Election results

[Tom]

your thoughts

[Unregistered]

Happy to see Cliff Snuffer will be on the board. His knowledge of Walpole is needed at this time.
The current planning board members need to step back and think about themselves and how they behave. They are NOT a board there to help a couple of people in town make money (as they have acted recently), they are there to represent the people of Walpole. If they can't change they will be replaced.
The member who lost voted to change the zoning on the planning board and changed at Town meeting so the voter decided to be rid of him.

[Unregistered]

I'm not just happy -I'm ecstatic!!!

[Unregistered]

A lot of new RTM faces. It was long overdue.
Congrats to all the winners and to all the peolple who put their names on the ballot, especially first time candidates. Nice to see all of the contested races to hold incumbents accountable.
And to those who ran a negative selectman race campaign (you know who you are) - how did that work out for ya???

[skipper]

Did any of the RTM's that attended the infamous March CPV meeting lose their seats?

[Unregistered]

Did any of the RTM's that attended the infamous March CPV meeting lose their seats?

If we knew who any of them were, we might actually be able to answer that question. Only four RTMs have come forward to admit they attended the meeting: Kevin Foley (Pct. 4), Fiona Murphy (Pct. 4), Joanne Mulligan (Pct. 5) and BJ Burke (Pct. 6). Of these the only one up for re-election this year, Joanne Mulligan, was defeated in her bid for re-election.

Sad, really, because this wouldn't even have been a scandal if the RTMs had simply come forward. It's not the meeting, but the cover-up that seems to be the real problem for most people. As things stand now, the few who had the courage to come forward will likely take the lashes for those who continue to remain silent. If they had all come clean in the first place, the whole thing would probably just have blown over.

[Unregistered]

Happy: Why are you singling out the Planning Board? I have no idea what your post implies - I think the board has conducted themselves in a fair way for everyone. Could you explain further please

[Unregistered]

Now let's see what the Power Plant people are all about! They have successfully put into office quite a few RTM's, a new selectman and a new Planning Board member! How much fun will this be now?? Especially in light of the fact that the power plant can't come to Walpole anyway (according to the present zoning bylaw!) So, for all the "one issue" candidates, now what?

[Unregistered]

Yes, one candidate for selectman did run a negative campaign. I wonder, given the tactics used, just what exactly was at stake? Thank goodness, I don't have to worry about what's coming down the road from backroom deals.

[Unregistered]

#8- Are you for real? Article 2 (which would have prevented the power plant) DID NOT PASS.

[Unregistered]

In Four years I hope to see great changes. My mind the power plant issue is a dead issue once approved by the governor. Now if the issue becomes vetoed from the governor (basically stating no school within a mile of any power plant) that is when the real fun will begin. But besides the power plant I want to see real businesses in walpole (no more dunkin donuts). I want to see the CPA passed. I do not want to see the clock tower in East Walpole fixed unless the CPA is approved by our town. I do not want to see a water fountain in the middle of the town, we already have one. This is what Snuffer has proposed if you have been reading his articles. I watched all the debates for the selectman and school commitee etc. I learned quite a bit from the people who were running and the real truth from their mouths. For example Snuffer apologizing on TV for the police station and then denying he has anything to do with it on paper. I was blown away and shocked as well as confused. He was the one who said you can trust him.

[Unregistered]

Now let's see what the Power Plant people are all about! They have successfully put into office quite a few RTM's, a new selectman and a new Planning Board member! How much fun will this be now?? Especially in light of the fact that the power plant can't come to Walpole anyway (according to the present zoning bylaw!) So, for all the "one issue" candidates, now what?

The one issue candidates have been "school funding at any cost". The power plant was the straw that broke the camels back. It is not a reasonable way to get Mr. Foley his librarian. Folks are involved to take back their government from a senseless pursuit of funds with no judgement. The power plant is what pushed them over the edge... but make no mistake, it is about rational decision making. I suspect you will see a more well thought out approach to developing the entire town and community, not one small group at the expense of everyone else.

[Unregistered]

Now let's see what the Power Plant people are all about! They have successfully put into office quite a few RTM's, a new selectman and a new Planning Board member! How much fun will this be now?? Especially in light of the fact that the power plant can't come to Walpole anyway (according to the present zoning bylaw!) So, for all the "one issue" candidates, now what?

The election was last Saturday. You can stop trying to misrepresent Cliff Snuffer's candidacy already! Why don't you let the guy at least go to his first board meeting before you start cutting him down?

Snuffer is more than a one issue candidate. He got my vote specifically because he was the only candidate who has shown any active interest in a variety of the issues facing Walpole. The tsunami has hit town and the voters made the right choice on Saturday.

As others have pointed out, the power plant is NOT prohibited by our current zoning regulations, otherwise CPV would not still be operating here in town and trying to get onto the Selectmen's agenda, or trying (good luck!) to call a town meeting.

But I look forward to the next open forum with CPV, because they've got a lot of explaining to do. We can start with the list of RTMs and other town officials they have met with and move on from there to the many bogus claims in their newspaper ads. Because, really, if they can't lay their cards on the table by now then what more is there to talk about?

[Unregistered]

What does Post #11 mean by "In Four years I hope to see great changes"?
Mr. Snuffer was elected to the Board of Selectmen for a three year term, as were the new School Committee members, the Planning Board members, and the Town Meeting Members.
The President of the United States is elected for a four year term. I can think of no office in Walpole town government that is elected for a four year term.

[Unregistered]

The simple answer is the planning board has not behaved properly. Given the chance to be truthful they chose not to be. They told town meeting that article two came up at the last minute. That was untrue. The town planner wrote that the first thing he noticed was the any lawful use and the need to remove it, which was a year ago. The planning board members knew that. The consultant they hired said to remove it (last year), they pulled that from their report to town meeting. Town counsel said to remove it, they ignored town counsel.
Town meeting needs honest information presented to them. The planning board has decided not to do that. When the planning board votes to approve article two, then has members go around making phone calls trying to kill it that is a problem. The voters who sit in town hall for hours listening to the planning board believing them when the vote yes on an article deserve honesty. If they didn’t support it they should vote no.
The sitting planning board member who lost his seat voted yes on article two when a room full of people was in front of him at town hall and then switched his vote at town meeting. People have a right to decide that is not the behavior they want from their elected officials.

[Unregistered]

In Four years I hope to see great changes. My mind the power plant issue is a dead issue once approved by the governor. Now if the issue becomes vetoed from the governor (basically stating no school within a mile of any power plant) that is when the real fun will begin. But besides the power plant I want to see real businesses in walpole (no more dunkin donuts). I want to see the CPA passed. I do not want to see the clock tower in East Walpole fixed unless the CPA is approved by our town. I do not want to see a water fountain in the middle of the town, we already have one. This is what Snuffer has proposed if you have been reading his articles. I watched all the debates for the selectman and school commitee etc. I learned quite a bit from the people who were running and the real truth from their mouths. For example Snuffer apologizing on TV for the police station and then denying he has anything to do with it on paper. I was blown away and shocked as well as confused. He was the one who said you can trust him.

I think you have it wrong. The governor is interested in renewal energy not another power plant.

As to the CPA, that's another tax, we the Walpole residents, will have to endure. If this is such a great idea why didn't Walpole jump on it when it was first passed? Because the people who ran Walpole at that time didn't see any monetary benefit at the time. Also, the economy was going great, housing prices were rising and everything looked rosy. Now, when they want to stop any more 40Bs.

[Unregistered]

Comment on 4 years, basically meant after their term, I would like to see changes to the town and what businesses they have brought in. I see the Power Plant issue dead if our elected officials vote in the idea of Banning a power plant within a mile of a school system. Timilty has done a great job trying to get that law passes. I am for the CPA and have been for quite some time. I am not surprised that Walpole only now is jumping on this idea. Walpole's approach is lets see the impact on other towns then we will jump on it if it benefits them, not a bad approach but not a great approach either. Please remember we already pay into the CPA fund, $700,000 so far, now lets elect to get that money back and then some.

[Ted]

If we knew who any of them were, we might actually be able to answer that question. Only four RTMs have come forward to admit they attended the meeting: Kevin Foley (Pct. 4), Fiona Murphy (Pct. 4), Joanne Mulligan (Pct. 5) and BJ Burke (Pct. 6). Of these the only one up for re-election this year, Joanne Mulligan, was defeated in her bid for re-election.

Sad, really, because this wouldn't even have been a scandal if the RTMs had simply come forward. It's not the meeting, but the cover-up that seems to be the real problem for most people. As things stand now, the few who had the courage to come forward will likely take the lashes for those who continue to remain silent. If they had all come clean in the first place, the whole thing would probably just have blown over.

Unlike power plant opponents, those of us were willing to consider a power plant can live with the results of these elections. People opposed to this plant organized, got together, educated themselves, made their own decisions, and most important, turned out to vote. I seem to think that's the way the process os supposed to work. Presumably, the people who got together and considered the plant included RTM's. Big deal. Those of us who were willing to speak up to see if this plant was worth pursuing, even from behind the cowardly curtain of a blog, did so, and obviously with less impact.

We will not begrudge the efforts of those who won this fair and square. Why should we? We're just back to where we were as a town nine months ago.

BUT we would ask those of you who consider this matter a "victory" be gracious enough to stop insinuating that the people interested in a plant acted illegally, unethically, or received any financial benefits for our efforts. It is simply not true. Referring the supposedly secret meeting to a DA was a really sleazy thing to do. Scary actually.

Enough is enough.

[Unregistered]

BUT we would ask those of you who consider this matter a "victory" be gracious enough to stop insinuating that the people interested in a plant acted illegally, unethically, or received any financial benefits for our efforts. It is simply not true. Referring the supposedly secret meeting to a DA was a really sleazy thing to do. Scary actually.

"All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of the government vested with authority, whether legislative, executive or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them."
--Massachusetts Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Article V

While it is reassuring to hear yet another anonymous claim that there was no wrongdoing at the meeting with CPV, it is also completely unverifiable. The ONLY reason the people have to mistrust the RTMs at that meeting is the very fact that the RTMs won't admit they were there! If you are so convinced there was no wrongdoing, stop hiding the details of the meeting.

Read about Open Meeting Law for yourself and you will understand that a series of meetings is the same as one big meeting in the eyes of the law. Since January of 2007, CPV has held at least FOUR SECRET MEETINGS with Selectmen, RTMs, and other board members. If you took ALL the people who attended ALL of those meetings and put them in one big room, what do you suppose the odds are that you would find a quorum of one of our boards there?

The purpose of open meeting requirements is to ensure that the people have a fair opportunity to observe the behavior and actions of those who were elected to represent us. The only "sleazy thing" here is that our elected officials seem to think they aren't bound by the laws of the land, or accountable to the voters who elected them.

So stop trying to turn the situation inside out. Take responsibility for your own actions. Or if you are too ashamed to admit that you attended the meeting, at least have the decency to step down from office.

[Unregistered]

...BUT we would ask those of you who consider this matter a "victory" be gracious enough to stop insinuating that the people interested in a plant acted illegally, unethically, or received any financial benefits for our efforts. It is simply not true. Referring the supposedly secret meeting to a DA was a really sleazy thing to do. Scary actually.

Enough is enough.

From A Guide to Open Meetings by the League of Women Voters (http://www.lwvma.org/guidetoopenmeetings.shtml#Exceptional%20Meetings): (emphasis added.)

Exceptional Meetings

"Any meeting at which a simple majority of the members are present to deliberate must be open to the public. There are other sorts of meetings that can be excepted.

"Members of a public body who meet by chance or on social occasions are not in violation of the open meeting law. Field trips, and presumably conventions and workshops, are also exempt. However, no chance or social meeting may be used to circumvent the requirement to discuss and deliberate at a public meeting.

"Closed cracker-barrel sessions, when a school committee or library board gets together with staff for a free exchange of views, are not permitted. The law, however, does not prohibit members of a governmental body from attending or sponsoring social occasions for public employees. It does proscribe the holding of closed sessions organized for the exchange of information.

"Deliberation is considered to be any discussion that advances members of a board toward a decision on a governmental matter, Hence, closed, no-quorum meetings or roundabout phone calls to discuss a concern of the board are not proper. Members of the board should be mindful that these conversations can be a way for one member to unduly influence the outcome of a discussion. The deliberation and the decision can be altogether different when considered by members together. Although it is difficult to prove that such closed deliberations have taken place, many such complaints have been upheld. These complaints, which come from the public, the press, and board members themselves, occur when decisions are made without public discussion.

"Occasionally a mayor or town manager calls members of governing boards to attend a closed or unposted meeting with him/her. Such meetings can be illegal under the open meeting law. Other arrangements, such as the mayor's inviting only one member of each governing body, or the board's putting the executive and his/her concern on its agenda, are preferable."

You are welcome to debate whether the meetings were legal, but you'll get a good argument from me. Regardless, you cannot deny that these meetings violate the spirit of open meeting law.

[Unregistered]

Timing in life is everything. Everyone could have sought information after the Special Town Meeting. The meetings with RTMs give the appearance that CPV wanted to sway votes. Please take your concerns up with CPV who let the Walpole Times know that they were meeting with RTMs and residents. No one else knew until they spoke up. Your information gathering could have stayed safe with them.

[BFT]

Ted

Don't be naive, we are not naive. People in town are financially benefitting from CPV. I won't get into names but it is happen. I'm not saying they are illegally benefitting but they are benefitting. And that is powerful motivation. If one benefits enough, they can just move once the power plant is built, but don't say it's not happening. CPV is a motivated company and they think they know how to divide and conquer a town. Unfortunately for them the internet age reveals their dirty secrets from other towns and we can see they are trying to use their divide and conquer approach here too. Whether people acted illegally that's one thing, but the SECRET MEETING was definitely unethical. The scary thing is some elected officials had a secret meeting to affect a town vote.

[Unregistered]

Unlike power plant opponents, those of us were willing to consider a power plant can live with the results of these elections. People opposed to this plant organized, got together, educated themselves, made their own decisions, and most important, turned out to vote. I seem to think that's the way the process os supposed to work. Presumably, the people who got together and considered the plant included RTM's. Big deal. Those of us who were willing to speak up to see if this plant was worth pursuing, even from behind the cowardly curtain of a blog, did so, and obviously with less impact.

We will not begrudge the efforts of those who won this fair and square. Why should we? We're just back to where we were as a town nine months ago.

BUT we would ask those of you who consider this matter a "victory" be gracious enough to stop insinuating that the people interested in a plant acted illegally, unethically, or received any financial benefits for our efforts. It is simply not true. Referring the supposedly secret meeting to a DA was a really sleazy thing to do. Scary actually.

Enough is enough.

Interesting comments. Those who voted for Mr. Kraus had the expectation that he was against the power plant. You make it sound like if he won, your agenda of "looking into" the plant, would have moved forward. Not quite the picture Mr. Kraus presented. He may not appreciate the impression you are giving of his campaign.

As for your terming a DA investigation of the CPV meeting with RTMs as "sleazy", I think "thou dost protest too much". The "sleazy" activity was CPV meeting with RTMs 4 days before a vote that impacted their business before the town. The RTM conduct, I would not term as "sleazy", but I would characterize it as a gross lack of judgement. The RTMs who attended seem to have lost focus on the difference between social circles and political responsibility.

I understand why you want to stand up and defend your friends, but I find it difficult to beleive that you do not understand the public concern over this meeting. OUR elected reps met with a company who would be greatly impacted by the March vote. They met with them 4 days before the vote. The vote failed by a very small margin. CPV took out an ad thanking people for the vote. This is deaply concerning. At best it is a real violation of the public trust. At worst,... well that really is best handled by the DA.

End of the day, public officials have a great responsibility and accountability. There is nothing "sleazy" about ensuring that the truth is known.

My advice to you and your friends,... next time, don't be so easily manipulated. You have moved so far afield of the beliefs of the rest of the town, that you seem grossly out of touch. You will end up doing more damage to school funding than you will help it. Many of us once believed in you ... but now cannot move away fast enough.

You are being used. Smarten up!

[Ted]

Interesting comments. Those who voted for Mr. Kraus had the expectation that he was against the power plant. You make it sound like if he won, your agenda of "looking into" the plant, would have moved forward. Not quite the picture Mr. Kraus presented. He may not appreciate the impression you are giving of his campaign.

As for your terming a DA investigation of the CPV meeting with RTMs as "sleazy", I think "thou dost protest too much". The "sleazy" activity was CPV meeting with RTMs 4 days before a vote that impacted their business before the town. The RTM conduct, I would not term as "sleazy", but I would characterize it as a gross lack of judgement. The RTMs who attended seem to have lost focus on the difference between social circles and political responsibility.

I understand why you want to stand up and defend your friends, but I find it difficult to beleive that you do not understand the public concern over this meeting. OUR elected reps met with a company who would be greatly impacted by the March vote. They met with them 4 days before the vote. The vote failed by a very small margin. CPV took out an ad thanking people for the vote. This is deaply concerning. At best it is a real violation of the public trust. At worst,... well that really is best handled by the DA.

End of the day, public officials have a great responsibility and accountability. There is nothing "sleazy" about ensuring that the truth is known.

My advice to you and your friends,... next time, don't be so easily manipulated. You have moved so far afield of the beliefs of the rest of the town, that you seem grossly out of touch. You will end up doing more damage to school funding than you will help it. Many of us once believed in you ... but now cannot move away fast enough.

You are being used. Smarten up!


Wow. I acknowledge neighbors for doing the right thing, organizing, researching, and getting their opionions dissemninated, I acknowledge, the will of the people as demonstrated by the election outcome, and in return am demonized for it. I wasn't defending anyone, or trying to justify anyone's actions. I asked for graciousness and civility, and have been told I'm easily manipulated and grossly out of touch. High praise indeed.

To paraphrase Ron Burgundy: "You stay classy, Walpole."



Walpole. The Friendly Town

[Unregistered]

There is nothing wrong with RTM's trying to gather information about about an issue before a vote. That was the spirit of that meeting. For anyone to say otherwise is totally unfair.

Did Cliff Snuffer or JoAnne Muti hold meetings and/or advise RTM's on how to vote? Offer their opinion on the issues? Of course they did, and they were well within their rights to do so.

You can nitpick about open meeting laws, (which were not broken, btw) but you are being totally unfair, unneighborly and a little bit crazy to do so.

OK....let the lectures and attacks on me begin.....and watch out for the Blackhawks....

[Unregistered]

BUT we would ask those of you who consider this matter a "victory" be gracious enough to stop insinuating that the people interested in a plant acted illegally, unethically, or received any financial benefits for our efforts. It is simply not true. Referring the supposedly secret meeting to a DA was a really sleazy thing to do. Scary actually.

Enough is enough.[/QUOTE]


You only asked for graciousness and civility? You called some opponents' actions "sleazy" and "scary" and you wonder why you're called out on it? Enough is enough, all right.

[Unregistered]

The election is over. Elvis has left the building.

[Unregistered]

There is nothing wrong with RTM's trying to gather information about about an issue before a vote. That was the spirit of that meeting. For anyone to say otherwise is totally unfair.

Who were the RTMs at Kevin Foley's meeting gathering information from? Answer: CPV, a private corporate entity with no standing before the town (not a property owner) and with a proven history of making misleading statements to the public. Who was there to provide a balanced point of view and keep the company honest? Nobody. Which of the RTMs shared this vital information with the general assembly at the Town Meeting? None.

The timing of this meeting and the fact that so few will admit their involvement are pretty strong evidence that something was not on the level. In public office, character and integrity are everything. The public has questions about the meetings, no answers are forthcoming from our officials, so the result is an erosion of the public trust. It is a question of accountability and transparency. Without these, there can be no integrity.

The only thing that is "unfair" is that our elected officials seem to think they do not have to explain themselves to the voters. You keep saying "there was nothing wrong with this meeting" but you offer no additional information that would enable the voters to decide that for ourselves. The initially bold words from the meeting organizer himself have fallen awkwardly silent. Your continued, hollow denials of wrongdoing are evidence of nothing except your own ethical shortcomings.

But no matter. I just watched the tape from the March 10th Special Town Meeting and it is fairly obvious who was at the secret meetings. If you continue to stonewall the public, then you will reap the full consequences of our mistrust.

Fair is fair.

[Unregistered]

The election is over. Elvis has left the building.

Too bad he didn't take CPV with him.

[Unregistered]

A side from the results, only 25% of registered voters voted which is very dissapointing. I think June is not the best month to have elections, but that is my opinion.

[Unregistered]

I don't think that June is the problem.

Civic Apathy is an issue everywhere. Walpole is no different.

[Unregistered]

Based on the comments on this website, it seems a majority (me included) of the town residents are against the power plant. Why not put a power plant referendum on the November ballot and send the message to CVP?

[Unregistered]

Based on the comments on this website, it seems a majority (me included) of the town residents are against the power plant. Why not put a power plant referendum on the November ballot and send the message to CVP?

This post is the most IDIOTIC post I've ever read on Walpole Words. First of all: 99% of the posts on this website are anonymous and unregistered. How the heck can you claim that the comments on this website represent the majority of the towns residents? For all I know, YOU made most of the posts yourself!



The anti-cpv crowd has used an intimidating tactic: that is that if you are still mulling over this power plant, you must have big problems, or you are on the payroll of CPV. Guess what: I wish I was on their payroll. I could use a few $$!

Put the plant on a referendum: then voters can express themselves secretly. You will be surprised at how many folks are not anti-power plant. Remember the override "are you in" campaign??

[Unregistered]

We have already sent the message to CPV and they continue to ignore it. A referendum would not make any difference to them. My concern is that Peter "Braith" Kelly has stated in published articles that CPV had a SERIES of meetings with RTMs. The only one we know about is the March meeting before town meeting. A referendum would just be a waste of our money. What will it take for CPV to go away? I'm starting to think of them as that bad date that just keeps showing up.

[Unregistered]

Based on the comments on this website, it seems a majority (me included) of the town residents are against the power plant. Why not put a power plant referendum on the November ballot and send the message to CVP?

We just DID have a referendum on the power plant:

Cliff Snuffer, 1,862
Eric Kraus, 1,694
Al Crosby, 244

By my count, of 3800 votes cast for Selectman, 100% went to candidates who were openly opposed to the power plant project. The voters have spoken and the results are unanimous!

;)

[Unregistered]

We just DID have a referendum on the power plant:

Cliff Snuffer, 1,862
Eric Kraus, 1,694
Al Crosby, 244

By my count, of 3800 votes cast for Selectman, 100% went to candidates who were openly opposed to the power plant project. The voters have spoken and the results are unanimous!

;)

another dumb post: No pro-power plant persons ran. Come on, will you please stop it!

[Unregistered]

another dumb post: No pro-power plant persons ran. Come on, will you please stop it!

Nobody OPENLY supported the power plant. However, because there had been so much obfuscation over the issue, it was pretty easy to determine what candidates could be swayed by CPV and THEY LOST. Why didn't anyone openly support the power plant-because there were so many secret sympathizers? I don't think so. As for calling people (it wasn't me so it's not personal) "dopey" and "idiotic", you sound like one very angry person. It sounds to me like your candidates lost.

[BFT]

Proof that CPV is not going away, the CPV blogger is still alive, but not well. CPV has had a tough couple of weeks in Walpole and Beacon Hill. They are working behind the scenes right now to do whatever they can to kill the Timilty amendment. (And lets see Senator Michael Morrissey a Quincy Democrat the most vocal member of the opposition to the power plant amendment and surprisingly enough CPV's local headquarters are in Braintree, what a coincidence.) I bet we hear from Senator Michael Morrissey again! Then they will be back to us to continue the Divide and Conquer campaign.

[Unregistered]

I find it humerous that someone keeps trying to insist that there is some vast underground network of power plant supporters who have been bullied into keeping quiet. If any group has been "powerless" except for their sheer numbers, it is plant opponents. The Walpole Times has been openly pro-CPV. Their coverage of CPV and the elctions was clearly biased. Imagine having the post election headline be about Jack Conroy?! It was such an obvious attempt to minimize the election.

CPV has spent tens of thousands on ads and mailers. CPV even now has taken to subliminal threats of going to the state, or that someone else will come along and build a plant, and they may not be as "nice and honest" as our friend CPV.

The bullying has all been on the side of the very few "operatives" who first tried to "sneak this by" citizens, and now are so frustrated that they are trying to strong arm their way through. The political back room that has lobbied Walpole town government for the past year and 1/2 (and I do mean LOBBIED!!) is clearly frustrated with the integriity and resolve of the citizens of this community.

Go door to door. Get some signatures. Have a demonstration. Talk to people at the supermarket and post office. Oh, but why bother.... there will be no takers. You know that no-one is buying so stop trying to keep this charade going. You are alone. I have spoken to hundreds on this issue. Not a single taker. Not a single one thinks the price is worth it. (Please note I have not talked to Kevin Foley, but even he admitted in one of his many many interviews that it probably wasn't right for Walpole but if it was going to be forced on us, we should get the best deal we can.)

Forced on us,... what a great company. NO DEAL! You cannot bully us! You cannot intimidate us. You cannot manipulate us.

[Unregistered]

another dumb post: No pro-power plant persons ran. Come on, will you please stop it!

And why do you suppose no "pro-power plant persons" ran? CPV conducted a poll back in January and February to ask how people felt about the power plant. Then in March they met secretly with a small group of RTMs instead of inviting all to a public meeting, and they kept their distance from (directly) endorsing or supporting candidates in town elections in early June. Why, oh why, would they ever keep such a low profile if their poll told them that there was widespread support for their project?

CPV already knows that there is no "silent majority" of power plant supporters, otherwise they would have energized this base of support to elect candidates who would support their project. A referendum will not tell CPV anything they (and we) don't already know. So what's the point?

Come on, will you please stop trying to insult us with adjectives like "dumb?" We are not as stupid as you seem to think we are!

[Unregistered]

Cpv may go away, but get ready: The landowners will just market the property to another power plant consortium.

Whoever goes in next to propose a power plant most likely will ignore the people of the town of Walpole, and try to deal with the state.

There is a lot of good evidence (including the anonymous and cowardly "empowerwalpole.org") supporting CPV's claim that a small group of anonymous folks (including a lot of posts on this website) tried to run a business out of town.


Whoever runs "empowerwalpole.org" is a plain coward. If you can't put your name on it, it has no relevance to the discussion. Will any of the claimed "majority" step forward and claim membership or ownership of that website? Doubtful.

[Unregistered]

empowerwalpole.org is nothing more than a website with information. I'm baffled as to why you think the owner of the website is cowardly. Where else would a resident of Walpole go for consolidated information regarding CPV and this power plant proposal? The CPV website? The flyers that CPV sends through the mail?

It sounds to me as though you'd like nothing more than to silence that website and only allow the information to come from one side.

[Unregistered]

Cpv may go away, but get ready: The landowners will just market the property to another power plant consortium.

Whoever goes in next to propose a power plant most likely will ignore the people of the town of Walpole, and try to deal with the state.

There is a lot of good evidence (including the anonymous and cowardly "empowerwalpole.org") supporting CPV's claim that a small group of anonymous folks (including a lot of posts on this website) tried to run a business out of town.


Whoever runs "empowerwalpole.org" is a plain coward. If you can't put your name on it, it has no relevance to the discussion. Will any of the claimed "majority" step forward and claim membership or ownership of that website? Doubtful.

Every time you post, CPV blogger, I will respond even though I realize it's a brick wall. We've already heard your threats. We're not impressed. We will not lose our resolve. We're not a small group of anonymous folks. If we were a small group, your candidates would have won. Many of us have written letters, run for town office and won. As for empowerwalpole.org being cowardly, put your own name on your comments here. Or do you just save your name for the editorials in the Walpole Times. Give it up, already.

[Unregistered]

Who is the coward? Where is your name?
It is the same ol' crap you have been spewing since the beginning.
Get a new tune, as we are tired of your veiled threats.
I have checked everything on the web site that so irks you, and I have found nothing that was not based in fact.
Go back to the rock you crawled out from, please.

[Unregistered]

Cpv may go away, but get ready: The landowners will just market the property to another power plant consortium.

Whoever goes in next to propose a power plant most likely will ignore the people of the town of Walpole, and try to deal with the state.

That's not how I see it. From everything I've read, Mr. Lorusso would never have agreed to sell his land to CPV had he realized that the proposal would face such stiff opposition in the community. Without his agreement to sell the land, nobody can build anything on the property. Period.

CPV keeps threatening us that "the next power plant developer" might not be so willing to work with the town. The truth is that there IS NO "NEXT" POWER PLANT DEVELOPER unless CPV sells their binding option to purchase 33 Industrial Road to another company.

The bottom line is that this project doesn't go to the State Siting Board unless CPV takes it there themselves. So please drop the "Good Neighbor" routine and the empty bluff, too. You aren't fooling anybody.

[Unregistered]

Hey 41,
Its time for you to fly away and try to ruin some other town. Fly away little starling, fly fly fly...

[Unregistered]

That's not how I see it. From everything I've read, Mr. Lorusso would never have agreed to sell his land to CPV had he realized that the proposal would face such stiff opposition in the community. Without his agreement to sell the land, nobody can build anything on the property. Period.

CPV keeps threatening us that "the next power plant developer" might not be so willing to work with the town. The truth is that there IS NO "NEXT" POWER PLANT DEVELOPER unless CPV sells their binding option to purchase 33 Industrial Road to another company.

The bottom line is that this project doesn't go to the State Siting Board unless CPV takes it there themselves. So please drop the "Good Neighbor" routine and the empty bluff, too. You aren't fooling anybody.


I am waiting for the landowners to publicly claim the project dead. How about it? It would end all of this nonsense once and for all.

[Unregistered]

I am waiting for the landowners to publicly claim the project dead. How about it? It would end all of this nonsense once and for all.

I think the ball's in CPV's court on this one. CPV and the Lorusso Family Trust have reportedly entered into a confidential, binding agreement to sell 33 Industrial Road to CPV. No details are known about the agreement, but Mr. Lorusso's attorney claims the landowner's hands are tied with respect to pulling out of the deal. He also says they never would've agreed to sell the land if they had realized the project had no support in town.

The deal isn't dead until CPV says it is. No other company can step in and take over the project without their say so. If this proposal ever goes to the state siting board, it will be because CPV brought it there themselves.

CPV talks a good game, but the threat is empty.

But we're getting off-topic for this discussion about the election results. Maybe we should take this chat over to the Power Plant thread?