Date: August 3, 2006
To: Town Planning Board of Cohocton
cc: Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton.
There has to be a better way to improve the economics in Cohocton than the permanent damage UPC proposes.
We have neither reviewed nor revised the Cohocton Comprehensive Master Plan since it was first adopted in 1970 - TFflRTY SIX YEARS AGO! That plan's sole purpose was then and is now to provide an informed, accurate, independent plan for desirable economic and environmentally sound land uses for the Town and Village of Cohocton, to improve the Town's and Village's future and attract new residents, retain current ones and to provide jobs locally for our graduating children so that we can all remain here and enjoy the natural, unspoiled, beauty of the hills, fields, wildlife and forests that God has blessed us with. It was also designed to protect the property values of ALL property owners equally.
Before the Town or Village commits to ANY major new land use, should not the first and most important step be to review and update the Cohocton Comprehensive Master Plan?
Public and governmental assistance is available for such a project and I would be happy to provide sources and contacts to you and assist you in any way I can. You can call me direct at 384.9832.
I respectfully request the Planning Board's written response to this singularly critical and important question before any recommendation is made to the Town Board re the proposed Wind Turbine project.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Thursday, August 03, 2006
UK Noise Association - Wind Farms are Causing Noise Problems
Within weeks of the Government's Energy Review (1) proposing that planning controls be relaxed to speed up the introduction of wind farms, a new report (2) reveals that badly-sited wind turbines can cause real noise problems for local communities.
August 2, 2006 by UK Noise Association Press Release in IWA
Within weeks of the Government's Energy Review (1) proposing that planning controls be relaxed to speed up the introduction of wind farms, a new report (2) reveals that badly-sited wind turbines can cause real noise problems for local communities.
In compiling its report, the Noise Association carried out a comprehensive review of the research done into wind farm noise. It found that the stress and annoyance some people experience as a result of noise from wind farms is made worse by the flicker effect created by the rotating blades of the turbines. The report concluded that this was the most likely reason why wind farm noise generates many more complaints than equivalent noise levels from other sources.
The Noise Association research found that wind turbine noise can be a particular problem in rural areas, where many of the wind farms are sited, because of low background noise levels.
The report, however, does not come out against the building of wind farms. It argues that 'sensible siting' of wind farms can overcome most noise problems: "It's all about location, location, location."
John Stewart, the author of the report, said, "It would be a mistake to see this as an anti-wind farm report. But there is a real danger that, in the enthusiasm to embrace clean technology, legitimate concerns about noise are being brushed aside."
The report recommends that:
-as a general rule turbines should not be sited within a mile of where people live
-the official government guidelines for the siting of wind farms be revised to take account of the more intrusive nature of the noise in areas where the overall background noise is low
-there is a clear and public recognition by the Wind Power Industry, which has tended to dismiss noise as an issue, that wind farms can cause real noise problems for some people.
The report argues that this could open the door to "constructive discussion" ENDS
Notes for Editors:
(1) The Energy Review was published in the second week of July. One of its proposals was to limit wind farm planning inquiries to discussing local impacts rather that national issues.
(2) The report, Location, Location, Location, is enclosed. It is published by the Noise Association and has been funded by the Ashden Trust. The Noise Association is the research arm of the UK Noise Association. John Stewart, the author of the report, chairs the UK Noise Association.
For more information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650 NB Hard copies FREE to journalists and members of the UK Noise Association
August 2, 2006 by UK Noise Association Press Release in IWA
Within weeks of the Government's Energy Review (1) proposing that planning controls be relaxed to speed up the introduction of wind farms, a new report (2) reveals that badly-sited wind turbines can cause real noise problems for local communities.
In compiling its report, the Noise Association carried out a comprehensive review of the research done into wind farm noise. It found that the stress and annoyance some people experience as a result of noise from wind farms is made worse by the flicker effect created by the rotating blades of the turbines. The report concluded that this was the most likely reason why wind farm noise generates many more complaints than equivalent noise levels from other sources.
The Noise Association research found that wind turbine noise can be a particular problem in rural areas, where many of the wind farms are sited, because of low background noise levels.
The report, however, does not come out against the building of wind farms. It argues that 'sensible siting' of wind farms can overcome most noise problems: "It's all about location, location, location."
John Stewart, the author of the report, said, "It would be a mistake to see this as an anti-wind farm report. But there is a real danger that, in the enthusiasm to embrace clean technology, legitimate concerns about noise are being brushed aside."
The report recommends that:
-as a general rule turbines should not be sited within a mile of where people live
-the official government guidelines for the siting of wind farms be revised to take account of the more intrusive nature of the noise in areas where the overall background noise is low
-there is a clear and public recognition by the Wind Power Industry, which has tended to dismiss noise as an issue, that wind farms can cause real noise problems for some people.
The report argues that this could open the door to "constructive discussion" ENDS
Notes for Editors:
(1) The Energy Review was published in the second week of July. One of its proposals was to limit wind farm planning inquiries to discussing local impacts rather that national issues.
(2) The report, Location, Location, Location, is enclosed. It is published by the Noise Association and has been funded by the Ashden Trust. The Noise Association is the research arm of the UK Noise Association. John Stewart, the author of the report, chairs the UK Noise Association.
For more information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650 NB Hard copies FREE to journalists and members of the UK Noise Association
COHOCTON WIND POWER LETTER TO MESERES ZIGENFUS, WISE, DYCKMAN, LEVESQUE AND HUNT by Paul Gettys
I recently read a July 25, 2006 article in this paper by Wayne Hunt, where he characterizes those in the Town who question the validity of moving forward with the Wind Power project as chickens. Initially I took offense at this comparison, but upon further reflection, it has some validity. As “Farmer Hunt” frightens his chickens as he approaches them, I feel you gentlemen have frighten many of us as we were not brought into the discussion process about Wind Power until the project was well advanced. Leases were signed, the DEIS was almost fully completed when this project was first made public. I attended many Town Board Meetings over the last two years and no mention was made that the “Town Fathers” were considering this type of project. When it did finally become public, notification was made by posting at selected locations. It would have been far better if in addition a mailing was made to each house in the Town with the appropriate information. I understand that it was stated that the Town could not afford the cost of a mailing. On an issue as critical to the welfare of the Town as this, it would seem that money could have been obtained in some manner. If no other way were available, you could have requested that UPC bear the cost, as they were willing to do so to send out a mailing when it suited their timetable. This secrecy, whether intentional or not, lead to much wild speculation as to why this happened and did not give people sufficient time to adjust to this project prior to the Public Hearings for the DEIS and the revised Zoning Ordinances.
As “Farmer Hunt” finally coaxes his chickens out of hiding by an offering of food, so did the Town Supervisor of the Town where the Tug Hill project is located by obtaining funds for the project of approximately $12,000 per tower per year, while Farmer Hunt is only offering us chickens somewhat less than $4000 per tower per year for a total of $160,000 per year. With increased roadway maintenance and security costs, care will have to be taken to be sure that the Wind Tower project does not end up costing the Town money. If the Zoning Ordinance is not revised to require UPC to indemnify and hold harmless the Town from any legal action arising out of this project, taxes will likely have to be increased just to cover this cost.
If indeed we who differ with Mr. Hunt in opinion of Wind Power can be characterized as chickens, I suggest that your actions are similar to ostriches who stick their heads in the ground rather than seeing what is going on in their surroundings. There were three or four very informative meetings put on by Cohocton Wind Watch, which only were given token attendance by you gentlemen. While it is true that several people became somewhat emotional during their statements, there was much good information provided by the main speakers. Unfortunately this emotionalism is the result of many people feeling that their way of life and properties are threatened. This seems to be particularly true of those who live in the close proximity of the proposed project. Although these meetings are complete, there is still much useful information on the web. I would suggest that you look at this information rather than just reading that information which is in agreement with your own views. It should be born in mind that the DEIS was developed for and paid by UPC and therefore may be slanted.
The original justification for this project was the money that would be provided to the Town. As this sum now is only $160,000, the current justification for advancing the project is now that it would be good for the people of the State of New York that we provide sites for generating this renewable source of electricity. The point was made at the July 26, 2006 YES meeting that generating power near the source where it is to be used is a good thing for the grid. I agree, but it my understanding that Western New York already is supplying more than they need, but the need is in New York City and surrounding areas. Using this analogy power should be generated in that area. It was suggested that photoelectric cells on roof tops could contribute and I recently read something about building offshore wind towers. These suggestions would seem to fit better into the needs of the grid.
In a previous article Mr. Hunt indicated his concern that if the Wind Tower project were defeated in Cohocton, it would make it that much more difficult for any project in the Finger Lakes Region to be approved. I do not look at this negatively; in fact I believe that we have a responsibility to do just that. The Finger Lakes with all its beautiful lakes and vineyards is a national treasure which is irreplaceable. Just the visual affect on the region from a wind towers project would have a far reaching impact.
It is my feeling, based upon comments at the last Public Meeting Hearing, that you are representing the will of the minority of the voters. Although it would be impossible to run this Town as a pure democracy where all decisions are made by the public, I feel that this issue will have such a significant affect on the Town for twenty years or more, that it should be put to a binding vote by all of the property owners. I feel this is too important an issue to remain in the hands of five people, no matter how good their intentions. Putting this issue to a vote would also help to disseminate the negative feelings that are developing between the pro and anti groups in that the will of the majority would be followed.
I hope you gentlemen will take this article as it was meant, as constructive criticism and not as an attack on any of you personally. As stated previously, I attended a number of Town Meeting over the last several years and was impressed by the service each of you provides the Town. I just feel that you are going down the wrong path on this issue and hope that you will listen to different viewpoints and not just those who are in agreement with yours. Whether you like it or not this project is so significant that it will be your legacy after you complete your terms of office, so you want to be sure that it is indeed the will of the voters and it is truly in their best interests.
Paul Gettys
North Cohocton
As “Farmer Hunt” finally coaxes his chickens out of hiding by an offering of food, so did the Town Supervisor of the Town where the Tug Hill project is located by obtaining funds for the project of approximately $12,000 per tower per year, while Farmer Hunt is only offering us chickens somewhat less than $4000 per tower per year for a total of $160,000 per year. With increased roadway maintenance and security costs, care will have to be taken to be sure that the Wind Tower project does not end up costing the Town money. If the Zoning Ordinance is not revised to require UPC to indemnify and hold harmless the Town from any legal action arising out of this project, taxes will likely have to be increased just to cover this cost.
If indeed we who differ with Mr. Hunt in opinion of Wind Power can be characterized as chickens, I suggest that your actions are similar to ostriches who stick their heads in the ground rather than seeing what is going on in their surroundings. There were three or four very informative meetings put on by Cohocton Wind Watch, which only were given token attendance by you gentlemen. While it is true that several people became somewhat emotional during their statements, there was much good information provided by the main speakers. Unfortunately this emotionalism is the result of many people feeling that their way of life and properties are threatened. This seems to be particularly true of those who live in the close proximity of the proposed project. Although these meetings are complete, there is still much useful information on the web. I would suggest that you look at this information rather than just reading that information which is in agreement with your own views. It should be born in mind that the DEIS was developed for and paid by UPC and therefore may be slanted.
The original justification for this project was the money that would be provided to the Town. As this sum now is only $160,000, the current justification for advancing the project is now that it would be good for the people of the State of New York that we provide sites for generating this renewable source of electricity. The point was made at the July 26, 2006 YES meeting that generating power near the source where it is to be used is a good thing for the grid. I agree, but it my understanding that Western New York already is supplying more than they need, but the need is in New York City and surrounding areas. Using this analogy power should be generated in that area. It was suggested that photoelectric cells on roof tops could contribute and I recently read something about building offshore wind towers. These suggestions would seem to fit better into the needs of the grid.
In a previous article Mr. Hunt indicated his concern that if the Wind Tower project were defeated in Cohocton, it would make it that much more difficult for any project in the Finger Lakes Region to be approved. I do not look at this negatively; in fact I believe that we have a responsibility to do just that. The Finger Lakes with all its beautiful lakes and vineyards is a national treasure which is irreplaceable. Just the visual affect on the region from a wind towers project would have a far reaching impact.
It is my feeling, based upon comments at the last Public Meeting Hearing, that you are representing the will of the minority of the voters. Although it would be impossible to run this Town as a pure democracy where all decisions are made by the public, I feel that this issue will have such a significant affect on the Town for twenty years or more, that it should be put to a binding vote by all of the property owners. I feel this is too important an issue to remain in the hands of five people, no matter how good their intentions. Putting this issue to a vote would also help to disseminate the negative feelings that are developing between the pro and anti groups in that the will of the majority would be followed.
I hope you gentlemen will take this article as it was meant, as constructive criticism and not as an attack on any of you personally. As stated previously, I attended a number of Town Meeting over the last several years and was impressed by the service each of you provides the Town. I just feel that you are going down the wrong path on this issue and hope that you will listen to different viewpoints and not just those who are in agreement with yours. Whether you like it or not this project is so significant that it will be your legacy after you complete your terms of office, so you want to be sure that it is indeed the will of the voters and it is truly in their best interests.
Paul Gettys
North Cohocton
Robert C. Strasburg II's comments regarding Pat Drum YES ad
Pat Drum has posted on the Yes blog:
“I’M ASKING THE HEART AND SOUL OF THIS COMMUNITY, COHOCTON, not Naples, Prattsburgh or anywhere else to support the landowners, lease holders and farmer. Let’s look at the positives of this project not the distorted picture that the anti-wind group is trying to show. They even put a DISCLAINER at the bottom of Mr. Strasburg’s questions presented to The Planning Board: stating; ALL THE FACTS WINDWATCH PRINTED MAY NOT BE TRUE. I guess you were supposed to check that out for yourself! Did you read the small print at the end of Mr. Strasburg’s paper?”
Mrs. Drum, I would like to offer a courteous reminder of the facts surrounding the disclaimer. If you were present at the meeting where I distributed that paper with the disclaimer, it was early in our efforts of shedding light on the issue at hand and I carefully explained that since the Town Board was not offering us unbiased information on the subject of industrial wind turbines, we were in the early stages of engaging our own research effort and I clearly explained that since we did not have time to sort through all the facts and verify their accuracy, each person should carefully examine the facts to discern their accuracy.
Since that time we have had ample time to properly research and you cannot point to any other disclaimer offered by me. Now, where is the “distorted picture”? Is it possible that what you offered in your article is somewhat distorted? You can easily review all my statements of that meeting as they are on video that your group took. We also have a copy if you need one.
We are now getting down to the core of what this issue is all about. Time has revealed that the main issue driving the supporters of this project is the desire for income. May I quote you from your posting? You wrote, “Let’s all try to support the positives of this project. COHOCTON NEEDS HELP…do we want to generate some $$$ here or wait for the government to say we need clean safe energy and take the necessary measures to put a project in.”
I cannot respond to your call to support this project as it is being proposed if it means accepting all the negatives offered to us without proper mitigation. We have exposed the negatives, asked for responsible mitigation and have been scorned by your group unjustly for slowing the flow of money to you.
Robert C. Strasburg II
“I’M ASKING THE HEART AND SOUL OF THIS COMMUNITY, COHOCTON, not Naples, Prattsburgh or anywhere else to support the landowners, lease holders and farmer. Let’s look at the positives of this project not the distorted picture that the anti-wind group is trying to show. They even put a DISCLAINER at the bottom of Mr. Strasburg’s questions presented to The Planning Board: stating; ALL THE FACTS WINDWATCH PRINTED MAY NOT BE TRUE. I guess you were supposed to check that out for yourself! Did you read the small print at the end of Mr. Strasburg’s paper?”
Mrs. Drum, I would like to offer a courteous reminder of the facts surrounding the disclaimer. If you were present at the meeting where I distributed that paper with the disclaimer, it was early in our efforts of shedding light on the issue at hand and I carefully explained that since the Town Board was not offering us unbiased information on the subject of industrial wind turbines, we were in the early stages of engaging our own research effort and I clearly explained that since we did not have time to sort through all the facts and verify their accuracy, each person should carefully examine the facts to discern their accuracy.
Since that time we have had ample time to properly research and you cannot point to any other disclaimer offered by me. Now, where is the “distorted picture”? Is it possible that what you offered in your article is somewhat distorted? You can easily review all my statements of that meeting as they are on video that your group took. We also have a copy if you need one.
We are now getting down to the core of what this issue is all about. Time has revealed that the main issue driving the supporters of this project is the desire for income. May I quote you from your posting? You wrote, “Let’s all try to support the positives of this project. COHOCTON NEEDS HELP…do we want to generate some $$$ here or wait for the government to say we need clean safe energy and take the necessary measures to put a project in.”
I cannot respond to your call to support this project as it is being proposed if it means accepting all the negatives offered to us without proper mitigation. We have exposed the negatives, asked for responsible mitigation and have been scorned by your group unjustly for slowing the flow of money to you.
Robert C. Strasburg II
Finger Lakes Times: Hobart student studies wind turbines over summer by MIKE MASLANIK
GENEVA - When high school and college students think about camping over summer vacation, they're usually not envisioning what Aeron Hurley recently did.
Hurley, who is entering his senior year at Hobart College, camped out under some wind power turbines to get data for an independent research project he's conducting.
Setting out to answer whether wind power is feasible for New York state, Hurley visited two wind farms and the proposed location for a third. He also sat in on a number of town meetings to hear residents debate the hot issue.
His conclusion: Yep, wind power is a viable option. But some sites are better suited for the turbines than others.
"Find the best areas around New York state and put turbines there, but don't overdo it because you'll make a lot of people mad," said Hurley, 21, of Windham, Maine.
Although he admits he's an advocate of wind power, Hurley said he believes his assessment is fair and unbiased.
"You can see in my research that I'm for it, but I talked to a wide range of people and looked at it as objectively as I could," he said.
Basing his research on three criteria - potential wind energy, environmental impact and whether a community was conducive to wind harvesting - Hurley traveled to wind farm sites at Tug Hill, near Lowville, in Lewis County, and Fenner in Madison County. He also surveyed a proposed site in Cohocton, Steuben County. His research spanned roughly eight weeks, wrapping up in late July.
The Tug Hill and Fenner projects were ideal, he said, because both sites got plenty of unobstructed wind, were built on unused farmland and were far enough from towns to be unobtrusive.
Construction of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm at Tug Hill started in May 2005 and its 140 turbines, so far, produce about 231 megawatts of power. When completed in October, the facility will house 195 turbines and produce 321 megawatts of power, enough for 98,000 homes, said Operations Manager Scott Alexander.
Tug Hill is owned jointly by PPM Energy and Horizon Wind Energy.
The Fenner Windpower Project went online in 2001 and has 20 turbines making 30 megawatts of power, enough for 7,000 homes. It is owned by Canastota Windpower LLC, a subsidiary of Enel North America Inc.
The 280 turbines around New York state produce about 62 billion kilowatt hours of electricity a year, according to New York State Wind Energy Projects.
Hurley said that wind turbine opponents frequently complain that they emit low, persistent thumping noises that can drive residents crazy, so he decided to find out for himself, by sleeping within a few hundred feet of the turbines at each site.
"I slept pretty well, there was a swishing sound, but I didn't hear any thumping," Hurley said, noting that he did hear from people that the vibrations can cause a home's foundation and insulation to shake.
Through a series of random interviews, Hurley found that the farms had the overwhelming support of nearby residents, and farmers especially praised the arrangement.
"The farms are kind of going downhill, and the turbines provide income for the farmers," he said, noting that wind companies lease the land where the turbines are built and pay rent to the farmers who own it.
Hurley gave the proposed Cohocton site a thumbs down. While the area gets a decent amount of wind, the site is heavily wooded and the impact on the environment would be too great, he said. The Cohocton plan calls for 40 turbines that would stand nearly 500 feet tall, Hurley said, and he didn't think they would be a good idea for the town.
Indeed, he saw strong opposition in the form of the Cohocton Wind Watch. At town meetings, members said they were concerned about how turbines would affect property values and change the town's landscape.
Wind farms have a tendency to industrialize areas where they're built, Hurley said, and that scares some people.
"There were some people who moved there from the city and talked about how they wanted to get away from noise and traffic," he said.
Others cited environmental concerns, including danger to birds.
Large wind turbines move slowly and are less likely to kill birds than the smaller models in California, he said.
As for property values, the Environmental Advocates of New York recently released a study that showed turbines did nothing to affect values near the Fenner site.
Locally, Hurley said that the Geneva area doesn't fit his criteria for ideal wind farm placement. More conducive environments exist in southern Seneca County, Hurley said.
Hurley was originally a pre-med major at Hobart but then took a few environmental science classes from professors Thomas Drennen and John Halfman, which sparked his interest in renewable energy, he said.
Drennen was an adviser during his research, buying his sound-monitoring equipment and answering questions, but Hurley acted independently.
Drennen said he's proud of Hurley's initiative and plans to use his data in upcoming seminars on wind power.
"I was impressed that he didn't say all wind power is good or all wind power is bad," he said.
Hurley condensed his research into a poster that will hang in the Finger Lakes Institute, Drennen said. He also plans to develop his study further and submit it as an honors project before he graduates in 2007.
As for the future, Hurley hopes to stay in the field of wind power, perhaps working as an adviser for a wind energy company.
"I think a lot of people are pro-wind," he said. "You just have to make sure that you just don't put turbines where they don't belong."
Hurley, who is entering his senior year at Hobart College, camped out under some wind power turbines to get data for an independent research project he's conducting.
Setting out to answer whether wind power is feasible for New York state, Hurley visited two wind farms and the proposed location for a third. He also sat in on a number of town meetings to hear residents debate the hot issue.
His conclusion: Yep, wind power is a viable option. But some sites are better suited for the turbines than others.
"Find the best areas around New York state and put turbines there, but don't overdo it because you'll make a lot of people mad," said Hurley, 21, of Windham, Maine.
Although he admits he's an advocate of wind power, Hurley said he believes his assessment is fair and unbiased.
"You can see in my research that I'm for it, but I talked to a wide range of people and looked at it as objectively as I could," he said.
Basing his research on three criteria - potential wind energy, environmental impact and whether a community was conducive to wind harvesting - Hurley traveled to wind farm sites at Tug Hill, near Lowville, in Lewis County, and Fenner in Madison County. He also surveyed a proposed site in Cohocton, Steuben County. His research spanned roughly eight weeks, wrapping up in late July.
The Tug Hill and Fenner projects were ideal, he said, because both sites got plenty of unobstructed wind, were built on unused farmland and were far enough from towns to be unobtrusive.
Construction of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm at Tug Hill started in May 2005 and its 140 turbines, so far, produce about 231 megawatts of power. When completed in October, the facility will house 195 turbines and produce 321 megawatts of power, enough for 98,000 homes, said Operations Manager Scott Alexander.
Tug Hill is owned jointly by PPM Energy and Horizon Wind Energy.
The Fenner Windpower Project went online in 2001 and has 20 turbines making 30 megawatts of power, enough for 7,000 homes. It is owned by Canastota Windpower LLC, a subsidiary of Enel North America Inc.
The 280 turbines around New York state produce about 62 billion kilowatt hours of electricity a year, according to New York State Wind Energy Projects.
Hurley said that wind turbine opponents frequently complain that they emit low, persistent thumping noises that can drive residents crazy, so he decided to find out for himself, by sleeping within a few hundred feet of the turbines at each site.
"I slept pretty well, there was a swishing sound, but I didn't hear any thumping," Hurley said, noting that he did hear from people that the vibrations can cause a home's foundation and insulation to shake.
Through a series of random interviews, Hurley found that the farms had the overwhelming support of nearby residents, and farmers especially praised the arrangement.
"The farms are kind of going downhill, and the turbines provide income for the farmers," he said, noting that wind companies lease the land where the turbines are built and pay rent to the farmers who own it.
Hurley gave the proposed Cohocton site a thumbs down. While the area gets a decent amount of wind, the site is heavily wooded and the impact on the environment would be too great, he said. The Cohocton plan calls for 40 turbines that would stand nearly 500 feet tall, Hurley said, and he didn't think they would be a good idea for the town.
Indeed, he saw strong opposition in the form of the Cohocton Wind Watch. At town meetings, members said they were concerned about how turbines would affect property values and change the town's landscape.
Wind farms have a tendency to industrialize areas where they're built, Hurley said, and that scares some people.
"There were some people who moved there from the city and talked about how they wanted to get away from noise and traffic," he said.
Others cited environmental concerns, including danger to birds.
Large wind turbines move slowly and are less likely to kill birds than the smaller models in California, he said.
As for property values, the Environmental Advocates of New York recently released a study that showed turbines did nothing to affect values near the Fenner site.
Locally, Hurley said that the Geneva area doesn't fit his criteria for ideal wind farm placement. More conducive environments exist in southern Seneca County, Hurley said.
Hurley was originally a pre-med major at Hobart but then took a few environmental science classes from professors Thomas Drennen and John Halfman, which sparked his interest in renewable energy, he said.
Drennen was an adviser during his research, buying his sound-monitoring equipment and answering questions, but Hurley acted independently.
Drennen said he's proud of Hurley's initiative and plans to use his data in upcoming seminars on wind power.
"I was impressed that he didn't say all wind power is good or all wind power is bad," he said.
Hurley condensed his research into a poster that will hang in the Finger Lakes Institute, Drennen said. He also plans to develop his study further and submit it as an honors project before he graduates in 2007.
As for the future, Hurley hopes to stay in the field of wind power, perhaps working as an adviser for a wind energy company.
"I think a lot of people are pro-wind," he said. "You just have to make sure that you just don't put turbines where they don't belong."
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Letter from Jim Lince to Marion Trieste
James G. Lince
9955 Wagner Gully Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
Marion Trieste
Trieste Inc.
324 Lake Avenue
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
July 30, 2006
Dear Mrs. Trieste,
You were a panel member at the YESWindCohocton Forum on July 26th, 2006.
You stated in regards to a question about property values that the study completed by student Ben Hoen was evidence that property values did not go down as a result of wind turbine projects.
Mrs. Trieste are you aware of the following issues (among many) regarding this study?
1. No property was analyzed within 4,000 feet (3/4 mile) of a turbine. In addition, the average distance of a property with any view of a turbine was 3.5 miles.
2. Out of the 280 properties analyzed only 43 had any view of a turbine. 38 of these 43 were 2 miles or more (up to 5.99 miles) away from the nearest turbine.
3. The concept of “vista” or value of a view shed was specifically mentioned and excluded as a variable in the study (no value for view from a property).
You may believe it is responsible for you to continue to cite Hoen’s thesis as “fact based” assurance to a community. I suggest that the responsible and ethical position would be to provide disclosure. This would avoid property owners closest to these proposed projects relying on your statements as proof that their property values will not be impacted.
Obviously those closest to these turbines have the most concern. These citizens deserve responsible answers from those who represent themselves as having researched and detailed factual knowledge of the issues with industrial wind power.
Sincerely,
James G. Lince
Cohocton, NY
9955 Wagner Gully Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
Marion Trieste
Trieste Inc.
324 Lake Avenue
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
July 30, 2006
Dear Mrs. Trieste,
You were a panel member at the YESWindCohocton Forum on July 26th, 2006.
You stated in regards to a question about property values that the study completed by student Ben Hoen was evidence that property values did not go down as a result of wind turbine projects.
Mrs. Trieste are you aware of the following issues (among many) regarding this study?
1. No property was analyzed within 4,000 feet (3/4 mile) of a turbine. In addition, the average distance of a property with any view of a turbine was 3.5 miles.
2. Out of the 280 properties analyzed only 43 had any view of a turbine. 38 of these 43 were 2 miles or more (up to 5.99 miles) away from the nearest turbine.
3. The concept of “vista” or value of a view shed was specifically mentioned and excluded as a variable in the study (no value for view from a property).
You may believe it is responsible for you to continue to cite Hoen’s thesis as “fact based” assurance to a community. I suggest that the responsible and ethical position would be to provide disclosure. This would avoid property owners closest to these proposed projects relying on your statements as proof that their property values will not be impacted.
Obviously those closest to these turbines have the most concern. These citizens deserve responsible answers from those who represent themselves as having researched and detailed factual knowledge of the issues with industrial wind power.
Sincerely,
James G. Lince
Cohocton, NY
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
NO Proof Given, Just A Selected Panel of YES! And The King of Cohocton by Karl Palmiter
In an article in the Tribune, Cohocton Yes! Offers proof. I have to respond by asking the question, What Proof? Cohocton Town King merely invited some like-minded kings from other townships to parrot what the wind developer has told them. Everyone knows it’s about money for the leaseholders and developers, that’s never been the argument. The argument is about destroying the landscape for 400-500’ industrial machines, that don’t belong in agriculturally zones land. The argument is about destroying the lives of a lot of people that love the country and are going to have to live in their shadows.
At the Yes! Forum, you were told to write questions on an index card and give them to Yes! They went through the questions with other members of Yes! Saying they were categorizing them, more like hand picking the questions that were asked to the panel of people. The questions asked to panel were questions that everyone has already asked, such as ice throws, bird kills, and noise. These questions were answered predictably; they proved that they have read UPC’s Literature. One question that was asked was about fatalities, the Tug Hill Supervisor thought that question was amusing, he said they had one fatality, but that was because a construction worker got run over by a truck, but heck that happens on any construction job. This brought chuckles from some of the crowd also; I guess GREED does outweigh Compassion. I find no amusement in a fatality of any kind.
Haste makes waste. Town Boards are in a stampede to get wind power. The King of Cohocton, as he refers to himself, claims that the wind farm opponents are like Chicken Little; in fact he has drawn several cartoons for the Valley News, depicting this. Actually UPC, Yes Wind! And our Town Board is the Chicken Little that use what amounts to psychological terrorism to sway public opinions in their favor. They would have you believe that if we don’t get these wind turbines up NOW! We’ll have a nuclear power station built right here in town.
The fact of the matter is clear; once they start putting these turbines up, and because they won’t do what the developers are saying they will, they won’t come down they will simply put up more to make up the difference.
Yes wind! And the developers say that THOSE people that oppose the wind projects can’t see the forest because of the trees. Well once again they’re wrong. We love the forest and trees and everything Natural about our environment and are fighting to keep money hungry people from replacing those trees with 4-500’ Industrial Turbines.
Alternative power, Safe Clean Power, doesn’t necessarily mean wind power. Why not just slow down a little and check out some other less intrusive options. I believe this energy crisis will bring out some good, more efficient ways, possibly solar power, but not if we have already committed ourselves to the First thing that has come along-wind!
Karl Palmiter
Wagner Gully Rd.
Cohocton, NY 14826
At the Yes! Forum, you were told to write questions on an index card and give them to Yes! They went through the questions with other members of Yes! Saying they were categorizing them, more like hand picking the questions that were asked to the panel of people. The questions asked to panel were questions that everyone has already asked, such as ice throws, bird kills, and noise. These questions were answered predictably; they proved that they have read UPC’s Literature. One question that was asked was about fatalities, the Tug Hill Supervisor thought that question was amusing, he said they had one fatality, but that was because a construction worker got run over by a truck, but heck that happens on any construction job. This brought chuckles from some of the crowd also; I guess GREED does outweigh Compassion. I find no amusement in a fatality of any kind.
Haste makes waste. Town Boards are in a stampede to get wind power. The King of Cohocton, as he refers to himself, claims that the wind farm opponents are like Chicken Little; in fact he has drawn several cartoons for the Valley News, depicting this. Actually UPC, Yes Wind! And our Town Board is the Chicken Little that use what amounts to psychological terrorism to sway public opinions in their favor. They would have you believe that if we don’t get these wind turbines up NOW! We’ll have a nuclear power station built right here in town.
The fact of the matter is clear; once they start putting these turbines up, and because they won’t do what the developers are saying they will, they won’t come down they will simply put up more to make up the difference.
Yes wind! And the developers say that THOSE people that oppose the wind projects can’t see the forest because of the trees. Well once again they’re wrong. We love the forest and trees and everything Natural about our environment and are fighting to keep money hungry people from replacing those trees with 4-500’ Industrial Turbines.
Alternative power, Safe Clean Power, doesn’t necessarily mean wind power. Why not just slow down a little and check out some other less intrusive options. I believe this energy crisis will bring out some good, more efficient ways, possibly solar power, but not if we have already committed ourselves to the First thing that has come along-wind!
Karl Palmiter
Wagner Gully Rd.
Cohocton, NY 14826
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Media Release regarding Article 78 Supreme Court decision by attorney David Miller
On July 21, 2006, Supreme Court Justice John J. Ark issued a Decision and Order in the matter of James Hall v. Jack Zigenfus et al., constituting the Town Board of the Town of Cohocton. Judge Ark dismissed Mr. Hall’s petition on the narrow grounds that Mr. Hall lacked standing to commence his lawsuit.
Mr. Hall disagrees with the Court’s decision and regrets that the Court declined to address the merits of the case, namely that the Town Board failed to comply with the State SEQR environmental review process before it adopted the windmill local law. This was an allegation made by Mr. Hall in his lawsuit and which was not denied, by the Town Board in any of its responding papers.
Mr. Hall firmly believes that as a resident of the Town of Cohocton in an area where wind turbines generators are now permitted he does have the standing to contest the Town Board’s action. Furthermore, he believes that the Cohocton Town Board should have complied with New York State law before it adopted the windmill law. Accordingly, Mr. Hall will appeal the Court’s decision.
David P. Miller - ESQ
Mr. Hall disagrees with the Court’s decision and regrets that the Court declined to address the merits of the case, namely that the Town Board failed to comply with the State SEQR environmental review process before it adopted the windmill local law. This was an allegation made by Mr. Hall in his lawsuit and which was not denied, by the Town Board in any of its responding papers.
Mr. Hall firmly believes that as a resident of the Town of Cohocton in an area where wind turbines generators are now permitted he does have the standing to contest the Town Board’s action. Furthermore, he believes that the Cohocton Town Board should have complied with New York State law before it adopted the windmill law. Accordingly, Mr. Hall will appeal the Court’s decision.
David P. Miller - ESQ
Glenn R. Schleede letter to the Editor
July 27, 2006
The Editor
The Washington Times
Dear Editor:
Your July 27, 2006, story, "Energetic turn to wind power," is a perfect example of an apparently naive reporter being "taken in" by Washington-based industry lobbyists. The result is a biased, uninformed story about wind energy masquerading as "news."
You and your reporters need to realize that the wind industry and other wind advocates, including the US DOE, have for years been spreading false and misleading information about "wind energy."
If the wind industry or its sycophants in DOE were in fact able to get President Bush to "predict" that wind might someday supply 20% of US electricity needs, the President's staff needs to give him better protection from DOE officials and check facts before having him make more uninformed statements and "predictions."
Specifically, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that wind provided 36/100 of 1% of US electric generation in 2005 and predicts that wind might provide 1.09% by 2030.
In fact, the wind industry and DOE have greatly overstated the environmental and energy benefits of wind energy and greatly understated the environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value costs. Their lobbying has led to faulty federal and state wind energy policies, tax shelters and other subsidies that:
1. Annually transfer millions of dollars from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers to the pockets of a few large companies that own "wind farms" or manufacturer wind turbines.
2. Misdirect billions in capital investment dollars into energy projects ("wind farms" or "wind parks") that produce little electricity -- which electricity is intermittent, volatile and unreliable.
Thanks to citizen-led groups from around the US and other countries where "wind farms" have been proposed or built, facts about wind energy are gradually being exposed. Those facts are quite readily available if your reporter had looked for them instead of listening to obviously biased wind industry lobbyists. She would have learned, for example, that:
1. Tax avoidance, not environmental and energy benefits, has become the primary motivation for building “wind farms.†Currently, two-thirds of the economic value of wind projects comes from federal tax benefits.
2. Huge windmills – some 35 stories tall -- produce very little electricity, as demonstrated by the data provided above.
3. Electricity from wind turbines has less real value than electricity from reliable generating units.
4. The true cost of electricity from wind energy is much higher than wind advocates admit.
5. Wind energy has NOT been a great success in other countries. Denmark and Germany have residential electricity prices that are among the highest in the world and are experiencing many problems due to their use of wind energy. Opposition to wind turbines is also growing in other countries. Expectations that wind energy will make significant contributions toward meeting European Kyoto goals have been discredited.
If you or your reporter would like documentation for the above facts, please let me know -- or you might have her check such web sites as http://www.windwatch.org/ and http://www.windaction.org/.
Above all, please do not again let your reporters turn in such one-sided, uninformed stories.
Sincerely,
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
cc: White House speech writers and fact checkers
The Editor
The Washington Times
Dear Editor:
Your July 27, 2006, story, "Energetic turn to wind power," is a perfect example of an apparently naive reporter being "taken in" by Washington-based industry lobbyists. The result is a biased, uninformed story about wind energy masquerading as "news."
You and your reporters need to realize that the wind industry and other wind advocates, including the US DOE, have for years been spreading false and misleading information about "wind energy."
If the wind industry or its sycophants in DOE were in fact able to get President Bush to "predict" that wind might someday supply 20% of US electricity needs, the President's staff needs to give him better protection from DOE officials and check facts before having him make more uninformed statements and "predictions."
Specifically, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that wind provided 36/100 of 1% of US electric generation in 2005 and predicts that wind might provide 1.09% by 2030.
In fact, the wind industry and DOE have greatly overstated the environmental and energy benefits of wind energy and greatly understated the environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value costs. Their lobbying has led to faulty federal and state wind energy policies, tax shelters and other subsidies that:
1. Annually transfer millions of dollars from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers to the pockets of a few large companies that own "wind farms" or manufacturer wind turbines.
2. Misdirect billions in capital investment dollars into energy projects ("wind farms" or "wind parks") that produce little electricity -- which electricity is intermittent, volatile and unreliable.
Thanks to citizen-led groups from around the US and other countries where "wind farms" have been proposed or built, facts about wind energy are gradually being exposed. Those facts are quite readily available if your reporter had looked for them instead of listening to obviously biased wind industry lobbyists. She would have learned, for example, that:
1. Tax avoidance, not environmental and energy benefits, has become the primary motivation for building “wind farms.†Currently, two-thirds of the economic value of wind projects comes from federal tax benefits.
2. Huge windmills – some 35 stories tall -- produce very little electricity, as demonstrated by the data provided above.
3. Electricity from wind turbines has less real value than electricity from reliable generating units.
4. The true cost of electricity from wind energy is much higher than wind advocates admit.
5. Wind energy has NOT been a great success in other countries. Denmark and Germany have residential electricity prices that are among the highest in the world and are experiencing many problems due to their use of wind energy. Opposition to wind turbines is also growing in other countries. Expectations that wind energy will make significant contributions toward meeting European Kyoto goals have been discredited.
If you or your reporter would like documentation for the above facts, please let me know -- or you might have her check such web sites as http://www.windwatch.org/ and http://www.windaction.org/.
Above all, please do not again let your reporters turn in such one-sided, uninformed stories.
Sincerely,
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
cc: White House speech writers and fact checkers
WHY I VOTED AGAINST WINDPOWER by John F. "Jack" Sullivan
John F. “Jack” Sullivan
Town Councilor
Malone, NY
July 22, 2006
To whom it may concern:
To some, my vote against wind power in Malone was a vote against progress; however, be assured that this decision was based on hundreds of hours of study and research, as well as numerous mathematical calculations backed by years of business experience and a graduate degree in physics. This vote was against the degradation of local property values, destruction of some wonderful viewsheds, lowering the quality of life of some local residents, and the accruing of millions of dollars of NY taxpayer dollars by a few wind developers.
The following should be kept in mind concerning New York wind power projects:
(1) Not a single kw-hr. of electricity will go directly to local residents. Over 99.9% of the power produced goes out of town, mostly to large urban areas.
(2) Wind power WILL NOT be cheaper. Currently, National Grid offers wind power at 1.5 cents above market. ( How can they possibly separate wind power to an individual house?) Last year, when the largest wind project in the east went on-line, did your light bill decrease?
(3) Wind power has almost no relation to oil imports. Almost no electricity is produced by burning oil. Because of the expense of oil, the few oil fired plants in the country are used mainly as backups during peak demand, such as sultry summer days when wind is virtually nonexistent. Wind power would not dent our oil imports. All of New York's wind turbines produce less energy in a year than is contained in ONE DAY’S WORTH of imported oil. Besides this, the tiny amount of oil used to generate electricity all comes from the residue (basically, sludge) left over in the tanks from refining gas and diesel fuel. Essentially, then, this oil is a waste by-product of gas and diesel refinement.
(4) The typical PILOT program offered by area wind developers is far less than 1% of the total budgets of the taxing entities involved. PILOTS are a tiny percentage of company profits. You & I pay full taxes; it is unfair not to demand this of the wind energy companies, which contribute very little by way of jobs to the local economy.
(5) Currently, North Country wind projects can have towers within 1000' of an inhabited dwelling. This distance is much too close for a 400' tall tower. Towers this close have a potential for causing many problems, including: lowering property values, shadow flicker (an annoying problem and, for people prone to seizure disorder or car-sickness or sea-sickness, a serious health hazard that occurs when the sun is low on the horizon), bird kills (especially on migratory routes, as we have here with the Greater Snow Geese and other species), and excessive (health-damaging) sound levels. NOTE: sound pressure levels (decibels) emitted by wind turbines vary widely, depending on wind speed and direction, distance from turbine blades, and even time of day. Scientists using professional-grade instruments have measured sound levels up to 84 db. at 3300' ( over half a mile). That's twice the noise level of a 500 hp Corvette under full throttle.
(6) Windpower is unpredictable: you never know how much you are going to get or how long it will last. The wind salesmen are wont to lead us to believe that the nameplate capacity is the same as the constant output of the turbines. A 1.5 MW GE turbine doesn't produce 1.5 MW until wind gets to 16-18 m/s (about 36 to 40 mph ). Production drops off dramatically at lower wind speeds: less than 0.2 MW at 20 mph, and a miniscule 0.02 MW at 10 mph. Malone's past 2-year average wind speed was 6.05 mph—not enough even to start a large wind turbine. Why try to have a wind project in Malone? READ ON!
(7) The current 1.5 MW turbines have been in use over ten years. Why then, only now, do we get this onslaught of wind developers? The answer is recent government tax credits, subsidies and rapid depreciation allowances. Actually, their cumulative value is more than the value of the electricity produced. It seems likely that without our tax dollars the New York wind industry would simply vanish.
(8) In testing its own turbines GE found their overall net efficiency to be 10 percent!
(9) Wind developers say wind turbines use free fuel and are totally emission free. What they don’t acknowledge is that the emissions produced in manufacturing, transporting, construction and erection of a tower may take up to 7 years of operation to get back.
(10) The wind industry's goal is to produce 10% of NY's electricity. This is either an impossible dream or a blueprint for unbelievable destruction of rural NY landscape. Ten percent of NY's power is about 4000 MW, which translates into 15,000 1.5 MW turbines at 25% efficiency (probably a generous figure ). Since NY wind projects use an average of 60 acres per tower (according to NYSERDA), this means using 900,000 acres of our land for the next 20-50 years. According to NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research & Development Authority), 4000MW of (unpredictable, often gusting) wind power is likely to completely destabilize the entire power grid.
(11) Wind turbines shut down other facilities when in operation, thus reducing polluting emissions. However, figures of reduced emissions published by wind developers are greatly overblown, since only certain types of plants are taken off-line. The first to shut down are pure turbine natural gas plants, which produce much less pollution than coal plants and, secondly, hydro plants are shut down. It is absurd to replace one non-polluting renewable source with another.
(12) In initial presentations the wind salesmen promised up to 45 permanent jobs as a result of a 67 turbine project in Malone. My research found the industry average was 1 job per 10-12 turbines. Either the wind salesmen were exaggerating or they had the most inefficient company in the industry. In addition, their claimed "economic benefits" for the area included the cost of turbines (purchased in foreign countries) and construction contracts (most of which would certainly be awarded to out-of-area firms).
(13) The wind salesmen who invaded Malone actually had their lawyers write a zoning ordinance to govern themselves and then tried clandestinely to sneak it into the Planning Board as a sample from another town. One provision would have allowed 400’ high turbines less than 500’ from a home (the closest in NY State, I believe).
(14) The Malone wind project proposal would have impacted 5000 acres of land for up to 50 years, with little net gain to the community at large.
In attending a number of wind developer presentations it became obvious that they contained duplicitous, misleading statements, exaggerated benefits, and ignored the disadvantages. This, alone, was enough to turn me against wind power for Northern New York.
In addition, I really can’t reconcile the wind companies’ insistence on leasing land when they can buy it cheaper. Liability avoidance? Plans to walk out when the project is depreciated?
And you should see the lease agreements! I have never seen such a one-sided document in my life! I find it hard to believe anyone who signed this read it carefully. I’m sure many only read the financial clauses. I say, “Get a lawyer!” I would be happy to share a lease agreement with anyone wishing to examine one.
Is industrial wind power presently a viable choice for Northern New York? I think not. Yes, we need to reduce emissions and find user-friendly alternatives. Here are some realistic ways of accomplishing this:
(1) Industrial & residential conservation. The average homeowner can reduce electricity use by 15-25% with only very affordable expenditures.
(2) Clean up emissions from coal plants. Entirely feasible and less costly per megawatt-hour than wind power.
(3) Build some nuclear plants. France is 80% nuclear, SAFELY. It is far more dangerous to cross Malone’s Main St. than to live near an American nuclear power plant.
(4) Encourage small wind turbines (as the Malone local law does) and solar installations, both of which give realistic energy aid to local residents, instead of resorting to industrial wind turbines, which provide billions in tax money to multi-billion-dollar companies that take most of the profits out of the area.
Town Councilor
Malone, NY
July 22, 2006
To whom it may concern:
To some, my vote against wind power in Malone was a vote against progress; however, be assured that this decision was based on hundreds of hours of study and research, as well as numerous mathematical calculations backed by years of business experience and a graduate degree in physics. This vote was against the degradation of local property values, destruction of some wonderful viewsheds, lowering the quality of life of some local residents, and the accruing of millions of dollars of NY taxpayer dollars by a few wind developers.
The following should be kept in mind concerning New York wind power projects:
(1) Not a single kw-hr. of electricity will go directly to local residents. Over 99.9% of the power produced goes out of town, mostly to large urban areas.
(2) Wind power WILL NOT be cheaper. Currently, National Grid offers wind power at 1.5 cents above market. ( How can they possibly separate wind power to an individual house?) Last year, when the largest wind project in the east went on-line, did your light bill decrease?
(3) Wind power has almost no relation to oil imports. Almost no electricity is produced by burning oil. Because of the expense of oil, the few oil fired plants in the country are used mainly as backups during peak demand, such as sultry summer days when wind is virtually nonexistent. Wind power would not dent our oil imports. All of New York's wind turbines produce less energy in a year than is contained in ONE DAY’S WORTH of imported oil. Besides this, the tiny amount of oil used to generate electricity all comes from the residue (basically, sludge) left over in the tanks from refining gas and diesel fuel. Essentially, then, this oil is a waste by-product of gas and diesel refinement.
(4) The typical PILOT program offered by area wind developers is far less than 1% of the total budgets of the taxing entities involved. PILOTS are a tiny percentage of company profits. You & I pay full taxes; it is unfair not to demand this of the wind energy companies, which contribute very little by way of jobs to the local economy.
(5) Currently, North Country wind projects can have towers within 1000' of an inhabited dwelling. This distance is much too close for a 400' tall tower. Towers this close have a potential for causing many problems, including: lowering property values, shadow flicker (an annoying problem and, for people prone to seizure disorder or car-sickness or sea-sickness, a serious health hazard that occurs when the sun is low on the horizon), bird kills (especially on migratory routes, as we have here with the Greater Snow Geese and other species), and excessive (health-damaging) sound levels. NOTE: sound pressure levels (decibels) emitted by wind turbines vary widely, depending on wind speed and direction, distance from turbine blades, and even time of day. Scientists using professional-grade instruments have measured sound levels up to 84 db. at 3300' ( over half a mile). That's twice the noise level of a 500 hp Corvette under full throttle.
(6) Windpower is unpredictable: you never know how much you are going to get or how long it will last. The wind salesmen are wont to lead us to believe that the nameplate capacity is the same as the constant output of the turbines. A 1.5 MW GE turbine doesn't produce 1.5 MW until wind gets to 16-18 m/s (about 36 to 40 mph ). Production drops off dramatically at lower wind speeds: less than 0.2 MW at 20 mph, and a miniscule 0.02 MW at 10 mph. Malone's past 2-year average wind speed was 6.05 mph—not enough even to start a large wind turbine. Why try to have a wind project in Malone? READ ON!
(7) The current 1.5 MW turbines have been in use over ten years. Why then, only now, do we get this onslaught of wind developers? The answer is recent government tax credits, subsidies and rapid depreciation allowances. Actually, their cumulative value is more than the value of the electricity produced. It seems likely that without our tax dollars the New York wind industry would simply vanish.
(8) In testing its own turbines GE found their overall net efficiency to be 10 percent!
(9) Wind developers say wind turbines use free fuel and are totally emission free. What they don’t acknowledge is that the emissions produced in manufacturing, transporting, construction and erection of a tower may take up to 7 years of operation to get back.
(10) The wind industry's goal is to produce 10% of NY's electricity. This is either an impossible dream or a blueprint for unbelievable destruction of rural NY landscape. Ten percent of NY's power is about 4000 MW, which translates into 15,000 1.5 MW turbines at 25% efficiency (probably a generous figure ). Since NY wind projects use an average of 60 acres per tower (according to NYSERDA), this means using 900,000 acres of our land for the next 20-50 years. According to NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research & Development Authority), 4000MW of (unpredictable, often gusting) wind power is likely to completely destabilize the entire power grid.
(11) Wind turbines shut down other facilities when in operation, thus reducing polluting emissions. However, figures of reduced emissions published by wind developers are greatly overblown, since only certain types of plants are taken off-line. The first to shut down are pure turbine natural gas plants, which produce much less pollution than coal plants and, secondly, hydro plants are shut down. It is absurd to replace one non-polluting renewable source with another.
(12) In initial presentations the wind salesmen promised up to 45 permanent jobs as a result of a 67 turbine project in Malone. My research found the industry average was 1 job per 10-12 turbines. Either the wind salesmen were exaggerating or they had the most inefficient company in the industry. In addition, their claimed "economic benefits" for the area included the cost of turbines (purchased in foreign countries) and construction contracts (most of which would certainly be awarded to out-of-area firms).
(13) The wind salesmen who invaded Malone actually had their lawyers write a zoning ordinance to govern themselves and then tried clandestinely to sneak it into the Planning Board as a sample from another town. One provision would have allowed 400’ high turbines less than 500’ from a home (the closest in NY State, I believe).
(14) The Malone wind project proposal would have impacted 5000 acres of land for up to 50 years, with little net gain to the community at large.
In attending a number of wind developer presentations it became obvious that they contained duplicitous, misleading statements, exaggerated benefits, and ignored the disadvantages. This, alone, was enough to turn me against wind power for Northern New York.
In addition, I really can’t reconcile the wind companies’ insistence on leasing land when they can buy it cheaper. Liability avoidance? Plans to walk out when the project is depreciated?
And you should see the lease agreements! I have never seen such a one-sided document in my life! I find it hard to believe anyone who signed this read it carefully. I’m sure many only read the financial clauses. I say, “Get a lawyer!” I would be happy to share a lease agreement with anyone wishing to examine one.
Is industrial wind power presently a viable choice for Northern New York? I think not. Yes, we need to reduce emissions and find user-friendly alternatives. Here are some realistic ways of accomplishing this:
(1) Industrial & residential conservation. The average homeowner can reduce electricity use by 15-25% with only very affordable expenditures.
(2) Clean up emissions from coal plants. Entirely feasible and less costly per megawatt-hour than wind power.
(3) Build some nuclear plants. France is 80% nuclear, SAFELY. It is far more dangerous to cross Malone’s Main St. than to live near an American nuclear power plant.
(4) Encourage small wind turbines (as the Malone local law does) and solar installations, both of which give realistic energy aid to local residents, instead of resorting to industrial wind turbines, which provide billions in tax money to multi-billion-dollar companies that take most of the profits out of the area.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
James Hall Article 78 against Town of Cohocton Decision
Hon. John J. Ark
Supreme Court Justice
Supreme Court Chambers
State of New York
412 Hall of Justice
Rochester, New York 14614
(585) 428-3547
Facsimile 428-3570 Law Clerk 428-2488
July 21,2006
Patrick F. McAllister, Esq.
31 Main Street
P.O. Box 338
Wayland, New York 14572
Re: James Hall v. Jack Zigenfus, et al. Index No. 97580
Dear Counsel:
Enclosed is the original Decision and Order relative to the above-captioned matter; a copy of which is herein forwarded to Mr. Miller.
Kindly file same with the Ontario County Clerk's Office and forward time-stamped copies to counsel and the Court.
Honorable John J. Ark Supreme Court Justice
JJA/dac Enclosure
c: David P. Miller, Esq. (w/enclosure)
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT
COUNTY OF ONTARIO
JAMES HALL,
Petitioners,
DECISION and ORDER Index No. 97580
JACK ZIGENFUS, JEFFREY WISE, JOSEPH DYCKMAN, MILTON LEVESQUE, and WAYNE HUNT, Constituting the TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF COHOCTON, NEW YORK,
Respondents.
Petitioner, a resident of the Town of Cochocton, Steuben County, has brought an Article 78 Petition in Ontario County Supreme Court, seeking annulment of a local law. The Petition, brought against members of the Cohocton Town Board, asserts that Local Law No. 1 of the Year 2006 of the Town of Cohocton (also known as the "Windmill Local Law") was promulgated in violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA").
The law purports to restrict and regulate the use and operation of residential, commercial and industrial windmills. The law is applicable to five town zoning districts which comprise the entire town. Petitioner resides in the Agricultural-Residential (AG-R) zoning district of the Town of Cohocton.
Respondents have moved for dismissal of the Petition, alleging that petitioner lacks standing to attack the local law in question. The affidavit of Jack Zigenfus, Cohocton Town Supervisor (and Town Board member) enumerates the public hearings that were held prior to the law's passage on January 24, 2006 (see, Zigenfus affidavit, paragraph II.). It further states that, while the petitioner may have attended various Town Board meetings and the public hearings, he was never heard to object to the proposed law's impact on the use or enjoyment of his property (kL paragraph 12.).
In the alternative, respondents request a change of venue to Steuben County, since the petitioner resides in the Town of Cohocton, said town is located entirely within Steuben County, all underlying events took place in the Town of Cohocton and Steuben County, and the respondents should not be required to travel outside the county within which Cohocton was incorporated, in order to respond to the Petition, which they deem to be groundless.
Before addressing the question of standing, the Court wishes to restate the parties' respective positions. Petitioner maintains that the Town Board did not follow the dictates of SEQRA in formulating the local law. Respondents point out that SEQRA is invoked in the law as part of the approval process, under §§ I (A)(l) and II (A)(l). Petitioner asserts that the law allows construction of windmills where none has ever existed. Respondents reply that the law, far from permitting windmill construction, merely regulates it, which regulation is of first impression, and of necessity beneficial to the town's environmental quality.
The thrust of petitioner's argument (though not well particularized) is that the method of enactment was deficient, in light of SEQRA's mandates. Respondents point to petitioner's failure to claim any existing or imminent danger to his property. They therefore deem the Petition to be fatally defective.
On the threshold issue of petitioner's standing, respondents cite The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., et al. v. County of Suffolk, et al. (77 NY2d 761 [1991]). That case required, as a prerequisite to standing, that a petitioner demonstrate an "injury in fact," and that the interest asserted be arguably within the zone of interests protected by the law. Respondents also cite Society of Plastics far the proposition that rite subject injury must be "... in come way different in kind or degree from (hat of the general public" (Matter uf Brighton Residents Against Violence to CMdrtn. Inc v. Town of Brighton. 3(K AD2d 33 (200)], at page 36. ching AvrfeQ' of Plastics} Petitioner is of the belief that mere residence in an affected zoning district grams him automatic stmding to challenge the validity of the Windmill Local Law. The parties also differ over whether Qiis is actually Bland use case. Petitioner holda that it ii not. Respondents claim that it is in fact a land use case. The Court is cooctrained to agree with the respondents
While petitioner opines that his denial of standing would prevent anyone else from gaining standing to challenge this or any contemplated legislation on the subject, he is missing the point In order for a party to have standing, there must first be a justiciable controversy.
SEQRA is an aivironmentally-mutivated statute. The inleresta it seeks to protect arc the integrity and viability of the physical environment. Petitioner's interest (though not articulated by him) is at beiiieconomK; and at the leasi, aesthetic. These are not interests germane to an environmental monitoring vehicle such as SEQRA.
Petitioner has not been damaged by the mere bet of enactment of Local Law No. 1 of the Year 2006. Unless and until a special ose permit for corutruciion and operation of a windmill is granted, there exists no potential Tor environmental injury to his property.
Onty after die granting of an application could petitioner assert con-compliance with SEQRA *s procedural mandates. He would also then be required to allege environmental degradation, current or potential. to his property. Factors sucb as numbers and proximity to his land of any proposed windmills would enter into any judicial review or the Town Board's action.
However, since any such procedural errors or incidents/threats of damage are speculative and hypoihelicnl, Ilic IMilion ift preiimlme.
James Hall fails to allege any items of actual or potential environmental injury to his property that would convey .sltuuliug on him to challenge this Windmill Local Law of Cohocton, New York. He has not in fact specified injury of any kind, whether of a type that would affect the public at large, or of a nature specific to his property.
HONORABLE JOHN J. ARK, JSC
A motion to dismiss James Hall's Article 78 Petition is granted. The alternative request for a change of venue is moot.
Supreme Court Justice
Supreme Court Chambers
State of New York
412 Hall of Justice
Rochester, New York 14614
(585) 428-3547
Facsimile 428-3570 Law Clerk 428-2488
July 21,2006
Patrick F. McAllister, Esq.
31 Main Street
P.O. Box 338
Wayland, New York 14572
Re: James Hall v. Jack Zigenfus, et al. Index No. 97580
Dear Counsel:
Enclosed is the original Decision and Order relative to the above-captioned matter; a copy of which is herein forwarded to Mr. Miller.
Kindly file same with the Ontario County Clerk's Office and forward time-stamped copies to counsel and the Court.
Honorable John J. Ark Supreme Court Justice
JJA/dac Enclosure
c: David P. Miller, Esq. (w/enclosure)
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT
COUNTY OF ONTARIO
JAMES HALL,
Petitioners,
DECISION and ORDER Index No. 97580
JACK ZIGENFUS, JEFFREY WISE, JOSEPH DYCKMAN, MILTON LEVESQUE, and WAYNE HUNT, Constituting the TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF COHOCTON, NEW YORK,
Respondents.
Petitioner, a resident of the Town of Cochocton, Steuben County, has brought an Article 78 Petition in Ontario County Supreme Court, seeking annulment of a local law. The Petition, brought against members of the Cohocton Town Board, asserts that Local Law No. 1 of the Year 2006 of the Town of Cohocton (also known as the "Windmill Local Law") was promulgated in violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA").
The law purports to restrict and regulate the use and operation of residential, commercial and industrial windmills. The law is applicable to five town zoning districts which comprise the entire town. Petitioner resides in the Agricultural-Residential (AG-R) zoning district of the Town of Cohocton.
Respondents have moved for dismissal of the Petition, alleging that petitioner lacks standing to attack the local law in question. The affidavit of Jack Zigenfus, Cohocton Town Supervisor (and Town Board member) enumerates the public hearings that were held prior to the law's passage on January 24, 2006 (see, Zigenfus affidavit, paragraph II.). It further states that, while the petitioner may have attended various Town Board meetings and the public hearings, he was never heard to object to the proposed law's impact on the use or enjoyment of his property (kL paragraph 12.).
In the alternative, respondents request a change of venue to Steuben County, since the petitioner resides in the Town of Cohocton, said town is located entirely within Steuben County, all underlying events took place in the Town of Cohocton and Steuben County, and the respondents should not be required to travel outside the county within which Cohocton was incorporated, in order to respond to the Petition, which they deem to be groundless.
Before addressing the question of standing, the Court wishes to restate the parties' respective positions. Petitioner maintains that the Town Board did not follow the dictates of SEQRA in formulating the local law. Respondents point out that SEQRA is invoked in the law as part of the approval process, under §§ I (A)(l) and II (A)(l). Petitioner asserts that the law allows construction of windmills where none has ever existed. Respondents reply that the law, far from permitting windmill construction, merely regulates it, which regulation is of first impression, and of necessity beneficial to the town's environmental quality.
The thrust of petitioner's argument (though not well particularized) is that the method of enactment was deficient, in light of SEQRA's mandates. Respondents point to petitioner's failure to claim any existing or imminent danger to his property. They therefore deem the Petition to be fatally defective.
On the threshold issue of petitioner's standing, respondents cite The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., et al. v. County of Suffolk, et al. (77 NY2d 761 [1991]). That case required, as a prerequisite to standing, that a petitioner demonstrate an "injury in fact," and that the interest asserted be arguably within the zone of interests protected by the law. Respondents also cite Society of Plastics far the proposition that rite subject injury must be "... in come way different in kind or degree from (hat of the general public" (Matter uf Brighton Residents Against Violence to CMdrtn. Inc v. Town of Brighton. 3(K AD2d 33 (200)], at page 36. ching AvrfeQ' of Plastics} Petitioner is of the belief that mere residence in an affected zoning district grams him automatic stmding to challenge the validity of the Windmill Local Law. The parties also differ over whether Qiis is actually Bland use case. Petitioner holda that it ii not. Respondents claim that it is in fact a land use case. The Court is cooctrained to agree with the respondents
While petitioner opines that his denial of standing would prevent anyone else from gaining standing to challenge this or any contemplated legislation on the subject, he is missing the point In order for a party to have standing, there must first be a justiciable controversy.
SEQRA is an aivironmentally-mutivated statute. The inleresta it seeks to protect arc the integrity and viability of the physical environment. Petitioner's interest (though not articulated by him) is at beiiieconomK; and at the leasi, aesthetic. These are not interests germane to an environmental monitoring vehicle such as SEQRA.
Petitioner has not been damaged by the mere bet of enactment of Local Law No. 1 of the Year 2006. Unless and until a special ose permit for corutruciion and operation of a windmill is granted, there exists no potential Tor environmental injury to his property.
Onty after die granting of an application could petitioner assert con-compliance with SEQRA *s procedural mandates. He would also then be required to allege environmental degradation, current or potential. to his property. Factors sucb as numbers and proximity to his land of any proposed windmills would enter into any judicial review or the Town Board's action.
However, since any such procedural errors or incidents/threats of damage are speculative and hypoihelicnl, Ilic IMilion ift preiimlme.
James Hall fails to allege any items of actual or potential environmental injury to his property that would convey .sltuuliug on him to challenge this Windmill Local Law of Cohocton, New York. He has not in fact specified injury of any kind, whether of a type that would affect the public at large, or of a nature specific to his property.
HONORABLE JOHN J. ARK, JSC
A motion to dismiss James Hall's Article 78 Petition is granted. The alternative request for a change of venue is moot.
Notice to Sandor Fox, Jack Zigenfus, and Jim Sherron by Robert C. Strasburg II
Below are two letters that you may have seen. My reason for bringing them to your attention is because they bring sound reasons to consider an immediate moratorium on all wind turbine projects in Steuben County. We have all studied this issue long enough to understand it is simply about money, not energy. If you consider this fact, and if money is the sole justification for this project, please consider the logical points brought out below.
We all know how the dark side of politics works. Wind Companies have bought their way into the income streams of government supported high jacking of tax revenues. There have got to be better answers for Steuben County and its Towns. I urge all of you to consider how you can in good conscience go forward with this violation. Concerned citizens of honorable reputation and education have brought sufficient information to the forefront of this issue to justify a moratorium.
Can any Town government point to a serious study from an unbiased reputable source in which all economic impacts from this program have been considered? We as residents of Steuben County are at the bottom of the food chain in this Federal and State level political swindle of taxpayers, yet we do have the ability to stop this with the cooperation of our government.
Preserve us from the victimization being perpetrated on us.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
We all know how the dark side of politics works. Wind Companies have bought their way into the income streams of government supported high jacking of tax revenues. There have got to be better answers for Steuben County and its Towns. I urge all of you to consider how you can in good conscience go forward with this violation. Concerned citizens of honorable reputation and education have brought sufficient information to the forefront of this issue to justify a moratorium.
Can any Town government point to a serious study from an unbiased reputable source in which all economic impacts from this program have been considered? We as residents of Steuben County are at the bottom of the food chain in this Federal and State level political swindle of taxpayers, yet we do have the ability to stop this with the cooperation of our government.
Preserve us from the victimization being perpetrated on us.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Bradley E. Jones letter to Philip J. Roche - Chairman, Steuben County Legislature
July 22, 2006
Philip J. Roche
Chairman, Steuben County Legislature
3 East Pulteney Square
Bath, New York 14810
Dear Mr. Roche,
I was part of a group of neighbors who spoke out against the Windfarm Prattsburgh at last Thursday’s Public Hearing. We were all very appreciative that you took the time to attend and listen to our concerns. Though we will be submitting a comprehensive analysis and critique of the DEIS, I wanted to send you some comments sooner so that you may have some additional time to consider some of the broader economic development issues.
First, let me give you a little background. Our family has worked our 175 acres in the town of Italy since 1958. We have done Timber Stand Improvement, planted tens of thousands of pine, spruce, and larch, thousands of wildlife shrubs, built four ponds (stocked with bass or trout), and strived always to maintain the character of the former farm and forestlands. In recognition of our accomplishments we received the Conservationist of the Year award from the NY DEC. Dad was deservedly proud of this recognition. Today we are a Certified Tree Farm with a DEC-approved Forest Management Plan. And our heritage orchard, which was planted last year, will be bearing fruit next season.
It goes without saying that we are totally committed to this area, its continued economic development, and the preservation of its cultural roots.
Regarding economic development I believe that there are a number of potential threats given the scope of the proposed windfarms that require serious, thoughtful, and objective analysis. The DEIS consideration of economic development impact is not serious, thoughtful, or objective. Here are a few issues that deserve further study.
1. Impact on Central Finger Lakes Tourism. Carole Kost covered this issue well in her remarks Thursday. Based on the studies she referred to as well as plain common sense the windfarms are a major threat to this $200M annual revenue stream. This threat needs to be carefully looked at by the various tourism groups, and studies need to be conducted by objective third parties.
2. Impact on property values. This issue will be covered in detail in our DEIS comments prepared by local real estate experts who believe that the impact to higher value properties will be devastating. For example, Canadaigua Lake waterfront is some of the most expensive property in the entire country. There are many multimillion-dollar homes, the majority of which are permanent residences. Danny Wegman (CEO of Wegmans Food and Pharmacy) and his wife reside on the west side. Tom Golisano (billionaire founder of Paychex) also has a place there. In addition to the waterfront value, there are hundreds of high-end homes on the hillsides overlooking the lake, including the massive investment at Bristol Harbor. The Prattsburgh, Italy, and Cohocton windfarms will be directly in the viewsheds of hundreds of millions of dollars of residences, yet there is not even a mention of this in the impact statements. The potential impact on such real estate should not be overlooked. It needs to have fair and objective analysis so that negative impact can be quantified and evaluated.
3. Implications for population growth and tax rolls. Back about six years ago my sister built a beautiful new log home on the northern portion of the property. Two years ago we completed a major renovation and expansion of our own home. Our neighbors to the north, the Bromleys, have just completed a significant expansion to their residence. Our new neighbors to the east, the Livingstons, just moved into their newly built home last summer. All of these families re-located from urban areas to make their permanent residences here. The total construction cost for these four projects was well over a million dollars, money that went to local suppliers, builders, and craftsmen. This incremental value is directly reflected in the tax rolls, and our taxes. Additionally, because we now all live here full-time, we spend our money here. A significant amount of annual revenue now goes to local businesses because of these new residents such as these.
This aspect of economic development is also quite eco-friendly, as existing large parcels were utilized; there has been no subdividing whatsoever. Perhaps it is not surprising that all us came from different places (Buffalo, Rochester, Geneva, and Raleigh-Durham) but we all came and made major investments for the same reasons: the countryside is just spectacular, and the peace, tranquility, and rural character more than make up for the inconvenience (several of us have rather long commutes). We came hear to live with nature; we moved away from urban, industrial, and commercial areas. It is quiet here all of the time; it is so quiet at night that guests from the city remark about it. The skies are deep black with billions of visible stars. There is no ambient light at night. There are no manmade structures anywhere in our viewshed. For those of us who choose to be here, it truly is God’s country. And for many of us who have been here for a long time, it is part of our culture and heritage.
I’ve only told you about four families within a single square mile. But our stories are not unique. They are being repeated throughout the area in Italy, Naples, Jerusalem, Prattsburgh, Cohocton, Springwater, Middlesex, and South Bristol. In aggregate, this influx of new residents is an economic development engine. We pay lots of taxes, we spend our money locally, we contribute to local institutions, and (in general) we demand few if any additional municipal services. This is an economic development engine that is all positive. There are loads of positives with no tangible negatives. A simple analysis of changes in residential values in Appendix K clearly shows rapid growth over 5 years in the >$100,000 sector while the lower end (<$60.000) is flat. New money is coming to our towns.
I expect you can see where I am going with this but it is an undeniable fact that none of us would have come here to live next to industrial scale wind turbines, to have our viewsheds ruined, our dark and still evenings taken away, or to have our health and safety compromised. If the turbines go up, this economic engine will cease to operate. And without question the economic value contributed from all of these new residents is far greater than what the windfarm developers promise, even if you believe what they claim. Will some of our neighbors decide to leave because their quality of life has been impacted? I can only speak for our own situation, and for now, we just don’t know. This property has been a central part of my life for 48 years and is a significant element of my identity. Since I was a child, I wanted to live at “the farm”. Our dream is now reality. This property speaks to our priorities and to our values. Should the Prattsburgh and Italy projects sprout multiple clusters of giant turbines smack dab in the center of our view, we may decide to move on. As I said, we just do not yet know. Of course, selling a high-end property with a viewshed marred by an industrial park may be pretty difficult.
So please study and carefully consider the longer-term implications of the windfarms on population growth and the tax rolls.
4. For a number of years I held an executive level position with ALSTOM USA. Of our 28 sites across the country, two were in upstate NY, in Rochester and Hornell. Between these two sites we had over 500 white-collar professionals in addition to a large blue-collar workforce. Recruiting professionals to Rochester was relatively easy. Recruiting them to Hornell was very difficult. Here is why. Most of today’s college grads live and work in urban or suburban environments. They make these choices for lifestyle, amenities, plentiful jobs, and friends and family. The decidedly rural character of Hornell is not the least bit attractive to the vast majority of engineers and scientists that ALSTOM Transport required. Based on many years of recruiting experience I would estimate that less than 10% of technical professionals would choose to work in a place like Hornell. So right off the bat we had a tiny applicant pool compared to Rochester or Seattle or Hartford or other sites. Since we were not going to be successful marketing Hornell as the next Silicon Valley, we had to sell it for its genuine assets: natural beauty, rural lifestyle, etc. This did appeal to that small segment of the population that would consider living in Bath, or Arkport, or Dansville, or Geneseo, or Naples (we still have a number of managers residing in Naples). This recruiting strategy paid off, and our attrition for technical professionals was quite low. Those that joined up liked it here, and stayed.
Unfortunately widespread development of industrial windfarms would significantly reduce our ability to attract new technical talent because we will lose the attributes that they value. In search of rural, they will not choose industrial. With all of the project plans on the table right now, I cannot in good conscience recommend that a client consider an expansion site in Steuben or Yates Counties. The risk of not being able to attract top talent would simply be too great. Again, this is an area of substantial economic risk that isn’t even considered in the DEIS.
I would also like to offer another example, a rather timely one. There are plans underway to build a luxury hotel/spa adjacent to Reservoir Creek Golf Course on Route 21 south of Naples village. If the Cohocton windfarm is built it will place a large number of turbines on Pine Hill that would tower over the hotel and ruin the entire southern viewshed. This project (120 permanent jobs) will not move forward if there is any possibility that Windfarm Cohocton (4 – 6 jobs) will be. This is not a rational economic development trade-off. We need to look at the bigger picture; we need to evaluate the cumulative impact of all of the proposed developments. Looking at each project separately without considering the aggregate impact on the local economy is not sufficient due diligence.
I believe that much additional study is required to honestly and objectively determine the real economic impact of the windfarm projects. To do this, one would first need to accurately quantify the economic benefits of the projects, and correct many of the blatant inaccuracies in the DEIS. Everyone agrees that there is economic benefit in PILOT’s and lease payments but they may be trivial in light of the economic risks described above. Another economic benefit described in the DEIS is the amount of electricity generated by the windfarm. But a close examination of the facts (courtesy of NYSERDA and GE Energy) reveals that they will generate a mere fraction of the usable energy claimed: only about 8 or 9% of nameplate capacity, not the 50 to 75 MW claimed in the DEIS. There is also the $75M price tag for decommissioning that somehow must be funded.
So by overstating the benefits and understating the risks, the DEIS wrongly concludes that the project will result in positive economic development. In fact, it is highly probable that the windfarms will hurt tourism, reduce property values, discourage business investment, and result in public health and safety problems. This is not alarmism. Rather, it is a valid conclusion based on many hours of research. In my professional opinion, industrial windfarms have the potential to turn Steuben, Yates, and surrounding counties into an economic development wasteland. Given what I have learned to date, I do not see that the risks can be justified by the rewards. Surely it is prudent to have unbiased experts objectively and comprehensively evaluate the pros and the cons of such a massive undertaking before we proceed any further.
Should you or Mr. Sherron wish to discuss any of these issues in more detail, I am available to meet at your convenience. I have also enclosed for your review a letter that was published in the local paper last week. Thank you for your consideration.
Bradley E. Jones
President, PerformancePlus Business Consultants
3996 Donley Road, Naples NY 14512
585 374 2627 (office), 585 233 8539 (cell)
cc. James P. Sherron, Executive Director, Steuben County IDA
Philip J. Roche
Chairman, Steuben County Legislature
3 East Pulteney Square
Bath, New York 14810
Dear Mr. Roche,
I was part of a group of neighbors who spoke out against the Windfarm Prattsburgh at last Thursday’s Public Hearing. We were all very appreciative that you took the time to attend and listen to our concerns. Though we will be submitting a comprehensive analysis and critique of the DEIS, I wanted to send you some comments sooner so that you may have some additional time to consider some of the broader economic development issues.
First, let me give you a little background. Our family has worked our 175 acres in the town of Italy since 1958. We have done Timber Stand Improvement, planted tens of thousands of pine, spruce, and larch, thousands of wildlife shrubs, built four ponds (stocked with bass or trout), and strived always to maintain the character of the former farm and forestlands. In recognition of our accomplishments we received the Conservationist of the Year award from the NY DEC. Dad was deservedly proud of this recognition. Today we are a Certified Tree Farm with a DEC-approved Forest Management Plan. And our heritage orchard, which was planted last year, will be bearing fruit next season.
It goes without saying that we are totally committed to this area, its continued economic development, and the preservation of its cultural roots.
Regarding economic development I believe that there are a number of potential threats given the scope of the proposed windfarms that require serious, thoughtful, and objective analysis. The DEIS consideration of economic development impact is not serious, thoughtful, or objective. Here are a few issues that deserve further study.
1. Impact on Central Finger Lakes Tourism. Carole Kost covered this issue well in her remarks Thursday. Based on the studies she referred to as well as plain common sense the windfarms are a major threat to this $200M annual revenue stream. This threat needs to be carefully looked at by the various tourism groups, and studies need to be conducted by objective third parties.
2. Impact on property values. This issue will be covered in detail in our DEIS comments prepared by local real estate experts who believe that the impact to higher value properties will be devastating. For example, Canadaigua Lake waterfront is some of the most expensive property in the entire country. There are many multimillion-dollar homes, the majority of which are permanent residences. Danny Wegman (CEO of Wegmans Food and Pharmacy) and his wife reside on the west side. Tom Golisano (billionaire founder of Paychex) also has a place there. In addition to the waterfront value, there are hundreds of high-end homes on the hillsides overlooking the lake, including the massive investment at Bristol Harbor. The Prattsburgh, Italy, and Cohocton windfarms will be directly in the viewsheds of hundreds of millions of dollars of residences, yet there is not even a mention of this in the impact statements. The potential impact on such real estate should not be overlooked. It needs to have fair and objective analysis so that negative impact can be quantified and evaluated.
3. Implications for population growth and tax rolls. Back about six years ago my sister built a beautiful new log home on the northern portion of the property. Two years ago we completed a major renovation and expansion of our own home. Our neighbors to the north, the Bromleys, have just completed a significant expansion to their residence. Our new neighbors to the east, the Livingstons, just moved into their newly built home last summer. All of these families re-located from urban areas to make their permanent residences here. The total construction cost for these four projects was well over a million dollars, money that went to local suppliers, builders, and craftsmen. This incremental value is directly reflected in the tax rolls, and our taxes. Additionally, because we now all live here full-time, we spend our money here. A significant amount of annual revenue now goes to local businesses because of these new residents such as these.
This aspect of economic development is also quite eco-friendly, as existing large parcels were utilized; there has been no subdividing whatsoever. Perhaps it is not surprising that all us came from different places (Buffalo, Rochester, Geneva, and Raleigh-Durham) but we all came and made major investments for the same reasons: the countryside is just spectacular, and the peace, tranquility, and rural character more than make up for the inconvenience (several of us have rather long commutes). We came hear to live with nature; we moved away from urban, industrial, and commercial areas. It is quiet here all of the time; it is so quiet at night that guests from the city remark about it. The skies are deep black with billions of visible stars. There is no ambient light at night. There are no manmade structures anywhere in our viewshed. For those of us who choose to be here, it truly is God’s country. And for many of us who have been here for a long time, it is part of our culture and heritage.
I’ve only told you about four families within a single square mile. But our stories are not unique. They are being repeated throughout the area in Italy, Naples, Jerusalem, Prattsburgh, Cohocton, Springwater, Middlesex, and South Bristol. In aggregate, this influx of new residents is an economic development engine. We pay lots of taxes, we spend our money locally, we contribute to local institutions, and (in general) we demand few if any additional municipal services. This is an economic development engine that is all positive. There are loads of positives with no tangible negatives. A simple analysis of changes in residential values in Appendix K clearly shows rapid growth over 5 years in the >$100,000 sector while the lower end (<$60.000) is flat. New money is coming to our towns.
I expect you can see where I am going with this but it is an undeniable fact that none of us would have come here to live next to industrial scale wind turbines, to have our viewsheds ruined, our dark and still evenings taken away, or to have our health and safety compromised. If the turbines go up, this economic engine will cease to operate. And without question the economic value contributed from all of these new residents is far greater than what the windfarm developers promise, even if you believe what they claim. Will some of our neighbors decide to leave because their quality of life has been impacted? I can only speak for our own situation, and for now, we just don’t know. This property has been a central part of my life for 48 years and is a significant element of my identity. Since I was a child, I wanted to live at “the farm”. Our dream is now reality. This property speaks to our priorities and to our values. Should the Prattsburgh and Italy projects sprout multiple clusters of giant turbines smack dab in the center of our view, we may decide to move on. As I said, we just do not yet know. Of course, selling a high-end property with a viewshed marred by an industrial park may be pretty difficult.
So please study and carefully consider the longer-term implications of the windfarms on population growth and the tax rolls.
4. For a number of years I held an executive level position with ALSTOM USA. Of our 28 sites across the country, two were in upstate NY, in Rochester and Hornell. Between these two sites we had over 500 white-collar professionals in addition to a large blue-collar workforce. Recruiting professionals to Rochester was relatively easy. Recruiting them to Hornell was very difficult. Here is why. Most of today’s college grads live and work in urban or suburban environments. They make these choices for lifestyle, amenities, plentiful jobs, and friends and family. The decidedly rural character of Hornell is not the least bit attractive to the vast majority of engineers and scientists that ALSTOM Transport required. Based on many years of recruiting experience I would estimate that less than 10% of technical professionals would choose to work in a place like Hornell. So right off the bat we had a tiny applicant pool compared to Rochester or Seattle or Hartford or other sites. Since we were not going to be successful marketing Hornell as the next Silicon Valley, we had to sell it for its genuine assets: natural beauty, rural lifestyle, etc. This did appeal to that small segment of the population that would consider living in Bath, or Arkport, or Dansville, or Geneseo, or Naples (we still have a number of managers residing in Naples). This recruiting strategy paid off, and our attrition for technical professionals was quite low. Those that joined up liked it here, and stayed.
Unfortunately widespread development of industrial windfarms would significantly reduce our ability to attract new technical talent because we will lose the attributes that they value. In search of rural, they will not choose industrial. With all of the project plans on the table right now, I cannot in good conscience recommend that a client consider an expansion site in Steuben or Yates Counties. The risk of not being able to attract top talent would simply be too great. Again, this is an area of substantial economic risk that isn’t even considered in the DEIS.
I would also like to offer another example, a rather timely one. There are plans underway to build a luxury hotel/spa adjacent to Reservoir Creek Golf Course on Route 21 south of Naples village. If the Cohocton windfarm is built it will place a large number of turbines on Pine Hill that would tower over the hotel and ruin the entire southern viewshed. This project (120 permanent jobs) will not move forward if there is any possibility that Windfarm Cohocton (4 – 6 jobs) will be. This is not a rational economic development trade-off. We need to look at the bigger picture; we need to evaluate the cumulative impact of all of the proposed developments. Looking at each project separately without considering the aggregate impact on the local economy is not sufficient due diligence.
I believe that much additional study is required to honestly and objectively determine the real economic impact of the windfarm projects. To do this, one would first need to accurately quantify the economic benefits of the projects, and correct many of the blatant inaccuracies in the DEIS. Everyone agrees that there is economic benefit in PILOT’s and lease payments but they may be trivial in light of the economic risks described above. Another economic benefit described in the DEIS is the amount of electricity generated by the windfarm. But a close examination of the facts (courtesy of NYSERDA and GE Energy) reveals that they will generate a mere fraction of the usable energy claimed: only about 8 or 9% of nameplate capacity, not the 50 to 75 MW claimed in the DEIS. There is also the $75M price tag for decommissioning that somehow must be funded.
So by overstating the benefits and understating the risks, the DEIS wrongly concludes that the project will result in positive economic development. In fact, it is highly probable that the windfarms will hurt tourism, reduce property values, discourage business investment, and result in public health and safety problems. This is not alarmism. Rather, it is a valid conclusion based on many hours of research. In my professional opinion, industrial windfarms have the potential to turn Steuben, Yates, and surrounding counties into an economic development wasteland. Given what I have learned to date, I do not see that the risks can be justified by the rewards. Surely it is prudent to have unbiased experts objectively and comprehensively evaluate the pros and the cons of such a massive undertaking before we proceed any further.
Should you or Mr. Sherron wish to discuss any of these issues in more detail, I am available to meet at your convenience. I have also enclosed for your review a letter that was published in the local paper last week. Thank you for your consideration.
Bradley E. Jones
President, PerformancePlus Business Consultants
3996 Donley Road, Naples NY 14512
585 374 2627 (office), 585 233 8539 (cell)
cc. James P. Sherron, Executive Director, Steuben County IDA
Wind Farms, Why Here, Why Now? by Linda and Brad Jones
Wind farms are certainly not a new phenomenon. Particularly in Europe, with Denmark being the clear leader, wind farms have been producing electricity for many years. So why is it that the developers didn't arrive here back in 1980 or 1990? What took them so long to discover our hilltops? And why have they been so aggressively persistent in the face of so much opposition?
The reason the developers need us so badly today was explained in a Wall Street Journal article several months ago (2-9-06). This article tells the story of Denmark's national commitment to renewable energy, and its rather sudden demise.
In the late 1990's the Danish government mandated that utility companies sign 10 year agreements with suppliers of wind-based electricity. These agreements required the utilities to buy wind-based power at above market rates, sometimes double the market price. These mandated subsidies made wind-based power popular and profitable - for the people who owned the state-subsidized turbines. The general public did not profit from this arrangement, as they were forced to pay much higher prices for their electricity.
In 2005 though, things began to change. A more market-friendly and citizen-friendly government was voted in. According to the Journal, this resulted in "a shift in philosophy, a belief that the market will give more cost-effective solutions." The new government immediately began to reduce the subsidies for renewable energy and will end them completely in 2009.
"The result was a collapse of the overall domestic market for wind turbines. Although the market is small and saturated it had been a laboratory for Danish turbine makers like Vestas Wind Systems A/S to hone their technology. Now Vestas is depending on China, the U.S. and other markets for growth."
So the reason that Vestas is so desperate for sales here is because their own government recognized the folly of propping up a non-competitive business. Today, without subsidies, wind power is not viable in Denmark. The only reason it is even being considered here is because of our own government subsidies (courtesy of corrupt politicians who have accepted contributions from the turbine manufacturers and the developers). Your tax dollars provide the sole profit opportunity for the developers. No subsidies means no wind farms.
The existing federal subsidy is a temporary one, requiring Congressional re-approval every two years. Given massive federal deficits and the impending Social Security collapse, our lawmakers are scrambling to find money to pay the bills. Isn't it likely that subsidies for non-competitive technology will be high on their list of cuts? Isn't it possible that our lawmakers are at least as smart as the Danes?
Without subsidies, there is no market for wind power. Without subsidies, there is no money for turbine maintenance and repair. Without subsidies the developers cannot make any money. Without subsidies there will be a lot of very large, very useless, but well-lit towers sitting idly on our hilltops.
We encourage elected officials in neighboring towns to take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously, to educate themselves about the factual economics of wind power, and to act in the best long-term interests of all citizens of our region. And although it should go without saying, they must exercise full disclosure to demonstrate that there is not even a hint of personal profit influencing their deliberations. Perhaps the Naples Record would do us all a favor and interview town board members on the full disclosure question.
One final comment on wind-based electricity. There are some good-hearted citizens who believe that the proposed wind farms will reduce our reliance on foreign oil. The truth is that the proposed developments are so small that they will make no difference whatsoever. We have in this country over 963,000 MW of electrical generating capacity, 92% of which comes from coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro. Petroleum contributes a mere 3.5%, and much of that is sourced domestically. Adding 100 MW of unreliable intermittent wind capacity in Prattsburgh and Cohocton will do nothing to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. It is important that we look at facts, not the fiction handed out by the wind farm developers.
Linda and Brad Jones
Parish Hill
Published in The Naples Record, 7-18-06
The reason the developers need us so badly today was explained in a Wall Street Journal article several months ago (2-9-06). This article tells the story of Denmark's national commitment to renewable energy, and its rather sudden demise.
In the late 1990's the Danish government mandated that utility companies sign 10 year agreements with suppliers of wind-based electricity. These agreements required the utilities to buy wind-based power at above market rates, sometimes double the market price. These mandated subsidies made wind-based power popular and profitable - for the people who owned the state-subsidized turbines. The general public did not profit from this arrangement, as they were forced to pay much higher prices for their electricity.
In 2005 though, things began to change. A more market-friendly and citizen-friendly government was voted in. According to the Journal, this resulted in "a shift in philosophy, a belief that the market will give more cost-effective solutions." The new government immediately began to reduce the subsidies for renewable energy and will end them completely in 2009.
"The result was a collapse of the overall domestic market for wind turbines. Although the market is small and saturated it had been a laboratory for Danish turbine makers like Vestas Wind Systems A/S to hone their technology. Now Vestas is depending on China, the U.S. and other markets for growth."
So the reason that Vestas is so desperate for sales here is because their own government recognized the folly of propping up a non-competitive business. Today, without subsidies, wind power is not viable in Denmark. The only reason it is even being considered here is because of our own government subsidies (courtesy of corrupt politicians who have accepted contributions from the turbine manufacturers and the developers). Your tax dollars provide the sole profit opportunity for the developers. No subsidies means no wind farms.
The existing federal subsidy is a temporary one, requiring Congressional re-approval every two years. Given massive federal deficits and the impending Social Security collapse, our lawmakers are scrambling to find money to pay the bills. Isn't it likely that subsidies for non-competitive technology will be high on their list of cuts? Isn't it possible that our lawmakers are at least as smart as the Danes?
Without subsidies, there is no market for wind power. Without subsidies, there is no money for turbine maintenance and repair. Without subsidies the developers cannot make any money. Without subsidies there will be a lot of very large, very useless, but well-lit towers sitting idly on our hilltops.
We encourage elected officials in neighboring towns to take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously, to educate themselves about the factual economics of wind power, and to act in the best long-term interests of all citizens of our region. And although it should go without saying, they must exercise full disclosure to demonstrate that there is not even a hint of personal profit influencing their deliberations. Perhaps the Naples Record would do us all a favor and interview town board members on the full disclosure question.
One final comment on wind-based electricity. There are some good-hearted citizens who believe that the proposed wind farms will reduce our reliance on foreign oil. The truth is that the proposed developments are so small that they will make no difference whatsoever. We have in this country over 963,000 MW of electrical generating capacity, 92% of which comes from coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro. Petroleum contributes a mere 3.5%, and much of that is sourced domestically. Adding 100 MW of unreliable intermittent wind capacity in Prattsburgh and Cohocton will do nothing to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. It is important that we look at facts, not the fiction handed out by the wind farm developers.
Linda and Brad Jones
Parish Hill
Published in The Naples Record, 7-18-06
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)