2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

@Emily Harris

Re: The lights being the most visually unsightly.

Yes, I do think the lights are visually the greatest issue. However, this is only one aspect of impact. As you know the landscape and climate changes extremely rapidly from rain forest to desert along the river.So not all wind energy sites are the same in the least.

There are definitely places that are probably better suited to Wind development than others. Because there seems to be no actual plan for proper siting and development, large land-owners see this as a gold rush and the government agencies are also eager to rubber stamp new projects.

Most notably the proposed Whistling Ridge project which would be the FIRST wind project to be developed on timber land (ie. Forest). Not only is it forest land, but it's also smack across from Hood River and visible from many many scenic area viewpoints. It's sited above scenic area land. (First tower less than 100' from scenic area boundary) The only reason this land was excluded from the scenic area was to protect timber land and timber jobs. It's owned by SDS lumber.

NOTE: that SDS reported 8 new permanent jobs will be created by the project that will impact one of the up and coming bright spots of growth in OR, WA (Hood River Area). Where jobs are changing from resource based to knowledge based. Aerospace, Remote Knowledge Workers (Software and others), Recreation, Outdoor Sports Industry, Tourism, etc...

posted 3 years ago
view in context

I agree. Emily I'll gladly pay for you to stay a night in a top hotel in Hood River, roam the streets, have a nice meal, look out your window at the epic ridgeline across the way in WA and Gorge corridor and then imagine a sea of red flashing aircraft lights piercing the sky. In fact you can see that sea of of lights out to the east from over 40 miles away.

Email me. I'm serious.

posted 3 years ago
view in context

That was a horrible horrible show. I would encourage OPB to do this again with a balanced panel. A wheat farmer that makes his money of windturbines, a student that is studying to become a wind technition, an employee of a wind technology company, and an economist who doesn't like tourism and doesn't see it as an economic driver. There is a big controversy here and you didn't even touch it because you didn't invite any guests that could speak to the controversial aspects of the wind development spreading west. The geography is not the same in the scenic corridor as in the east at all. Can you please do another show where you invite some halfway balanced discussion that can properly raise environmental issues, planning issues, effects on important industries such as tourism, agritourism, recreation? Bingen, WA is home to the biggest employer in the region which is Insuitu, owned by Boeing and there are many highly paid engineers employed there. I think around 600 permanent jobs as opposed to the quoted 35 permanent jobs per 300 turbines. They locate here because of the quality of life. What about the fact that high paying jobs are moving to areas such as Hood River, White Salmon, Underwood, etc because of the quality of life and scenic beauty. The wind farm on the show had 300 500' turbines on it and created only 35 permanent jobs and paid one landowner. This might be a net positive for that community but what would it do to an area such as Hood River where its impacts other industries negatively? Your guest economist used the argument of Aluminum Smelters and how they did not produce many jobs by exckuded other viable options (Opportunity Cost Measurement). I was seeing a lot of parallels here with Turbines. They are being subsidized because they are not inheritely profitable now. They produce few long term jobs and they can have actual negative impacts on other industries such as recreation and tourism if located in the wrong place. Yet there is no plan in OR or WA for how to properly place these farms. 

posted 3 years ago
view in context

Incredibly one-sided. Where's the balance OPB?

posted 3 years ago
view in context

Good post. There is a serious lack of vision especially when it comes to wind turbines moving into the gorge scenic area right across from Hood River which has been featured in the New York Times, Mens Journal and Outside Magazine as top up and coming towns to live and vacation in.

The amount of jobs these turbines create are extremely minimal, non-local, and short lived. Tax payers are paying to subsidize putting them in non-optimal locations without thought to the environmental and economic impact to other more sustainable and important aspects of the local economy such as tourism. So now when visitors stay in Hood River, instead of looking across to the unbroken ridgeline of the scenic area, they will see a field of blinking red aircraft lights. Short-slghted, and it will hurt wind energy as a whole in the long run.

The marketing literature and photos of the site (Underwood) make it look like a wasteland when in fact the area in a national treasure. It's easy for people in Seattle to rubber stamp wind development as green, but please take a closer look.

posted 3 years ago
view in context

What hotel space? A hotel like Skamania Lodge WOULD be a much better use of the land and would promote recreation. That is a plan the community could rally behind. The amendment and directors report discuss condos, townhomes, and cabins that are privately owned. This promotes exclusion of the general public.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Jamie, you need to do a much better job of listening to your district. You are promoting both Broughton and the upcoming Windmill project in the heart of your own district and your constituents do NOT want either. I cannot understand how an elected official acts in such a manner, I voted for you but will not make the same mistake again and neither will my neighbors. It's also insulting to use the "fire" as an argument in favor of broughton. A better direction would be to work with the Gorge Commission and Skamania County Planning to help residents do selective thinning and fire reduction activities on their property and the bluff.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

The scenic area is being threatened from every direction. In the case of the broughton development, 44 400ft high windmills are being proposed for the top of the mountain and the broughton condos on the river, while the residents of Underwood who are in the scenic area are under very restrictive rules for what and how they can use and develop their land. The bottom line is that Skamania County would rather sell their soul and their resources for short term gain rather than proceeding with development in a measured fashion that is fair and benificial to all.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Jason keeps trying to make the point that this is not a condo development which is ludicrous. Private ownership of condo units, cabins, townhomes is exactly that. Recreation designation was designed for modest scale resorts with recreational activities such as camping, cabin rentals etc. The proposed amendment is completely inappropriate in scale and substance from what was envisioned or is appropriate for that property. It may be an abandoned site at the moment, but this has far less impact than the light pollution, traffic, urban size development in a non-urban area.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context