It’s the day before the City Council will take up the question of whether to revoke or amend Palmer Renewable Energy’s permit to build a wood-burning plant in East Springfield, and a group of local business owners are gathering to voice their opposition to the project.
The group is gathering this morning at Mom & Rico’s in the South End. According to an announcement from Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, the coalition working to stop the controversial project, more than 170 business owners have written to the City Council calling for the revocation of the permit, which was issued in 2008.
“The letters reference the region’s already poor air, high incidence of asthma and the small amount of power generated by the plant as reasons to revoke the permit,” according to STIS. “But of particular concern for businesses is the effect the project will have on them due to declining property values and a tarnished city image, both of which could suffer with this type of development. Area businesses are concerned that this project could hurt prospects for current and future businesses.”
Referring to government tax breaks the PRE project stands to get, Bill Gibson, owner of Gibson Contracting and a plant opponent, said, “When granted to a project that will hurt Springfield, these kinds of subsidies don’t sit well for the rest of us business owners who pay our full share of city taxes. We want the city council to literally take care of business.
“This isn’t the type of development that improves Springfield’s image one bit. We’ll have Bondi’s Island on one side, and a smoke stack as high as our bell tower on the other side.”
In yesterday’s Springfield Republican, reporter Pete Goonan wrote about the developers’ assertions that the project, which they say would burn only “green” wood chips, “will be safe, state-of-the-art, and well within standards set by state and federal regulations.” The project would burn 1,184 tons of wood a day to generate electricity.
“The developers have stated the plant will bring 200 construction jobs and 50 well-paid full-time operation jobs, along with significant new tax revenue to Springfield,” Goonan reported. “In addition, as sought by city officials, the company has committed $2 million to address current health issues in Springfield, and more than $1 million in annual payments in lieu of taxes, [developer David] Callahan said.”
The Advocate has tried to interview plant developers and PRE’s attorney but has not received return calls. The attorney, Frank Fitzgerald, has threatened that his client might sue if the Council revokes its special permit.
So who will the City Council listen to? The developers who insist their project is clean and safe? The attorney who warns a revocation could result in a lawsuit? Or the coalition of community and health groups—and, now, business owners—who say the project is a bad deal for the city?
The City Council hearing will take place on Tuesday, May 17, at 4:30 p.m. in City Hall.
