Wind turbine vote
The plot thickens! Thursday, Sept. 7, I had a letter in the Reporter questioning the role of the county attorney in our battle to convince the board of supervisors to increase the separation distance of a wind turbine from other peoples property. I ran into her at the fair and asked why the chairman of Planning and Zoning was told to abstain from voting. She said she didn’t know the chairman, had never spoken to him and didn’t know what I was talking about! The classic Sgt. Schultz (“Hogan’s Heroes”) response “I know nothing!” But, she then added, “Maybe my assistant did.”
What? Further research showed it was indeed the assistant county attorney who had told the chairman of Planning and Zoning he should not vote because he might be subject to a lawsuit since he had made a “public statement” when he signed a petition opposing turbines. Which begs the question — who is calling the shots in the county attorney’s office? Since the assistant county attorney is appointed by the board of supervisors and since some are biased for wind turbines, was he acting on their behalf? Apex? Or, since there was apparently no coordination with the county attorney, was he acting alone? Does he have a “vested interest?”
A week ago I said something was “rotten in Denmark!” I can now be more specific — it’s the county attorney’s office!
— Jerry Crew, Webb