Exactly. Accidents happen. No amount of rules or regulations thwart human error, or in this case, stupidity. Keep this in mind for the propane transfer facility, where the risks and costs will be immense for such lapses. But it's all good...there will be oversight, just like at Suttles, of course. Therefore, no need to even think about it. View Comment

Agreed. We should not be "settling" this issue. That only aids the railroad. Give them an inch, they'll take 10 miles, as we've seen already. View Comment

I was at the meeting last night. I can say there were far more than 140 people there; perhaps that was a typo. I was really disappointed that the BOS seem way outgunned and behind the ball on this. The clear impression seemed to be that they were resigned to this notion of pre-emption. As Mr. Flynn so astutely articulated, we shouldn't just accept this pre-emption lying down. If the BOS are unsuccessful in court, they should appeal. They should change tack. And by all means necessary enlist the support and funding to do so. The town will rally behind them. It was such a tired argument that "we are a small town and just don't have the money to fight..." That is such a losing mentality. If not fight for this, then what? If not now, when? There were also no facts on the worst case scenario of a blast. If one tank explodes, it is almost a certainty that the force of the blast and shrapnel will puncture the other tanks. Folks seemed concerned about fire suppression. I am not. A fire is not really a concern. If the site explodes, those suppression systems will be eviscerated, as will some significant area around the site. It's like saying Fukushima was safe because there were back-up systems. Or the Maconda well was because there are redundancies. Well, those back-up systems were rendered useless by the scale of the first critical event. And for the Town Administrator to acknowledge when asked that the fire department had the resources to address that type of event was naive, if not ignorant. I hope this doesn't pass pre-emption. But if does, the Town better ramp up to escalate this fight. The scale of this is just not right. At the worst, if pre-emption is upheld, the BOS should be appealing to the GURR to scale down the size of this proposed site if for no other reason than to reduce the risk of a catastrophic failure. View Comment

This whole concept is insane. The scope of this bulk storage facility and operations within the proximity to schools, parks, residential homes and other populated areas is a gross and malicious disregard for life. Plus, these tanks are 60 years old. If there was ever an accident - and oversight will not necessarily prevent human error or malintent, as we've seen at Suttles, a de-railing, gas explosions and other incidents - the damage and loss of life would be immense. What experience in bulk terminal facilities does this company even have? That this discussion even needs to be had, and this project is even being contemplated, is unbelievable. This will destroy local property values as people flee the area. I would make a petition to move the NGES and may withhold my kids from school. If this moves forward and nothing is done, I will certainly move. View Comment

How do four 125 foot tanks that hold 320,000 gallons of LPG qualify as railroad operations? Or even as a temporary transfer station? It is a bulk storage facility - plain and simple. For crying out loud, they look like 4 solid rocket boosters. View Comment

The presumed fact that this amount of toxic and explosive material can be stored in plain sight and within immediate proximity to homes, a school, a high-risk bio lab, parks and a library without explicit town approval is disgusting. If the tanks are cleared, why can't they be put underground to assuage safety concerns? A commenter noted that gas is transported to gas stations regularly, but storage for a station is underground and far less than the bulk facility contemplated here. I for one would propose and support whatever the town can and will do to prevent this from happening. If it does, then there should be: (i) immediate licensing fees enacted by the town for storage and transportation of hazardous materials, (ii) a separate tax rate for hazardous-zoned locations ($100 per $1000 of valuation), and a full safety and evacuation plan funded by the owner and updated at least annually or any time there are changes to the facility. In short, the Town has within its power to make this venture financially untenable even if it is approved to move forward. Act on it! View Comment

A class size of mid to high 20's dramatically invokes the law of diminishing returns. The value and outcome of the education is significantly reduced. It is irresponsible to vote to approve improvements in and expansion of facilities and then not fund them to operate properly. I don't support it. I will support doing what is necessary to maintain the semblance of quality of education and raise the taxes. View Comment

I have to be honest, but I like the old website design, layout and interfaces much, much better - it was a nice layout, ituitive and easy to navigate. This new version is several steps back. While it may offer more "social integration", that is not the main purpose. There is no clear layout, the page is dominated by ad space and is very "blocky." View Comment