Inherit the wind, Part II:
On Windmills, which Governor Romney do we believe?

Tela Zasloff, Advocate, February 10, 2005

[Reprinted with permission of the author. This is the second in a series of columns on wind power development in the Berkshires.
Ms. Zasloff, a writer living in Williamstown MA, frequently writes on environmental issues for The Advocate.]

______________________________________________________

“Nantucket Sound is a national treasure that should not be a factory for wind,” said Gov. Mitt Romney at a December 2004 Army Corps public hearing on the Cape Wind project. 

“I’ve seen wind farms, and they are not pretty,” the governor added. “This is not a decision about money; it’s not even a decision about power. It is a decision about our environment, about the legacy we leave our children. It is a heritage given to us by God. We may not, we cannot trash this extraordinary resource.” [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, meeting transcript, 12-07-04.]

Two days later, Romney’s spokeswoman for his Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Jennifer Flagg, said that the Berkshires offered good locations for wind turbines, like the proposed Hoosac Wind Project. 

“The administration is in support of that project” because, she said, the communities in the proposed Berkshire sites have zoning regulations that will allow the building of wind turbines, while Nantucket Sound has no such zoning. [“Wind farm gets support from Romney,” MassLive.com, 12-10-04] 

Less than two weeks later, Romney told The Boston Globe [12-21-04] that he opposed the Cape Wind Project even if there were ocean zoning.

This is very troubling double-speak from our governor. No to the Cape Wind Project because it would be trashing our God-given heritage and legacy to our children? Yes to the Hoosac Wind Project because it is legally doable, without one word about the environment and our legacy to our children? One side of the mouth is talking high-level ideology while the other is talking low-level expediency. Which is the real Gov. Romney?

A look at his record so far in Massachusetts will clarify the question. Hiding behind the phrase “smart growth,” Romney has shredded long-term state policy in land conservation in favor of development -- specifically housing production, which was one of his big campaign pledges.  The past three Republican governors all made conservation of our state’s natural heritage a top priority. Gov. William Weld’s administration reached the milestone of 100,000 acres of protected land, and Gov. Paul Cellucci conserved an additional 200,000 acres by appointing a team of private non-profit conservation agencies. 

Acting Governor Swift announced that the State had reached the 100,000-acre milestone through successful partnerships with land trusts and municipalities, and through conservation restrictions.  The Swift administration continued that working relationship with its non-profit partners and developed a Statewide Open Space Plan that identified unprotected lands important for drinking water, wildlife, agriculture, forestry and recreation. The plan set the goal of protecting, in the next 10 years, one million acres -- about one-third of the remaining undeveloped land and ecosystems in the state.

Gov. Romney shelved the plan as soon as he took office and directed his Executive Office of Environmental Affairs to move away from acreage conservation and instead, make conservation a reward for communities that increase their housing production, particularly in suburban areas.  His policy switch from land conservation to urban/suburban “green space” protection also meant a switch in priorities for state resources. Past governors spent about $50 million a year on land conservation. In 2004, Romney spent only $18 million, increasing it to $27 million under public pressure. [“Romney’s Rollbacks,” C. Hardy, Mass Audubon Society journal, 1/7/05]

This strongly suggests that development, in this case wind factories, at the expense of land conservation is the real Mitt Romney. And he likes to work only from inside his administration, without public hearings or formation of statewide planning bodies or partnerships with non-profit public service agencies.