Or they could have made a study before jumping into the turbines then listened to the hurting abutters months ago and saved $400,000.00!

Or a special permit process, as intended by drafters of the old windmill bylaw, may have prevented all of this. I wonder how Mr. Gore (Falmouth's Building Commissioner) could have made such a catastrophic blunder by not allowing other board's their integral input in the special permit vetting process (to say nothing of public comment hearings). Had this been the case, Falmouth may have heard from folk's from other regional town's where these turbines had been rejected and we all would have been spared this costly controversy. Thank You Mr. Gore.

KEEP THE TURBINES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I JUST WANT TO PUBLICLY THANK ALL THE WONDERFUL INDIVIDUALS OF THE WORLD THAT MADE THIS POSSIBLE . IF I HAD A CHANCE TO SAY SOMETHING PUBLICLY I WOULD SAY " NEVER GIVE UP AND ALWAYS BE TENACIOUS" IN ALL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS. AFTER ALL IT'S OUR WORLD SO LET THIS JUST BE THE BEGINNING. MAY THIS TRULY BE THE SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD.

THIS WAS THE WILL OF A LOUD MINORITY NOT THE MAJORITY. IT SHOULD BE PUT TO A VOTE OF ALL FALMOUTH TAXPAYERS.GIVE ALL THE TAXPAYERS A CHANCE TO BE HEARD BY THEIR VOTE!!!!

The will of a loud MINORITY not the MAJORITY. Give all taxpayers a choice by a town by vote. KEEP THE TURBINES PLEASE.

Mr. Fuller - I respect your enthusiasm for democracy. Yet, I believe as Mr. Kelly, it's time we cut the town's losses. Hopefully, as the May Town vote approaches, Selectmen will initiate a information campaign. The NIGHT TIME CURTAILMENT has caused the wind project to become financial unsustainable (according to WTOP and Mr. Suso) The CURTAILMENT practice can never be modified enough to keep the project out of "the red" and afford effected neighbors the human required night period of sleep/rest.
In other words, the town financially bleeds to death slowly, OR amputates the wind project now. The Selectmen not only did the right thing by supporting removal, but they did the "smart" thing. Hopefully Town Meeting and Town Voters will do the smart thing too. Voting against the Selectmen's recommendation is your democratic right, and the majority just might do that. But then, taxpaying majority would be responsible for causing a GREATER fiscal burden upon all Falmouth Taxpayers.

Emily - That's certainly identifying a huge part of it. The "green" zealots in this community were utterly callous to neighbors and brought shame with in their bullying tactics. It's abhorrent a group of neighbors had to suffer, not only the physical effects, but the reputation effect of being called "liars." Thank God for these Citizen Neighbors. They represent the best of what democracy should be!

The only Zoning Board to vote these down has be Wareham.

Sue - The notion that infrasound from wind turbines causes problems has been debunked by several credible studies. The latest is from the Australian Environment Protection Authority, published Jan. 2013. Conclusion states:
"Of particular note, the results at one of the houses near a wind farm (Location 8) are the lowest infrasound levels measured at any of the 11 locations included in this study... This study concludes that the level of infrasound at houses near the wind turbines assessed is no greater than that experienced in other urban and rural environments, and is also significantly below the human perception threshold."
http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Noise/Report/infrasound.pdf

Sue, I know nothing about infrasound, but I never suggested the town should buy homes and resell them. Read my query and you will see I asked about the feasibility of buying out the houses affected.No further medical liabilities would follow if no one lived in the homes. As to reducing the value of the nearby homes that are not affected, note that I proposed a buy out at FAIR market value or a premium of some amount to that - Hard to see how that reduces the value of unaffected homes.

Now, I totally understand that neighbors who ARE affected might not want to move in which case they have every right to stay in their homes and the town and citizens will have to account for and pay for this siting error.

Indeed, the town would lose the tax revenue base these homes represent, but just how much this tax base amounts to I don't know since I don't know how many homes are affected.
$16 Million to buy out these homeowners? Really? How many homes and at what valuation to reach this amount? Regardless, if the buy out happened, the turbines could continue to offset this cash outlay if they were still running.

My thought was to see if there might be a way to responsibly compensate those affected while leaving intact a revenue generating source that over time would help to pay for this more than unfortunate error, this town government gaffe''

Mr. Allenby - I understand the angle you present. It was a consideration during the WTOP and explored. The $16 million figure was the result of 34 house complainants tabulated via the town's complaint log and the Board of Health's testimonial hearing. The figure was compiled using Town GIS information only calculating for tax value of said properties. The fair market value would make the figure even more. Buying these houses (the WTOP state consultants cited 20-40 & if people were willing to sell - also in the report and survey was conducted on this topic and most elected not to sell) there would be a significant loss of Town tax base because of the potential devaluation of property closest to the turbines. Those properties immediately outside the impact zone (a radius not yet determined) would likely have a value impact associated given their proximity to what effectively, by the buy out action, would be a condemned zoning district. The loss of property values would correlatively result in rising tax rates, which would affect all those living in Falmouth. The cost benefit variables are -- the home buy out cost (more than $16 million) added to the lost tax base, added to the existing debt obligation for the turbines and their annual operation/service cost WEIGHED AGAINST the projected total 20 year financial value rendered by the wind project. It's rather evident, the fiscal benefit of our wind project, given the way we must examine it now, it a bad proposition.

David, You are absolutely correct in stating that industrial turbines should not be sited in residential neighborhoods. I 1000% agree. But given the enormous expenses the town faces over the next decade or more ( cleaning up coastal watersheds, fixed expenses for pension obligations to town employees, other aging infrastructure, etc..), it seemed to me that in this case since it doesn't look as if there are any other viable industrial sites in town ( how about the old town dump? Are there residences within harm's way of turbines were relocated to that area?), isn't there some accommodation or plan that could satisfy affected residents while allowing the turbines to continue to generate cash for the town?

I truly get it if folks absolutely do not want to leave their homes in which case, as I stated earlier, the turbines will need to cease spinning and the citizens better tighten their financial belts a notch or three...