Assault on Camp Allegheny

Here is a simulation showing turbine numberings and heights from a vantage point at Camp Allegheny. These are the Tamarack Ridge turbines.

Commissioner Saffer,

The definition of Assault is:

Assault

1. a violent physical or verbal attack
2. (a) a military attack, such as on launched against a fortified area or place.

(b) The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy.

1. Law

(a) An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another
(b) The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

1. (a) Law Sexual assault.

(b) The crime of rape.

There has been no military action nor has there been any unlawful action here nor has there been an attack on Camp Alleghany. The project has been permitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia and approved by Highland County. I suggest you choose your word words carefully as this is a public forum and your use of assault is inflammatory and inaccurate and I suppose could at some point be declared slanderous.

I am shocked that you would not be in accurate in your posting on a community forum and as a elected official representing Pocohantas County.

I caught the metaphor; but your use of incorrect language is misleading and I believe intend to provoke an emotional response.

Thank you for correcting the information regarding the photograph of Red Oak Knob that you identified as Tamarack Ridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills

Tilting at windmills is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting unwinnable or futile battles. The word “tilt”, in this context, comes from jousting.
The phrase originated in the novel Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes. The phrase is sometimes used to describe confrontations where adversaries are incorrectly perceived. The phrase is sometimes used to describe courses of action that are based on misinterpreted or misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications.
In the novel, Don Quixote fights windmills that he imagines to be giants. Quixote sees the windmill blades as the giant's arms, for instance. Here is the relevant portion of the novel:
Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."
"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.
"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."
"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."

Mr. Saffer,

You could not afford my time. You are dreaming sir, if you think I would spend my valuable time on a personal conversation with you. You are not that important in the big scheme of things.

Maybe you did not get the humor in this little posting. Just like your metaphor sailed over your readers heads.

There is nothing personal here at all. I feel that you are wrong in your presentations and you have created and flamed a situation that is not a threat to anything or anyone. Time will tell. You have made this forum a public forum to discuss what is important to Pocohantas County. If you disagree with a comment I have written, then that is your opinion.

Thank you.

Mr. Saffer,

You are very predictable sir.

No, I am saying that you personally could not afford my hourly or daily rate.

I have understood your point of view and have agreed with you that Camp Allegheny is worth preserving. I am not big wind, nor I am I big coal. I am an individual who is seeing the big picture and am concerned by the rhetoric and lies that are being disseminated.

The McBride family that you have so relentlessly attacked has owned the land in Highland County since the fifties. Lola McBride's family has owned their portion of Tamarack - a section of Tamarack lies in West Virginia - the other in Virginia - for many generations. They have nurtured and taken care of their land and are attempting are bring clean, renewable energy to Virginia. This wind farm has nothing to do with Camp Allegheny. A small part of the windfarm may be viewable in the winter months from a portion of the camp that you must trespass on private property in order to see.

You sir, are far from the common folk of West Virginia. Sir, as I pointed out, I gave you my family history. You sir, were born in Washington, DC, not West Virginia. You settled into West Virginia in the seventies. Next thing I expect is that your just a good old boy country lawyer.

This is not about common folk or big wind or big coal or any other diversion you throw up. It is about the truth and how you have perverted the truth to serve your means by allowing yourself to be used by a Highland County Anti-Wind Commissioner. Using photographs with exaggerated compression and height does not make the truth.

From yesterdays Highland Recorder.

The Highland Recorder requires a sign-in to read the piece online.

The article was about a meeting in Highland County about the wind farm project and the border issue. (which is a non-issue and politics as usual)

"Sullenberger said he’d done a huge amount of research on Saffer, and believes Saffer “is just grandstanding for personal attention.”

“We have no disrespect for the people of Pocahontas County or the people of West Virginia,” he said. “I personally invited the Pocahontas County Commission” to hear more about the project in 2003, he added, “and at least one of them did that.”

Sullenberger also said he did not believe Pocahontas County was truly concerned about the impacts to Camp Allegheny, noting the battlefield near the site was not even promoted on its web site. “It’s never been important to them,” he said, and Saffer’s remarks on the battlefield “appear to me an act of pure grand-standing.”

“They knew this construction was going on,” said supervisor Jerry Rexrode of Pocahontas officials, adding they made no objections, and never made any comment on the plans when the project was under discussion years ago.

He said before the project was approved, he went to the battlefield and decided that seeing some of the turbines did not matter. “That battlefield is probably a mile away, and when you look, you’re going to see wind turbines. But it’s also going to draw people … that battlefield is rarely ever visited. It is an important site, but what harm is it going to do if you can see 4-5 turbines?”

“It’s a political position, not a legal position,” Dowd said.

Other quotes from that article Mr. Davidson refers to seem to be missing; "Supervisor David Blanchard disagreed. “You say it’s grandstanding, but the difficulty I have is that … notification is always a good thing to do. They (Pocahontas) weren’t sent a site plan, and it was impacting the battlefield.” That, he said, would have been a good, neighborly step to take for Highland. Blanchard has maintained since before the site plan was approved that Highland officials should show it to Pocahontas officials, and while the county’s Technical Review Committee at one time indicated it would do that, it never did."

The full article can be read at: http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/10/08/border-issue-must-be-resolved-citizens-say/

In regard to "“I personally invited the Pocahontas County Commission” to hear more about the project in 2003, he added, “and at least one of them did that.”" It was irresponsible for "one of them" to respond on behalf of Pocahontas County. "One of them" would not have the authority to represent Pocahontas County and it would have been an irresponsible act to do so without an open, public discussion and vote during an official County Commission meeting.

Mr. Davidson, copyright is important to respect, I agree.

Your assertion that you quoted relevant statements in the article that refer to Camp Allegheny and Mr. Saffer is true. There were other relevant statements that referred to Camp Allegheny and Mr. Saffer as well, such as, "...Blanchard has maintained since before the site plan was approved that Highland officials should show it to Pocahontas officials, and while the county’s Technical Review Committee at one time indicated it would do that, it never did."

There are two sides to the story.

The point remains, one commissioner did not have the authority to represent the interests of Pocahontas County.

The first move by officials in matters where an individual brings forward a matter of real concern for a project is to brand that individual a 'troublemaker'.

Open, public discussion will bring out the facts for all to weigh and will result in studied, inclusive decision making.

What personal gain? Doesn't make sense.

As Recorder owner/publisher, I welcome the opportunity to publish the full story, in today's issue, about the boundary dispute, to provide context to the dialogue. Please notice I have added today comments received from Gov. Manchin's office, which are added to the bottom of this article, as updated on our web site, www.TheRecorderOnline.com.

Border issue should be resolved first, citizens say

By Anne Adams • Staff Writer

MONTEREY — Highland County is not under fire from the West Virginia governor, said supervisor Robin Sullenberger Tuesday.

Sullenberger, in response to questions from residents, explained Highland has not received any correspondence from West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin about the boundary dispute that arose related to the wind facility under construction in western Highland.

Highland New Wind Development gave the county a survey that showed all the bases of the towers for the 38-megawatt utility would be located in Virginia, he said.

When HNWD provided the survey, done by Jeff Hiner of Monterey, it showed a different boundary line than the one established by the U.S. Geological Survey. Hiner’s line transects the foundation of one tower; the base of the tower would be just inside the line and the turbine’s blades and part of the foundation would be across the line, in West Virginia.

When Pocahontas County Commissioners learned of Hiner’s survey, they contacted Highland County attorney Melissa Dowd about it, saying the county should not have approved of a site plan with the new line. PCC president Martin Saffer explained that West Virginia has laws that indicate the USGS lines are the established boundaries, and adjustments to those boundaries must be made through a Boundary Commission appointed by the governor and adopted by the West Virginia legislature.

PCC asked Manchin to appoint a Boundary Commission, which he did. Then the PCC asked the governor to get the commission to settle the dispute. Manchin did that Sept. 25.

“I write to request an investigation of the West Virginia Boundary Commission to settle a dispute involving the boundary of Pocahontas County, W.Va., and Highland County, Va.,” he wrote. “The dispute concerns a wind turbine project permitted for construction in Highland County, Va. The developer of the project is a company named Highland New Wind Development LLC. The Pocahontas County Commission believes that a portion of the project, as presently engineered, encroaches upon the territory of this state … If, indeed, a portion of the project is constructed in West Virginia, certain state regulatory action is required. Therefore, I respectfully request … that the commission investigate this boundary dispute. I further request that the commission take all actions that are necessary and appropriate to identify the location of the boundary line in question including, but not limited to, seeking the assistance of the West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, contacting similar commissions or bodies in the Commonwealth of Virginia, or recommending appropriate legislation to the legislature.”

Sullenberger said he spoke to Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine about the issue recently, and Kaine said he as not heard anything from Gov. Manchin about the matter.

Manchin’s letter had been copied to Kaine.

“This is not an egregious act,” Sullenberger said about the border survey.

As to a comment that Highland was ignoring Pocahontas County’s concerns, Sullenberger explained how the situation unfolded. When Saffer contacted Dowd to learn more about Hiner’s survey and the HNWD project, he acted in an “accusatory and threatening manner,” Sullenberger said. Highland officials, at first, agreed to meet with the Pocahontas County Commission, but then, “we were told basically their intent was to sue us,” he said. So, Highland declined to hold a discussion with the commission at that point. Dowd, he said, told supervisors such a discussion was not advisable.

Sullenberger said he’d done a huge amount of research on Saffer, and believes Saffer “is just grand-standing for personal attention.”

“We have no disrespect for the people of Pocahontas County or the people of West Virginia,” he said. “I personally invited the Pocahontas County Commission” to hear more about the project in 2003, he added, “and at least one of them did that.”

Sullenberger also said he did not believe Pocahontas County was truly concerned about the impacts to Camp Allegheny, noting the battlefield near the site was not even promoted on its web site. “It’s never been important to them,” he said, and Saffer’s remarks on the battlefield “appear to me an act of pure grand-standing.”

Supervisor David Blanchard disagreed. “You say it’s grand-standing, but the difficulty I have is that … notification is always a good thing to do. They (Pocahontas) weren’t sent a site plan, and it was impacting the battlefield.” That, he said, would have been a good, neighborly step to take for Highland. Blanchard has maintained since before the site plan was approved that Highland officials should show it to Pocahontas officials, and while the county’s Technical Review Committee at one time indicated it would do that, it never did.

Contacted by The Recorder Wednesday, Saffer said there was no “grand-standing” going on. “The issue about the boundary is a very focused, legal issue. It’s a real issue. It’s which I think needs to be addressed. It’s one the governor of West Virginia thinks needs to be addressed. These are matters of jurisdiction and territorial authority,” he said.

Saffer said that perhaps Highland supervisors did not understand the importance of the jurisdictional boundaries of a state, “and how they apply to every square inch.”

He used an example: If someone commits a crime, knowing exactly where the crime took place is important because that is how one knows which state’s laws apply, where to pick a jury, and other jurisdictional issues. “These are important matters,” he said. Which agencies have authority over which parts of the project depends on where the boundary is related to the towers. “First,” Saffer said, “let’s determine where the line is. That’s really important. Then we can carry on discussions about wildlife, the environment, or drainage issues.”

Saffer said it won’t be just West Virginia deciding where the line should be. The Boundary Commission will work with appropriate agencies in Virginia. “Good fences made good neighbors,” he said. “I think (Highland officials) misunderstand the notion of state jurisdiction. Property in a state is subject to laws of that state. It doesn’t matter if the (property) may have the same owner.”

“They knew this construction was going on,” said supervisor Jerry Rexrode of Pocahontas officials, adding they made no objections, and never made any comment on the plans when the project was under discussion years ago. “The review board (TRC) asked HNWD to make sure the project was in Virginia. Jeff Hiner surveyed the line. Pocahontas didn’t agree with that, but Hiner did what HNWD asked him to do. Maybe there will be turbine blades turing in West Virginia, but if they do, it’s on property HNWD owns,” Rexrode said.

He said before the project was approved, he went to the battlefield and decided that seeing some of the turbines did not matter. “That battlefield is probably a mile away, and when you look, you’re going to see wind turbines. But it’s also going to draw people … that battlefield is rarely ever visited. It is an important site, but what harm is it going to do if you can see 4-5 turbines?”

Asked about Hiner’s survey, Tal McBride said Hiner moved the state boundary less than 40 feet.

“The watershed in the area is the state line,” Rexrode added.

“If we’ve got a border issue, that sounds pretty serious. It seems you should ask (HNWD) to wait,” said resident Laurie Berman.

“I don’t think we have a border issue,” Rexrode replied.

Dowd said that consistently, “the board has stated to Mr. Saffer, and anyone from Pocahontas, that this board believes it can only regulate something with the boundaries of Virginia.” The issue of the state line, she said, is an issue between the developer and the state of West Virginia.

“Don’t we have a responsibility here? It’s a big red flag to me,” Berman said.

“It’s a political position, not a legal position,” Dowd said.

“We are willing to discuss this with our counterparts at any time,” Sullenberger added, but not under the threat of a lawsuit.

Asked whether there was a drainage basin entering West Virginia, Tal McBride said there is none. He explained the turbines would be built in a way that all drainage stays in Virginia. He said a representative from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection visited the site. “If the turbines are in Virginia, the drainage is on the Virginia side, and it goes into Virginia. There will be no construction activities on the other side,” he said.

Saffer says he disagrees with that conclusion, but says the question about where the border is must be settled first.

Thursday, the West Virginia governor’s office agreed. According to Matt Turner, spokesman for Gov. Manchin, the boundary commission must evaluate the way the state line was surveyed by Hiner. “This is important,” Turner said. “It has to be established so we can determine whether West Virginia has any regulatory authority. The Public Service Commission needs to look at this … The PSC is waiting to see where the line is, so it can determine it’s role (about the HNWD project). These are separate processes, and there has to be a resolution on this first. We can’t let it happen without determining where the boundary is. It’s a local concern, yes, but it’s also an important state concern. Wildlife and other issues, the way the electrical power is taxed … the Governor is seeking resolution. This is a concern that will be addressed by him, and the Boundary Commission will take the appropriate steps.”

© Oct. 8, 2009, Anne Adams, The Recorder, Monterey, Va.