[MassHistPres] CAPE WIND

[Sam Bird]

Mr. Kenney,

First of all - what commission do you feel I've disgraced? Everything  
I wrote to the preservation list serv I wrote as an individual  
speaking my own mind. I mentioned my standing on a  local HDC only to  
illustrate that I am a supporter, in principal, of historic  
preservation in general, and have acted on that support.   I never  
represented, nor would I, that I was speaking on behalf of that  
Commission. For the record, my term on that commission expired at the  
end of December.  You state "I not(sic) you are an outspoken figure  
on the matter of climate change". True enough, I strongly feel that  
Climate Change is perhaps the highest priority issue facing the human  
race.  You accuse me of not being objective - you're right. In  
speaking as an individual I am entirely subjective, as are you. I  
have my opinion and I voiced it.

Second, I notice you do not respond to me through the list serve but  
to me privately. Are you embarrassed to have your missive aired  
publicly? A quick google search indicates you're usually not  
reluctant to speak out in a public forum.

I do not have a personal "dog" in the Cape Wind fight (other than  
being a member of the human race and a father of two members of the  
next generation). I understand you do - and have been in staunch and  
vocal opposition to Cape Wind for many, many years.

If you wish to call me out or enlighten me on matters of historical  
fact, I have no problem with that. If you wish to challenge my  
personal opinions, I have no problem with that either.  I do take  
issue with your threatening tone and accusations, though, as well as  
repeated reference to my "ignorance".

I have received a number of responses to my posts on the list serve  
supporting my position - I haven't counted but I'd guess half a  
dozen. I've received two contrary opinions, one from Ms. Durkin, who  
stated her case quite politely and backed it up with a number of  
references, a number of which I've read.  She also called me on the  
carpet, probably correctly, for being too flip and sarcastic in one  
of my remarks. She is obviously also a staunch and dedicated opponent  
of Cape Wind.  Although I think we continue to disagree, I think Ms  
Durkin and I have at least had a "civil discourse".  The only other  
dissenting opinion was yours.

The latest decision to recommend the entire Sound for inclusion on  
the National Register creates an interesting intersection of Climate  
Change and Historic Preservation. Often, those issues operate in  
concert, sometimes, as here, at odds with each other.   I realize  
Cape Wind is essentially the same as the abortion debate, where both  
sides are hopelessly entrenched, never to be dislodged - certainly  
not by me - and reason becomes secondary to tactics.  But I think the  
debate is an interesting one for those seriously interested in  
historic preservation principals.

I'm putting your comments and my response out on the list serve in  
the interest of public discourse.

Samuel Bird AIA, LEED AP
Concord, MA





On Apr 7, 2010, at 1:54 PM, peter kenney wrote:

> Mr. Bird:
>
> Having read your statements about the Cape Wind project I feel  
> compelled to respond. You claim that efforst to secure federal  
> protections for Nantucket Sound are mreely last distch efforts to  
> stop Cape Wind. Your ignorance of history is stunning.
>
> Since late in the nineteen sixties there have been consistent and  
> repeated efforts to gain protection for Nantucket Sound in its  
> entirety. Repeated efforts have been mad under various statures and  
> programs to secure prtection pof the sound from any and all  
> industrualization. These efforts preceed even the thought of wind  
> farms, here or anywhere. For someone in your position to be  
> ignorant of this is very disturbing. One of the more important  
> aspects of serving as a member of body charged with historic  
> preservation is knowledge of real time and real life history.
>
> The Cape Wind matter is troubling because people such as you,  
> holding positions of public trust and authority based  at least on  
> the expectation that you posess  knowledge of historical fact are  
> in fact engaged in efforts to misinform both the public and the  
> regulatory community. Your pronouncements on matters of history as  
> they relate to Cape Wind are simply wrong.
>
> 1.   At least one member of the Mashpee Wampanoag, Maurice (Strong  
> Bear) Foxx (known to me personally and now deceased) attended the  
> first public presentation of the Cape Wind plan and on that evening  
> inb 2002 told me that he could not believe anyone would propose  
> such a thing for Nantucket Sound. As a member of the Massachusetts  
> Indian Affairs Bureau he stated his opposition early and often. Mr.  
> Foxx was also an engineer, in fact he was in charge of the physical  
> plant for the Faneuil Hall complex for several years. it is fair to  
> say that he was not an ordinary citizen without any technical  
> saavy. And, as a member of the Commonwealth's Commission on Indian  
> Affairs he was angered by the blocking of Indian participation in  
> the Cape Wind review process.
>
> 2.   Having been ignored by the U.S. ACOE the two Mashpee tribes  
> (Aquinnah and Mashpee)finally succeeded in having their project  
> opposition, which they stated in writing, entered into the record  
> of the project review being conducted the the U.S. COE. Said  
> opposition has been part of the public record since 2004, not, as  
> you charge, recently or at the last minute. For anyone in your  
> position to ignore fact and history so balatantly and in such a  
> cavalier manner is a disgrace and an offense to your office. You do  
> not even know what happened fifty or forty or thirty years ago, not  
> even as recently as 2004, yet you are charged with stewardship of  
> the Commonwealth's history.
>
> 3.   U.S. MMS improperly but sucessfully blocked the completion of  
> the mandated historic review by both Massachusetts and federal  
> authorities under the provsions of various laws rules designed to  
> protect aboriginal rights and historic properties/areas until after  
> both the Draft and Final Cape Wind EIS had been published and the  
> comment periods for each had ended.
>
> I not that you are an outspoken figure on the matter of climate  
> change. In my opinion you intend to be anything but objective in  
> your activities and comments regarding the Cape Wind project. You  
> discredit your service on the commission and you discredit the  
> commission itself.
>
> Be assured that this is not the last you will hear profit this.
>
> Peter Kenney
>
> The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple  
> calendars with Hotmail. Get busy.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100407/404707eb/attachment.htm>