Yep, they started building it last week.BuddyLee said:Anyone confirm?
DoWhat said:Yep, they started building it last week.
Should be done by the end of next month, from what I heard.
Hardly a credible source. The paper suggests that Ehrlich has some secret scheme for Elms, and I think the paper is trying to smear Ehrlich.kwillia said:St. Mary's Today Online has a tidbit of info.
I agree. However, I suspect that even longtime county residents had assumed that the original approvals on the power plant had long since expired. What would be underhanded is if the governor (as the Rag alleges) or some other politician had made a back-room deal to build the plant without consulting the public.Fred Hoeck said:Therefore, the use of it, the Elms Property, for a power Plant, would not be something new, secret, or underhanded.
Cletus_Vandam said:Fred is exactly correct. The enviromental area while used by the public schools is not County property; it is leased from the State who owns the property for a potential nuc power site as he mentions.
Fred Hoeck said:For those of you new to the area, the Elms Property was bought and set aside for a nuclear power plant back before Three Mile Island. It is only being used as envionmental park since no new Nuclear Power Plants have been built. Therefore, the use of it, the Elms Property, for a power Plant, would not be something new, secret, or underhanded. It is bad when newcomers to the area do not investigate the uses of tracts of land and what they are already planned for, then they wouldn't get themselves all bent out of shape when the planned for use happens. It is similar to the people living along the path of FDR Blvd who complained when they found out the road was to go through their neighborhood, they should have checked the plans before buying if they didn't want to live on a main highway at some point. Investigate the long range plans!
I knew of the proposed nuclear plant at Elms Beach since I was a small kid, and that the likelihood of the plant being built was very possible, and somewhat, probable.Tonio said:I agree. However, I suspect that even longtime county residents had assumed that the original approvals on the power plant had long since expired. What would be underhanded is if the governor (as the Rag alleges) or some other politician had made a back-room deal to build the plant without consulting the public.
Lenny said:But the nutties will still make the argument that the environmentally unique area cannot now be destroyed for a nuc plant. It's their way or no way.
Tonio said:I agree. However, I suspect that even longtime county residents had assumed that the original approvals on the power plant had long since expired. What would be underhanded is if the governor (as the Rag alleges) or some other politician had made a back-room deal to build the plant without consulting the public.
Furthermore, what would be the costs and benefits of having a new plant?Kain99 said:I just don't see the population explosion required for a second plant. Maybe I'm behind the times.
Kain99 said:I just don't see the population explosion required for a second plant. Maybe I'm behind the times.
Also a nice tax income for the county.Cletus_Vandam said:A nuc plant in St. Mary's County would make us less reliant on plants that use fossil fuels (like the plants near Benedict and near the Nice bridge).
Kain99 said:I just don't see the population explosion required for a second plant. Maybe I'm behind the times.