Category Archives: Newport

Morehead City Police Police investigating murder

David Isiah Godwin

David Isiah Godwin

Chief Bernette Morris, Chief of Police,  Morehead City Police Department

On July 5th 2016 the Morehead City Police Department responded to Country Club Apartments approximately 6:30pm in regard to a requested welfare check on Wendy Rae Tamagne, age 37. Upon arrival on scene it was determined that Wendy Tamagne, was deceased. Any and all unattended deaths are treated as homicides by our investigators.

The Morehead City Police Department, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, and District Attorney Scott Thomas are continuing to work diligently on this case. The investigation has revealed that this case is a homicide. Detectives and Agents have worked through the night and with the approval of District Attorney Scott Thomas, a warrant for arrest has been issued for an open count of murder for David Isaiah Godwin of Newport, North Carolina. Godwin is described as a W/M DOB: 03/22/1991, 5’8”, and weighing approximately185 pounds.
Godwin is thought to be driving a 1998 black Ford Ranger with a black vinyl type cover on the bed, displaying a North Carolina Registration Plate of DLT-6114.

Godwin is to be considered armed and dangerous.
This is not considered a random act. It is an isolated incident. If you have any information on the whereabouts of David Isiah Godwin, contact the Carteret Emergency Communication Center at (252) 726-1911 or call Crime Stoppers at (252) 726-4636.

Reward offered for information in Armed Robbery

Carteret County Sheriff’s Office

Major Jason A. Wank, Chief Detective 304 Craven Street * Beaufort, NC 28516 (252) 728-8400

RELEASE DATE: 08/25/2015

NEWS RELEASE

suspect

Carteret County Deputies are asking for your help in identifying an armed robbery suspect.

On Monday, 08/24/2015, at approximately 11:07pm a light skin black male armed with a handgun entered Gil’s Market located at 805 Chatham St, in Newport and demanded money.

When the clerk yelled out to bar patrons that she was being robbed the suspect fled on foot leaving empty handed. At least four bar patrons reportedly chased the suspect who fled into a nearby mobile home park.

(It should be noted that Gil’s Bar is connected to the convenient store through a space between both businesses where the clerk is also the bartender).

The suspect is described as a light skin black male wearing a black hooded sweatshirt with a design on the front carrying an unknown caliber black handgun.

Anyone with information on the identity of this subject is asked to call the Carteret County Sheriff’s Office at 728-8400 or Crime Stoppers at (252) 726-INFO. You do not have to give your name to receive a cash reward.

ANONYMOUS REPORTS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CAN BE REPORTED TO

CARTERET COUNTY CRIME STOPPERS AT (252) 726-INFO OR EMAIL

CRIMETIPS@CARTERETCOUNTYGOV.ORG

You can now text your Crime Stoppers Tip to (252) 241-0946

Newport teens face additional charges for crime spree

Web-Post-Carteret-County-for-June-30

photos

On 06/29/2015 Carteret County Deputies served Tyler Lee Hall, 16 and Phillip Montanino, 17, both of 599 Roberts Rd,
(L & E Mobile Home Park), in Newport, with numerous additional counts of breaking into unlocked vehicles in the Newport area.

The duo, who are currently in jail facing similar charges obtained by the Newport Police department, now face an additional twenty-four counts each of Breaking & Entering Motor Vehicles, larcenies, and possession of stolen goods.

Detectives say the due went on a crime spree walking from car to car along streets off Roberts Road, the same road in which the pair live off of. The two targeted unlocked cars and were able to score a large amount of cash and property. The two skipped cars that were locked and simply went on to the next.

Hall continues to remain in the Carteret County jail under a $100,000.00 bond and Montanino under a $250,000.00 bond. Both are scheduled for his first court appearance on the most recent charges today, 06/30/2015.

NEWS RELEASE – Newport man arrested

release

Carteret-County-Sheriff's-DepartmentOn 04/04/2015 Carteret County Deputies arrested James Darden Piercey, 24, of Lot # 19 Rouses Mobile Home Park, 760 Hwy 24, in Newport for engaging in lewd and lascivious acts with a four year old female child known to him.

Piercey was charged with two counts of Indecent Liberties with a Child and held in the Carteret County Jail under a $20,000.00 bond. He is scheduled for his first court appearance today, 04/06/2015. No further information is being released due to the age of the victim.

ANONYMOUS REPORTS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CAN BE REPORTED TO CARTERET COUNTY CRIME STOPPERS AT (252) 726-INFO OR EMAIL
CRIMETIPS@CARTERETCOUNTYGOV.ORG_
You can now text your Crime Stoppers Tip to (252) 241-0946

Newport adopts tough as nails wind energy ordinance

Carteret sets Feb. 26th public hearing on county regulations

By John Droz Jr. | Special to the County Compass

wind millsNEWPORT — When the Mill Pond wind energy project was first publicly announced in October, our Number One objective was to see that the two affected communities had laws providing adequate protections to citizens, local businesses, the military, and the environment.

Monday night’s town board meeting in Newport was the successful conclusion for months of hard work by a lot of good North Carolinians — as one of our local jurisdictions formally passed a high quality ordinance.

Their citizen-friendly law is based on scientific evidence and legal precedents, and includes the following provisions:

  1. Turbine to property-line setbacks of 5000 feet;
  2. Low amount of turbine noise allowed (particularly infrasound: 35 dBA);
  3. A maximum turbine height limit of 275 feet;
  4. A quality ‘Property Value Guarantee’;
  5. An Escrow Account (developer pays the Town’s project-related administrative costs, thru the project’s life);
  6. Terms and conditions for Decommissioning (including a surety bond of $500,000 per turbine);
  7. The developer will indemnify the Town for any lawsuit related to the wind development, and
  8. The developer must maintain an adequate liability insurance policy.

These protections came about because of the MANY citizens who took the time out of their busy lives to attend meetings, write their representatives, etc. Thank you!

The system worked very well here because the Town representatives were not only listening to their constituents, but they were genuinely interested in proving adequate protections to the community. They kept their eye on the ball, and did not get distracted by specious enticements. KUDOS TO THEM!!

It was correctly acknowledged that the Newport wind law is a living document. The Town Council agreed to make any improvements necessary, as additional research might indicate. The law should be on the town’s website soon. Our next focus is now on the County to incorporate comparable community protections.We are optimistic that they will also do the right thing.

Your assistance in bringing that about will be appreciated. The public hearing before the Carteret County Board of Commissioners is set for the evening of Wednesday, Feb. 26th.

Editor’s note: Readers may e-mail Mr. Droz: aaprjohn@northnet.org

Holes blown in Newport wind project

Public excluded from Nov. 5 meeting

By By John Droz Jr. | Special to the County Compass

NEWS1-Expert-table--Page-5-of-PDF-21Editor’s
note: Mr. Droz, a Morehead City resident, writes extensively on wind
energy issues. He is a frequent contributor to The County Compass.
Readers may reach him by e-mail: aaprjohn@northnet.org Torch
Energy’s 28-page slide presentation — critiqued here by Mr.
Droz —  can be seen in the PDF below.




Torch_Energy_Presentation_(5.7_MB)

Page
5: “Capital Investment by Torch Renewable Energy, LLC =
$180MM – $250MM”

Note 1:
This is a very wide range of uncertainty.
Note 2: In
a report prepared by the North Carolina Department of Commerce
regarding an Ibedrola wind energy project proposed near Elizabeth City
(and ultimately nixed)  the state agency concluded:
“Nearly all of the upfront investment will be with firms
located outside North Carolina” and “The employment
impacts for a project with this much initial investment is
small.” Every indication is that these will be equally true
in Newport.

Page
6: “Up to 100 direct jobs during construction…”

Note: There
is no guarantee of this temporary jobs number, so they can speculate
any way they want. If there ends up being only 10 part-time NC jobs
they can say it met their carefully worded (unguaranteed) enticement.

Page
6: “Up to 8 long-term jobs…”

Note 1:
There is no guarantee of this number either, so this is just a sales
pitch. If there are actually only two jobs, they can say they were
accurate.
Note 2: The
only important jobs figure is the NET jobs that result from this
project. There is evidence from independent experts that this will be a
loss.

Page
6: “Landowner bonuses…”

Note: There
is no guarantee of these either. The beneficiary of any of these would
be the Weyerhaeuser Corporation — not the citizens of Newport.

Page
6: “…energy for almost 17,000 NC homes…”

Note: This
is a deceptive statement as it implies that this project will provide
electricity (as it’s normally understood to mean) for
17,000±  North Carolina homes. The reality is that
it will provide electricity for zero NC homes — 24/7/365.

Page
6: “Void of air pollutants and hazardous materials.”

Note 1: This
is a deceptive statement as the manufacture of turbines results in
“Pollution on a Disastrous Scale.”
Note 2:
This is a purposefully misleading statement as wind and solar energy
cannot operate without a conventional source of power as an auxiliary.
This typically is gas, which does produce air pollutants — so
wind energy will typically result in air pollutants.

Page
6: “Price to deliver energy to NC ratepayers far less than
retail rates.”

Note 1:
This is a purposefully misleading statement as the wholesale price of
ALL conventional energy sources are far less than the retail rates.
Note 2:
This is a purposefully misleading statement as the real cost of wind
and solar are disguised by substantial taxpayer subsidies.
Note 3:
This is a purposefully misleading statement as the real cost of wind
and solar actually includes the cost of the auxiliary conventional
source needed — which the developer is ignoring.
Note 4:
This is a likely false statement as the Iberdrola project cited above
was specifically rejected by ALL of the NC utility companies, as the
cost of the wind electricity was too high

Page
8: “Highly energetic resource for NC @6.5 meters per
second”

Note 1: This
is apparently the hub-height wind speed (in meters per second). Note
that the developer’s marketing pitch is a comparison to other
North Carolina sites  where some 99 percent  are
known to have inadequate wind!
Note 2: Per
the industry: 6.5 meters per second is the minimum amount of wind
necessary.

Page
8: “NC Renewal Portfolio Standard  of 12.5
percent  by 2021”

Note: This
factual statement is the nub of the issue. This acknowledges that this
project makes sense only because of the contrived law (Senate Bill 3)
that the wind energy lobby fooled our legislators into passing in 2007.
Classic circular reasoning.

Page
10: “Performed a review of potential environmental
conflicts.”

Note 1:
This is standard fare where the developer hires a consultant he likes,
who looks into things that the developer wants to investigate, and then
writes about them in a way to make his employer (the developer) happy.
Note 2: The
simple solution is to have the money spent by the developer on paying
his bud, go to the Town and/or County, and have them hire an
independent expert, who does a thorough and objective analysis.

Page
10: “…perform an Obstacle Evaluation Study.”

Note 1: The
implication here is that they are looking out for the military, which
is misleading. The fact is that Department of Defense has instructed NC
military base commanders to stand down regards to wind energy
installation issues.
Note 2: Per
the latest figures we have been told, the Department of Defense has had
over 3000 renewable energy projects submitted for review for military
impact. To date not a single one has been rejected!
Note 3:
Industrial wind installations are known to cause radar interference.
The “solution” is for taxpayers to pay for research
and development, plus the cost of expensive new radar installations for
military and civilian air use. This is one of many costs not included
by the developer in his financial claims.

Page
13: “…Significant buffer between project and any
non-participating residential dwellings.”

Note 1:
It’s good that the developer implicitly acknowledges that a
“significant buffer” is necessary — we
fully agree with that.
Note 2: The
developer fails to define what he calls a “significant
buffer”. Independent experts have concluded that a least one
mile separation is necessary. [Several studies and independent experts
support a mile (or more)
setback. This study concluded: “there is a significant
probability of adverse health effects for human beings living within
1.25 miles of wind turbines”.

Page
17: Aviation Due Diligence

Note: The
aviation study apparently assumes normal operations. In weather and/or
airplane-mechanical emergency situations, these 500± foot
obstacles could precipitate pilot, passenger and/or civilian deaths.

Page
20: References to new state law H484

Note:
Despite the implication here, H484 does not offer sufficient
protections for nearby citizens, the environment, or the military.

Page
20: “Certificate obtained from the NC Utility Commission that
demonstrates public convenience and necessity requires
construction.”

Note 1: Per
the Utility Commission website, the preliminary application for this
project does not indicate that any 
“certificate” has been granted.
Note 2:
It’s interesting that the purported basis for such a
“certificate” is “public
convenience” and “necessity,” when this
project is contrary to “public convenience” and
certainly is not a “necessity.”
Note 3:
Even if such a “certificate” is granted, contrary
to what the developer’s marketing material implies, it is
only a formality, that conveys nothing of significance.
Note 4:
There eventually will be a formal hearing in front of the NCUC and that
is an important time for citizens to register complaints. Key parties
should seek to get “Intervenor” status.

Page
23: “Scoping meeting pre-application package submitted to
DENR on August 4, 2013”

Note 1:
From what I have been told, neither the Town, the County, or other
state/federal agencies were given this pre-application package.
Note 2: The
first developer-stakeholder get-together defined in H484 is a
pre-application meeting. Despite having the pre-application materials
since August 4, 2013, DENR setup a pre-pre-application
developer-stakeholder meeting on November the 5th, 2013. Why was this
extra meeting (not called for in H484) appropriate, particularly since
the developer had submitted the pre-application meeting materials???

Page
24: The Developer’s “DENR Schedule” calls
the 11/5/13 gathering a “Pre-application Site Evaluation
Meeting”

Note 1: A
top DENR management person specifically wrote me that the 11/5/13
meeting was not the pre-application meeting (per a slide shown by Torch
Energy. Why would the developer believe differently? What do the
attendees believe? Why was a meeting held that was not specified in
H484?
Note 2: All
future H484 meetings should be open to the public. The 11/5/13 meeting
was specifically closed to the public.

Page
26: “History”

Note 1:
None of these historical wind mills was over 100 feet. The proposed
industrial turbines will be 450± feet.
Note 2:
Earlier windmills were replaced by modern sources of power —
that were more reliable and less expensive than the windmills. The
exact same situation exists today in that most conventional sources of
electricity are more reliable and less expensive than industrial
turbines. The only reason we have turbines today is because of
successful lobbying by wind industry agents.