Nuke plant and taxes

TrashcanDan

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
460
Likes
297
Location
So. Shore mass
didn't want to start something new.

What can people tell me about Kingston?
Got a friend of mine that lives in Kingston off of Landing rd. His taxes are going up up up.
Theres a new "Town Administrator" who was some previous state rep. Been laying off town employees and bringing in his friends at an inflated salary. This guy sounds as corrupt as the day is long.
His latest shenanigans is taxing people on structures they don't have, like sheds. People won't let the adjuster or appraiser on property, so they turn around and raise taxes based on what they think someone might have. In order to prove they don't have these bogus structures, they have to let the appraiser on site. End result is a few dozen (if not more) lawsuits against the town (for this and other things) and the town dragging their feet on going back to the tax rate prior to the shed debacle. Of course the lawsuits against the town are going to end up being paid for by the residents.
He had mentioned something else about Kingston buying up property in Plymouth for low income housing, required by the state for all the Mc Mansions going up.
 

Manomet

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
1,657
Likes
352
Location
SE Mass
40B in Plymouth wont help Kingston. Any property purchase anywhere would have to be approved at town meeting.
 

whacko

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
9,515
Likes
5,066
360K/ 10k taxes, must be a fairly large lot or some other explanation.
My house valued with the town at $210k true market value more like $260k

My taxes are $3700 a year.


Lots of times the assessed value with the town and sale (market) price don't match.
 

TrashcanDan

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
460
Likes
297
Location
So. Shore mass
40B in Plymouth wont help Kingston. Any property purchase anywhere would have to be approved at town meeting.
They approved it. Some form of gentrification I imagine. I guess he's trying to break up the town union as well. From what I found on the all-knowing interwebs he rep'd for Plymouth for years, 12th district. Tom Calter?
 

amm5061

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
6,442
Likes
4,039
Location
Holliston, MA
Trick #1 is to start moving services from tax funded to fee based (garbage, school busses, etc)

Trick #2 is to have repeated override votes until the populace votes correctly then stop.
This right here. Ashland started doing this shit and hit us with a $200 "fee" on our water/sewer bill just before we moved because Trick #2 has failed a couple of times in a row now and they were getting desperate. Something about rainwater runoff.
 

looser38

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
1,228
Likes
590
Location
S.E. Mass
My house valued with the town at $210k true market value more like $260k

My taxes are $3700 a year.


Lots of times the assessed value with the town and sale (market) price don't match.
Assessed value and market price will NEVER match up.
My point previously was Hetzer said he has friends over by the airport who bought a house for $360,000 and their taxes are $10,000.
There is something that just doesn't sound right with those figures.
Go back and follow the conversation, and you'll see that there are several others that agree, that's all.
 

Prepper

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
18,641
Likes
6,703
Location
NH
There is no "clean up" of a former nuclear power plant, not in reality. Since the Fed gov't prohibits moving the spent fuel rods off the property, they will forever be on the site. IMNSHO that makes the "value" of said property pretty low. I was a former nuclear engineer back in the 1970s. One of our members was involved in the decommissioning of a power plant and perhaps he'll chime in here.
They could at least reopen that area as a park / conservation area. It has been closed for that purpose since 2001. I used to like walking around there and on the jetties.
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,692
Likes
484
Location
Boston
There is no "clean up" of a former nuclear power plant, not in reality. Since the Fed gov't prohibits moving the spent fuel rods off the property, they will forever be on the site. IMNSHO that makes the "value" of said property pretty low. I was a former nuclear engineer back in the 1970s. One of our members was involved in the decommissioning of a power plant and perhaps he'll chime in here.
Len is mostly right (as usual), with a few qualifiers:

Federal rules do not forbid off-site transfer of spent fuel assemblies (at least after the spent fuel assemblies have spent a time (roughly five years) working down "decay heat in a spent fuel pool). There are NRC -approved casks for shipping post decay fuel, and such shipments have been made, though in limited numbers.

The real problem with spent fuel is finding a place to ship it to. In 1986, Congress ordered the U.S. government to create a spent fuel repository (or two) and mandated that US accept spent fuel from US LWRs (power plants). Efforts to carry out this mandate were torpedoed by NIMBYism. And so the fuel remains on site for the foreseeable future.

As for "cleaning up" a plant no longer operating, NRC rules give plant owners three options, which somewhat simplified are: relatively quick decommissioning, simply securing the facility and letting it sit for decades, and something in between. The two plants I was involved with elected the "quick" DECON option. Spent fuel was moved from the spent fuel pool to a newly created dry cask storage pad on a discrete area of the site not previously occupied by any of the operating facility. As for the operating elements (reactor, generator, cooling systems, and effluent management systems), these were completely decontaminated and dismantled, with material shipped off site to either a low level radiological waste facility or ordinary landfills. The land on which this stuff had sat was decontaminated as needed and released for uncontrolled entry. This whole process took 6 to 8 years.

At both Yankee Rowe and Connecticut Yankee, all that remains at the sites are literally green fields of grass, plus the separate secured pads on which the spent fuel casks stand. At Rowe, members of the public are permitted to visit and walk the grounds. At Connecticut, the green fields are fenced, but the reasons have nothing to do with radiological issues.

As for the resale value of the decommissioned site (apart from the small portion occupied by the spent fuel storage), as far as I know, no one has offered to buy them, and the reasons are assumed (by me, at least) to be entirely based in the political opprobrium attached to all things nuclear.

The Rowe site is kind of small and remote. The Connecticut site would make a great and scenically beautiful 1,000 rifle range. Anyone interested?
 
Last edited:

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98%
48   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
51,109
Likes
8,624
Location
Escaping to NH
Len is mostly right (as usual), with a few qualifiers:

Federal rules do not forbid off-site transfer of spent fuel assemblies (at least after the spent fuel assemblies have spent a time (roughly five years) working down "decay heat in a spent fuel pool). There are NRC -approved casks for shipping post decay fuel, and such shipments have been made, though in limited numbers.

The real problem with spent fuel is finding a place to ship it to. In 1986, Congress ordered the U.S. government to create a spent fuel repository (or two) and mandated that US accept spent fuel from US LWRs (power plants). Efforts to carry out this mandate were torpedoed by NIMBYism. And so the fuel remains on site for the foreseeable future.

As for "cleaning up" a plant no longer operating, NRC rules give plant owners three options, which somewhat simplified are: relatively quick decommissioning, simply securing the facility and letting it sit for decades, and something in between. The two plants I was involved with elected the "quick" DECON option. Spent fuel was moved from the spent fuel pool to a newly created dry cask storage pad on a discrete area of the site not previously occupied by any of the operating facility. As for the operating elements (reactor, generator, cooling systems, and effluent management systems) were completely decontaminated and dismantled, with material shipped off site to either a low fever radiological waste facility or ordinary landfills. The land on which this stuff had sat was decontaminated as needed and released for uncontrolled entry. This whole process took 6 to 8 years.

At both Yankee Rowe and Connecticut Yankee, all that remains at the sites are literally green fields of grass, plus the separate secured pads on which the spent fuel casks stand. At Rowe, members of the public are permitted to visit and walk the grounds. At Connecticut, the green fields are fenced, but the reasons have nothing to do with radiological issues.

As for the resale value of the decommissioned site (apart from the small portion occupied by the spent fuel storage), as far as I know, no one has offered to buy them, and the reasons are assumed (by me, at least) to be entirely based in the political opprobrium attached to all things nuclear.

The Rowe site is kind of small and remote. The Connecticut site would make a great and scenically beautiful 1,000 rifle range. Anyone interested?
Thanks for the correction and filling in the blanks.

I wasn't aware that the US gov't finally allowed fuel to be moved off site. Of course the NIMBYs won't allow it to happen. I got out of that business in 1979 and never looked back.

Agreed that Rowe is so remote that the property is only good for hunting and nothing else.

At one time Ridgeline might have been interested in a CT site for a 1000yd range, but I think that they have moved on.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98%
48   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
51,109
Likes
8,624
Location
Escaping to NH
BTW Holtec is licensing an interim storage site in New Mexico. The plan is to consolidate Fuel until .gov gets off their butt and find a permanent storage site. Dept of energy owns all spent fuel and will foot the bill for storage, security and shipping. I should say we all will foot the bill!

Holtec clears hurdle for proposed nuclear-waste storage facility
It's the "transporting thru 'my' town" issue that hasn't been won and won't be.

When I worked on Subs down at GD/EB, a rail car would mysteriously appear overnight with a reactor on it. Since it was US Gov't and national security they didn't ask anyone's permission and shipments were made with no announcement except to those with a "need to know".

Sadly those dealing with commercial power plants can't pull off the same thing.

The mayor of New London forbid the US Navy from running subs under nuclear power up the Thames River to the NL Sub Base. The standing joke was that you knew it was a nuke boat because it was being towed by tug boats up and down river.
 

mac1911

NES Member
Rating - 100%
65   0   0
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
26,769
Likes
4,069
I’ve. Been tearing the town apart looking for a cape with a Garage. Non existent. Yesterday was the first time I went to a couple open houses , four actually. People were swarming over these places and I saw the same people flying from house to house ! Holy smokes this isn’t going to be easy
I went through the same shit in 2001, very few houses with useable garages WHEN your looking for one. 18 years later I still dont have a garage.
Taxes are high all through that area im floating around $6k . Only way to beat is buy small and maybe save $1500
Honestly though is $5-10k a year in taxes really a issues if your buying a house in a area that averages what $390k ?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
556
Likes
281
I just paid 333 for a house on 3/4 of an acre. Zoning approved me for a 22 x 26 garage ! Smaller than I’d like but......
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,692
Likes
484
Location
Boston
BTW Holtec is licensing an interim storage site in New Mexico. The plan is to consolidate Fuel until .gov gets off their butt and find a permanent storage site. Dept of energy owns all spent fuel and will foot the bill for storage, security and shipping. I should say we all will foot the bill!

Holtec clears hurdle for proposed nuclear-waste storage facility
While the U.S. bears the cost, this is offset by the fees paid by the operating plants in exchange for the (never provided) service. Whether the two net to zero, or whether the government's costs will exceed the fees because the government defaulted on it's statutory obligation, I do not know. But it isn't entirely accurate to say that taxpayers will be carrying 100% of the cost.
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,692
Likes
484
Location
Boston
I add: for those interested in learning more about all of this, and might be willing to pore through 150 or so pages to do so. I commend the ASLB CISF decision.
 

Attachments

Top Bottom