Vermont doesn't need two more 'turbine towns'

Editor of the Reformer:

My husband and I, frequent visitors to the area over the past 10 years, are dismayed at the project being proposed by Iberdrola Energy. As a healthcare practitioner and master gardener and environmental steward respectively, we are amazed that the proposal has gotten this far.

What makes this project necessary if the state is already enjoying the lowest prices in the northeast and other options are available? Who are the residents of Windham and Grafton that are so impoverished that they would sell their most valuable asset, the mountains that attract so many for skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, hiking, theater, dining, and shopping? How can the residents justify making a decision that affects all involved while Iberdrola specifically excluded the non-resident homeowners who pay 60 percent of their taxes? How can voters consider this minimal short term profit that creates a forever afterward affected landscape? With the town's former glory of Magic Mountain and the charm of Grafton altered it makes it that much easier to take our tourist business elsewhere.


The will forever be known as the turbine towns of Vermont. Where is the consideration of learning from those that have gone before them? Ask anyone who lives near a mine, an existing turbine collection, an oil field, high power lines and you'll get lots of stories of compromised health. Is the risk worth it? Who will pay for those costs?

Having worked in the oil and gas business for more than 20 years, I know there is no free lunch. Any money being spent is strictly for the company's bottom line gain. While the dollars Iberdrola purports to give the townspeople seem large, they are a drop in the bucket compared to what they will make and what these two towns will lose if this proposal passes.

Jean Grossman and Dr. Steven Grossman, Montclair, N.J., Oct. 13