were responding to me, I didn’t really see a connection between what you posted to what I said. How can you say that? You have to realize that you are contradicting yourself, or rather Reilly is contradicting himself. If he opposes federal involvement how can be ok with the notion that a US Coast Guard appropriation bill will ultimately be used to decide the fate of Cape Wind? If Reilly really didn’t want federal involvement he would renounce any help from Ted Kennedy because Ted Kennedy is a FEDERAL employee.
<
p>
I don’t care if Reilly opposes Cape Wind, admittedly it isn’t the greatest plan ever. I just can’t believe that a possible governor would accept the notion that the federal government can give him the power to veto a project within his/her own state.
Reilly does not want the federal government to make the final decision without state input. He is in favor of proposals (including this amendment) that would allow the state greater authority in shaping the outcome of this project. The amendment does not make a final decision on the project, it simply gives the Governor discretion to stop it, forcing Cape Wind to actually negotiate with the Commonwealth rather than letting Big Brother (the federal government) rubber stamp everything. It is an amendment to federal legislation that grants the state power, not the reverse.
<
p>
The issue is not whether the federal government is going to be involved. They are already involved. The issue is whether the state is going to have a say in how or if Cape Wind is sited. If you are familiar with the long history of this project, you are aware of the fact that it is the first of its kind proposed of U.S. shores, that the federal government is employing an ad hoc policy that deprives the state of meaningful involvement, and that efforts to get the state’s positions recognized have been roundly rejected by the developer and the federal government.
<
p>
Kennedy’s amendment is imperfect but the alternative is that the state will never have a voice in siting this project and a terrible precedent will be set for future proposals.
Although I still support Cape Wind, I recant my criticism of Reilly on the grounds of opportunism. I’m glad he’s been speaking his mind throughout the process, even though I disagree with him.
<
p>
However, congress’s current efforts to block the project still seem backhanded, whatever their motivation may be.
Here’s the deal:
<
p>
1. The project is in Federal waters. The border for Federal waters is well known and well defined, and has been so for decades (centuries)? That it’s a wind farm and not a oil rig or natural gas platform is irrelevant — and Lord knows we have plenty of carbon based fuel farms sitting just out of state jurisdiction in the Gulf of Mexico, impacting Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida.
<
p>
2. The process of generating electricity is regional, not state wide. The New England power grid is the issue, not Massachusetts. As such, allowing state NIMBYism is a major problem, and one that the Federal government can’t allow.
<
p>
3. The government is being reimbursed for the land usage. It’s not a giveaway. I’m not arguing that it was a public auction, but I’m willing to bet that the process that Cape Wind underwent to secure the land rights was precisely the same that Exxon/Mobil has to go through to build a petrolem platform.
<
p>
The reality is that the Cape Wind opponents are opposing this particular project, and grasping at straws theoretical and philosophical in an effort to jettison this particular project, hypocracy be damned.
In particular, seems to me it’s well worth finding out whether states have any say in whether offshore oil rigs are located near them. Anyone?