In a newspaper article Jack Zigenfus was quoted as “We can always come out with a better wheel, and that’s basically what we’re trying to do. We want to have the best law.”
Why wouldn’t the best law have been where the Planning Board started, changing the noise dbs to 35? Why wouldn’t the best law have kept the height restriction to 400’ to 425’ where the Planning Board lowered it until ONE Planning Board member made it such a big deal that it be kept at 500 feet. One comment that made me laugh was that 75’ wouldn’t be that big a deal, add another 75’ to your home and you’ll see what a difference it makes. If Jack wants to have the best law why wouldn’t the set backs of these turbines be from property line ONLY, not 1500 feet from your residence where you will have to sign a waiver if you are to put anything on your own property.
The best law would be protecting all landowners by moving a set back from the property line only, not the residence. By placing a law into effect 1500 feet from a residence, 1 ½ times the turbine from property line is taking our constitutional right to do what we want on our own property away. Having to sign a waiver is telling the landowner there are dangers to wind turbines and we are not going to be held responsible for any damages incurred.
One of biggest changes was the enforcement section for charging someone who violates the law from $250 to $1,000. The town seems to be doing this for money so this shouldn’t be a problem, make the developer and lease owner adhere to the zoning law or pay the town. This shouldn’t be a problem; if UPC is such an honest developer they won’t have a problem with going by the law.
OH, that’s right, they haven’t done that yet have they, they didn’t get the special use permits for the meteorological towers, they haven’t dismantled one of the towers they put up without a permit, that the zoning board of appeals said needed to be taken down yet and that has been over a month now. So the $1,000 fine sounds pretty good to me.
The Town of Cohocton has at least one person on the Planning Board and one on the Town Board that seem to be more interested in UPC’s interest instead of the Towns, they seem to shoot down many suggestions made to protect residents living near this industry.
I have sat through meetings where one planning board member tries to be just as rude as she possibly can to anyone that might have a statement, snicker, or nodding of the head. She turns and states, she won’t tolerate this, and then brings in Sheriffs and State Troopers to intimidate the audience. It seems that people who are against wind turbines are not worthy of respect, yet if you’re for them you better be respected or else we will write articles in the Valley News or get up at a Board Meeting and state, “CWW is using Bullying and Intimidation Tactics.” Now lets see having an off duty Sheriff, two on duty Sheriffs and State Troopers at a Planning Board meeting is called what????
I have sat through meetings where one Board Member states that he is trying to insult the anti-wind people with his little cartoons and writings. If it hits a nerve he is pleased with himself. He is apparently the only one that feels he is doing his research and visits to other wind farms and therefore he knows what is best for the Town of Cohocton. If he has done his research I would like to know why the Town Board still hasn’t gotten a copy of UPC’s wind data from the meteorological towers to indeed do their homework on this data. One would have to speculate that these towers never needed to be put up because the data is not important enough to evaluate. Then one would also have to speculate that the tower they were ordered to take down would stand just like the wind turbines will when they are found to be unproductive.
In closing, It has been 5 months now that my husband and I have asked the Planning Board, The Board and their lawyers, why our names along with our land, tax number are on a Building Permit. Still have nothing in writing to telling us what this is about, therefore we have to assume that UPC, and The Board have plans for our land. How many others out there in the town of Cohocton have their names on this permit without even knowing it! I feel that we deserve a written response to this question even if you feel you’re doing this for the good of the Town. Step up to the plate gentlemen and be accountable to ALL CITIZENS OF THE TOWN OF COHOCTON, just not a few.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Limited Vision by Steve Trude
Back in the winter when I first saw the Cohocton wind turbine law, I knew that this law was against everything that I had worked so hard to build and dreamed of for the last 24 years. So many of us have done the same thing. It is not easy or cheap to live in Cohocton. We have all spent many hours to get to work. We have bought many vehicles to get us anywhere, with a lot of gas and oil changes.
We all knew that this was the price we had to pay to live in PARADISE.
I spent the next few weeks studying about wind technology and it's uses and effects. I read the zoning law and the Comprehensive Plan. It seems that the law was clear and we should be OK.
What I did not know was that the Town Board was so sold on this project they would do, say or try to pass any law to push the UPC projects through. I did not understand how the good people of a town like Cohocton could or would allow a project like this in our town.
Then I started looking closely at our town. Our Main Streets have only a few businesses. Our 390 Exit looks terrible. Our industrial sites sit mostly vacant with no jobs and little tax revenue. These are the necessities that keep a town afloat. The homes reflect this lack of income. The villages have had very little growth, and most of the building has been in the hills.
The lack of planning by our officials shows no vision for the future of our town or our children. This project as proposed will further stagnate the growth of Cohocton. The catering to one group of people, by our officials for so many years, has had a cumulative negative effect on our town.
And with this same foresight our town officials are doing it again. By all the back door dealings, they are setting themselves up for an even greater disaster and maybe the last stroke for the town.
To destroy our hills in a way that will limit any chance for a stable growth in the future is against our Comprehensive Plan and our zoning law. All this when the baby boom generation is looking to move to the hill's to retire with millions of dollars to spend and grow any community where they would desire to relocate.
To sell our town for so little money, for such a long period of time, lacks the wise foresight of encouraging sensible growth and stability for the future. We risk an end result of a real possibility of a $50,000,000.00 decommissioning bill at the end of the project.
The Town Board has done all of us wrong.
· By trying to circumvent the Comprehensive Plan and trashing our zoning law.
· By trying to pass a law that steals our rights to our property and the sanctity of our homes.
· Also to take our happiness, our lives and our safety is a sin.
We have worked our whole lives to come here to these hills to live in peace and harmony. Any Town Official that would vote yes to any current proposed UPC plan NEEDS TO GO! I know that the actions of our board in this proposed project will change our town forever.
Stephen Trude - President of Cohocton Wind Watch
We all knew that this was the price we had to pay to live in PARADISE.
I spent the next few weeks studying about wind technology and it's uses and effects. I read the zoning law and the Comprehensive Plan. It seems that the law was clear and we should be OK.
What I did not know was that the Town Board was so sold on this project they would do, say or try to pass any law to push the UPC projects through. I did not understand how the good people of a town like Cohocton could or would allow a project like this in our town.
Then I started looking closely at our town. Our Main Streets have only a few businesses. Our 390 Exit looks terrible. Our industrial sites sit mostly vacant with no jobs and little tax revenue. These are the necessities that keep a town afloat. The homes reflect this lack of income. The villages have had very little growth, and most of the building has been in the hills.
The lack of planning by our officials shows no vision for the future of our town or our children. This project as proposed will further stagnate the growth of Cohocton. The catering to one group of people, by our officials for so many years, has had a cumulative negative effect on our town.
And with this same foresight our town officials are doing it again. By all the back door dealings, they are setting themselves up for an even greater disaster and maybe the last stroke for the town.
To destroy our hills in a way that will limit any chance for a stable growth in the future is against our Comprehensive Plan and our zoning law. All this when the baby boom generation is looking to move to the hill's to retire with millions of dollars to spend and grow any community where they would desire to relocate.
To sell our town for so little money, for such a long period of time, lacks the wise foresight of encouraging sensible growth and stability for the future. We risk an end result of a real possibility of a $50,000,000.00 decommissioning bill at the end of the project.
The Town Board has done all of us wrong.
· By trying to circumvent the Comprehensive Plan and trashing our zoning law.
· By trying to pass a law that steals our rights to our property and the sanctity of our homes.
· Also to take our happiness, our lives and our safety is a sin.
We have worked our whole lives to come here to these hills to live in peace and harmony. Any Town Official that would vote yes to any current proposed UPC plan NEEDS TO GO! I know that the actions of our board in this proposed project will change our town forever.
Stephen Trude - President of Cohocton Wind Watch
Windmills Financial Windfall
video link to view program
The big battle in the Town of Sheldon is who's benefiting from a project to bring wind turbines to the small rural Wyoming County town.
A wind energy company wants to create a state of the art wind farm there that could save taxpayers up to a million dollars a year.
But three town board members, who vote on the fate of the project, will get a wind turbine on their own property or a family member's property.
To see the full report, click on the video link above.
The big battle in the Town of Sheldon is who's benefiting from a project to bring wind turbines to the small rural Wyoming County town.
A wind energy company wants to create a state of the art wind farm there that could save taxpayers up to a million dollars a year.
But three town board members, who vote on the fate of the project, will get a wind turbine on their own property or a family member's property.
To see the full report, click on the video link above.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Cohocton Wind Watch Informational Meeting Monday, August 28, 2006
Naples Hotel - "Downstairs" panel and question and answer informational meeting on the impact of the Cohocton and Prattsburgh Industrial Wind Turbine Projects on Naples and Canandaigua region.
Monday August 28, 2006 7:00 PM
Monday August 28, 2006 7:00 PM
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Windfarm Prattsburgh-UPC/Global
Dear Windfarm Prattsburgh Lead Agent, SCIDA, Clerk,
In response to the WFP Draft EIS and the NY DEC process for SEQR Scoping and public participation, the present Draft EIS is unacceptable because it does not follow the EIS stated in the Final Scope. According to the NY DEC, "the approved Final Scope would still be valid and should serve as the basis for the Draft EIS." (letter Attached).
Missing in the DEIS for section 1 and 2 are:
1. wind data
2. details of meteorological towers
3. WAKE distance
4. Necessity of this project in detail (not generality of the RPS and Executive Order).
5. Details of PILOT, revenue distribution
6. Details of regulations both Federal and State
7. Details of Alternative Plans
8. Details of Displacement of less efficient dirtier sources of power
9. Wake and Wind rights of impacted property owners since the lease claims such for the company and therefore it is an acknowledged concern for future growth of wind energy.
10. Exact sites and EXACT Turbines!!
11. Exact Staging Area.
13. Cumulative Impact of Cohocton I and II as well as Ecogen's project upon area of the Finger Lakes that was considered by the State as highly aesthetically and geologically significant.
14. Details of construction and road improvement and dust control in the DEIS- not later.
15. Details of public safety and complaint resolution
16. Third party monitoring
17. Buried cable when at all possible as in overview of project handed to leaseholders.
18. Details, references and documentation of UPC's experience in the USA from completed projects!
19. Recommissioning especially to larger MW towers.
20. Bonding
21. Details of costs/funding of permitting and developing of project.
22. Details of GML 239.
23. Details of formal and informal meetings with Town Board.
Mentioned in the Final Scope that is contrary to the DEIS:
1. One meteorological tower.
2. Cabling between turbines and most of collection system will be buried.
3. Precise locations
4. Precise location of access roads
5. Precise location of cabling
6. Precise location of electrical interconnection facilities/lines
7. Precise location of substations
8. Precise location of staging and storage areas
9. Precise location of parking areas
10. Precise location of operations and maintenance facilities
11. Precise location of permanent meteorological towers, lights, fences and gates!!
12. Detailed specifications of make and model of turbines
13. Detailed specifications of tower foundation
14. Number of days of operations and conditions
15. Details of routine maintenance
16. Discussion of blasting or dewatering
17. Copies of any studies
18. Expected Annual rate of power generation and its effect on local rates!!
19. Wind speed and energy production data that were evaluated when selecting each turbine.
20. Expected starting and ending dates as well as anticipated phasing of construction.
21. Principal activities that will occur during each phase of construction.
22. All areas affected by construction in the vicinity and safeguards taken.
23. Timing and implementation criteria for all measures to control construction dust.
24. Protocol to avoid nematode cysts contamination.
25. Protocol for on site compliance monitoring by qualified agro-environmental inspector.
26. Funding of monitoring.
27. Project impact on budgets of affected communities along with tax distribution.
28. Potential local revenues.
29. Project construction and operational costs and off set of project revenue.
30. All construction related expenditures.
31. Noise mitigation of 3 to 6 dB and greater than 6 dB.
32. All access roads gated and locked.
33. Lists of potential emergencies and response service providers.
34. Fire and Emergency equipment and training provided by applicant.
35. Probability of tower collapse, catastrophic failure, ice throw along with winter usage.
36. Interviews will residential groundwater well owners.
37. Means of documentation of existing pre construction road conditions.
38. Propose avoidance of radio, television, microwave and mobile telephone interference
39. Alternative project areas, turbine sites to minimize VISUAL and NOISE impacts, agricultural impacts!
Throughout the DEIS, mitigation was the unlikeliness of the happening, instead of, if the occurrence transpired, how would it be mitigated in detail. Vague explanations are not implied by the scope nor the SEQR process!! Plans to be finalized after the DEIS are absolutely unacceptable.
The WFP DEIS is unacceptable unless all scoping areas are addressed since SEQR Process"is intended to follow a systematic, relatively predictable process in creating the substantive environmental review."
This substantive review was detailed in the SCOPE with public input!! It has not be substantively addressed in the DEIS!
Respectfully,
Dr. Alice Sokolow
34 Avonmore Way
Penfield, NY 14526
In a message dated 8/15/2006 12:15:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bahughes@gw.dec.state.ny.us writes:
Dr. Sokolow:
Your question was routed to me for reply. In general, the SEQR process continues from whatever stage it reached before the lead agency was changed. While the lead agency re-establishment language in 6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(6) doesn't address that precise question, 6 NYCRR 617.3(h) [SEQR's General Rules] makes it clear that the legislative and regulatory design of SEQR is intended to follow a systematic, relatively predictable process in creating the substantive environmental review, "(h) Agencies must carry out the terms and requirements of this Part with minimum procedural and administrative delay, must avoid unnecessary duplication of reporting and review requirements by providing, where feasible, for combined or consolidated proceedings, and must expedite all SEQR proceedings in the interest of prompt review." [emphasis added].
Thus, in this case, the approved Final Scope would still be valid and should serve as the basis for the Draft EIS. I hope that this responds adequately to your question.
B. A. Hughes
Chief, SEQR and Training
Division of Environmental Permits
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway - 4th floor SW
Albany NY 12233-1750
(518) 402-9158 (direct); 402-9167 (office)
(518) 402-9167 (fax)
bahughes@gw.dec.state.ny.us
>>> 08/15/06 10:09 AM >>>
DEAR NY DEC,
If a Scope is completed for a project with public participation and
Final Written Scope and then the LEAD Agency is changed, does the Final
Scoping determination transfer and continue to apply to the project??
Dr. Alice Sokolow
In response to the WFP Draft EIS and the NY DEC process for SEQR Scoping and public participation, the present Draft EIS is unacceptable because it does not follow the EIS stated in the Final Scope. According to the NY DEC, "the approved Final Scope would still be valid and should serve as the basis for the Draft EIS." (letter Attached).
Missing in the DEIS for section 1 and 2 are:
1. wind data
2. details of meteorological towers
3. WAKE distance
4. Necessity of this project in detail (not generality of the RPS and Executive Order).
5. Details of PILOT, revenue distribution
6. Details of regulations both Federal and State
7. Details of Alternative Plans
8. Details of Displacement of less efficient dirtier sources of power
9. Wake and Wind rights of impacted property owners since the lease claims such for the company and therefore it is an acknowledged concern for future growth of wind energy.
10. Exact sites and EXACT Turbines!!
11. Exact Staging Area.
13. Cumulative Impact of Cohocton I and II as well as Ecogen's project upon area of the Finger Lakes that was considered by the State as highly aesthetically and geologically significant.
14. Details of construction and road improvement and dust control in the DEIS- not later.
15. Details of public safety and complaint resolution
16. Third party monitoring
17. Buried cable when at all possible as in overview of project handed to leaseholders.
18. Details, references and documentation of UPC's experience in the USA from completed projects!
19. Recommissioning especially to larger MW towers.
20. Bonding
21. Details of costs/funding of permitting and developing of project.
22. Details of GML 239.
23. Details of formal and informal meetings with Town Board.
Mentioned in the Final Scope that is contrary to the DEIS:
1. One meteorological tower.
2. Cabling between turbines and most of collection system will be buried.
3. Precise locations
4. Precise location of access roads
5. Precise location of cabling
6. Precise location of electrical interconnection facilities/lines
7. Precise location of substations
8. Precise location of staging and storage areas
9. Precise location of parking areas
10. Precise location of operations and maintenance facilities
11. Precise location of permanent meteorological towers, lights, fences and gates!!
12. Detailed specifications of make and model of turbines
13. Detailed specifications of tower foundation
14. Number of days of operations and conditions
15. Details of routine maintenance
16. Discussion of blasting or dewatering
17. Copies of any studies
18. Expected Annual rate of power generation and its effect on local rates!!
19. Wind speed and energy production data that were evaluated when selecting each turbine.
20. Expected starting and ending dates as well as anticipated phasing of construction.
21. Principal activities that will occur during each phase of construction.
22. All areas affected by construction in the vicinity and safeguards taken.
23. Timing and implementation criteria for all measures to control construction dust.
24. Protocol to avoid nematode cysts contamination.
25. Protocol for on site compliance monitoring by qualified agro-environmental inspector.
26. Funding of monitoring.
27. Project impact on budgets of affected communities along with tax distribution.
28. Potential local revenues.
29. Project construction and operational costs and off set of project revenue.
30. All construction related expenditures.
31. Noise mitigation of 3 to 6 dB and greater than 6 dB.
32. All access roads gated and locked.
33. Lists of potential emergencies and response service providers.
34. Fire and Emergency equipment and training provided by applicant.
35. Probability of tower collapse, catastrophic failure, ice throw along with winter usage.
36. Interviews will residential groundwater well owners.
37. Means of documentation of existing pre construction road conditions.
38. Propose avoidance of radio, television, microwave and mobile telephone interference
39. Alternative project areas, turbine sites to minimize VISUAL and NOISE impacts, agricultural impacts!
Throughout the DEIS, mitigation was the unlikeliness of the happening, instead of, if the occurrence transpired, how would it be mitigated in detail. Vague explanations are not implied by the scope nor the SEQR process!! Plans to be finalized after the DEIS are absolutely unacceptable.
The WFP DEIS is unacceptable unless all scoping areas are addressed since SEQR Process"is intended to follow a systematic, relatively predictable process in creating the substantive environmental review."
This substantive review was detailed in the SCOPE with public input!! It has not be substantively addressed in the DEIS!
Respectfully,
Dr. Alice Sokolow
34 Avonmore Way
Penfield, NY 14526
In a message dated 8/15/2006 12:15:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bahughes@gw.dec.state.ny.us writes:
Dr. Sokolow:
Your question was routed to me for reply. In general, the SEQR process continues from whatever stage it reached before the lead agency was changed. While the lead agency re-establishment language in 6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(6) doesn't address that precise question, 6 NYCRR 617.3(h) [SEQR's General Rules] makes it clear that the legislative and regulatory design of SEQR is intended to follow a systematic, relatively predictable process in creating the substantive environmental review, "(h) Agencies must carry out the terms and requirements of this Part with minimum procedural and administrative delay, must avoid unnecessary duplication of reporting and review requirements by providing, where feasible, for combined or consolidated proceedings, and must expedite all SEQR proceedings in the interest of prompt review." [emphasis added].
Thus, in this case, the approved Final Scope would still be valid and should serve as the basis for the Draft EIS. I hope that this responds adequately to your question.
B. A. Hughes
Chief, SEQR and Training
Division of Environmental Permits
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway - 4th floor SW
Albany NY 12233-1750
(518) 402-9158 (direct); 402-9167 (office)
(518) 402-9167 (fax)
bahughes@gw.dec.state.ny.us
>>>
DEAR NY DEC,
If a Scope is completed for a project with public participation and
Final Written Scope and then the LEAD Agency is changed, does the Final
Scoping determination transfer and continue to apply to the project??
Dr. Alice Sokolow
Monday, August 14, 2006
A Win for Property Owners, Setback for Kelo Developers by William F. Jasper
The Ohio Supreme Court delivered a unanimous and historic ruling on July 26 that is being heralded as a major victory for property rights and a stinging blow to last year's infamous U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision, which ruled that local governments can use eminent domain powers to condemn private property for commercial development.
The most immediate beneficiaries of the Ohio ruling are Carl and Joy Gamble of Norwood, Ohio, who faced losing their home of 35 years. They and their neighbors in a tidy Norwood neighborhood were to be evicted by Norwood officials in favor of a developer who had plans to replace their homes with a condominium-office-shopping complex; the court decision rejected Norwood’s “right” to do so.
“Our home is ours again!” exclaimed Joy Gamble, after learning of the ruling. “The Ohio Supreme Court finally made us Americans again,” Carl Gamble added. “We haven’t had the heart or the will to see our home of more than 35 years since the City and the developer forced us out and fenced it off, but I’m sure we’ll be taking a ride back up there today. This is just terrific!”
Dana Berliner, an attorney for the Institute for Justice that represented property owners in the case, said the Ohio court’s decision will have a major impact in high courts and legislatures across the country. “This case is really part of a trend throughout the country of states responding to and rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision last year,” she said. “There are now 28 states that have taken legislative steps to protect owners more after that decision, and this case is the next movement in that trend, and I believe now not only legislatures but other courts are going to begin rejecting that terrible decision.”
The most immediate beneficiaries of the Ohio ruling are Carl and Joy Gamble of Norwood, Ohio, who faced losing their home of 35 years. They and their neighbors in a tidy Norwood neighborhood were to be evicted by Norwood officials in favor of a developer who had plans to replace their homes with a condominium-office-shopping complex; the court decision rejected Norwood’s “right” to do so.
“Our home is ours again!” exclaimed Joy Gamble, after learning of the ruling. “The Ohio Supreme Court finally made us Americans again,” Carl Gamble added. “We haven’t had the heart or the will to see our home of more than 35 years since the City and the developer forced us out and fenced it off, but I’m sure we’ll be taking a ride back up there today. This is just terrific!”
Dana Berliner, an attorney for the Institute for Justice that represented property owners in the case, said the Ohio court’s decision will have a major impact in high courts and legislatures across the country. “This case is really part of a trend throughout the country of states responding to and rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision last year,” she said. “There are now 28 states that have taken legislative steps to protect owners more after that decision, and this case is the next movement in that trend, and I believe now not only legislatures but other courts are going to begin rejecting that terrible decision.”
Friday, August 11, 2006
Regulations governing noise levels - pdf Workplace Toxis Torts
Another example is the regulations governing noise levels. Sound is a pressure variation that the ear can detect, and, when measured, is usually converted into decibels (dB). OSHA requires hearing protection equipment when sound levels exceed 90 dBa (decibels on the “A” scale) over an eight hour shift. 29 C.F. R. § 1910.95(a). Whenever average exposures over an eight hour day exceed 85 dBa, the employer must implement and administer an effective hearing conservation program. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.95 (c)(1).
Nothing in these regulations addresses the risk to a fetus. Indeed, OSHA requires noise
levels to be measured on the “A” scale of a sound meter rather than the less discriminatory “C” scale, which can better measure all of the sound penetrating the mother’s abdomen. Sound levels measured on the C scale will include all frequencies, including low frequency sound. An OSHA dBa reading will be generally lower than a dBc reading. Noise levels that may be safe to adults can cause hearing impairment in fetuses. “Noise: A Hazard for the Fetus and Newborn,” Pediatrics, vol. 100, no. 4 (Oct. 4, 1997). According to American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), noise exposures in excess of a time weighted, 8 hour average of 115 decibels (dBc) beyond 5 months of pregnancy can cause hearing loss in the fetus. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that exposure to excessive noise during pregnancy may result in high frequency hearing loss in newborns. This organization specifically recommends that OSHA give consideration to pregnant women when setting
occupational noise standards. Under the current regulations, OSHA-compliant employer may be routinely exposing the unborn child to excessive occupational noise without any protection. As demonstrated in these common examples, OSHA regulations are outdated in light of current scientific knowledge. Mere compliance with federal regulations neither ensures adequate protection for the unborn children of employees nor shields employers from tort liability. In short, the current state of law creates the worst of both worlds for employers.
Nothing in these regulations addresses the risk to a fetus. Indeed, OSHA requires noise
levels to be measured on the “A” scale of a sound meter rather than the less discriminatory “C” scale, which can better measure all of the sound penetrating the mother’s abdomen. Sound levels measured on the C scale will include all frequencies, including low frequency sound. An OSHA dBa reading will be generally lower than a dBc reading. Noise levels that may be safe to adults can cause hearing impairment in fetuses. “Noise: A Hazard for the Fetus and Newborn,” Pediatrics, vol. 100, no. 4 (Oct. 4, 1997). According to American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), noise exposures in excess of a time weighted, 8 hour average of 115 decibels (dBc) beyond 5 months of pregnancy can cause hearing loss in the fetus. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that exposure to excessive noise during pregnancy may result in high frequency hearing loss in newborns. This organization specifically recommends that OSHA give consideration to pregnant women when setting
occupational noise standards. Under the current regulations, OSHA-compliant employer may be routinely exposing the unborn child to excessive occupational noise without any protection. As demonstrated in these common examples, OSHA regulations are outdated in light of current scientific knowledge. Mere compliance with federal regulations neither ensures adequate protection for the unborn children of employees nor shields employers from tort liability. In short, the current state of law creates the worst of both worlds for employers.
Paul Gettys letter to the Cohocton Town Board
COHOCTON WIND POWER
LETTER TO MESSIEURS ZIGENFUS, WISE, DYCKMAN
LEVESQUE AND HUNT
This is a follow up to my letter in the August 1, 2006 issue of this paper. In this article I mentioned Mr. Hunt’s current justification for this project is the generation of power which will be of great benefit to others on the electric grid, namely others within New York State.
On page 5B of the Wednesday August 9, 2006 issue of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle paper, there is an article on a proposed plan to build a “super power line” through several upstate communities to carry more electricity to New York City. It is proposed to build a 200-mile long line from Utica to Orange County in the lower Hudson Valley. The private company New York Regional Interconnect is proposing this project. This article states: “Northeast metropolitan areas including New York City face unparalleled problems meeting electricity demand, according to a report released Tuesday by the federal Energy Department. NYRI says electricity demand in New York City’s northern suburbs is expected to outstrip supply in a few years, and a new high-capacity line is needed to carry power from central and western New York.”This being the case, any power generated by a wind power project in the Southern Tier, specifically Cohocton, would be used to alleviate power shortages in New York City and the surrounding suburbs. In the past there were several proposed projects to construct landfills and radioactive dumps in Western New York and they were objected to strenuously by the people of Western New York. The principal reason being, why should
our surroundings be deteriorated to make a profit for some developer and to assist New York City or some other urban area to resolve problems of their own making.
In my opinion, the same premise applies to the current proposed wind power projects. The shortage of power in other areas can be alleviated by projects in those areas such as photoelectric cell projects and wind power projects. I do not feel that we should decimate our landscape to provide electricity to other areas of the State.
Much has been made of the statement: “Not In My Backyard”. Currently it is mostly used in a negative manner, mainly by environmentalists and power people who do not even live in our backyard. Yes, some well intentioned people feel that we should contribute our landscape and financial well being to help others. Myself, I feel if we do not protect our Town who will. It should be noted that I have included financial as the study referred to in the DEIS which states that property values would be unaffected by the construction of wind towers appears to be flawed. Please see the Cohocton Wind Watch web site for additional details.
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
LETTER TO MESSIEURS ZIGENFUS, WISE, DYCKMAN
LEVESQUE AND HUNT
This is a follow up to my letter in the August 1, 2006 issue of this paper. In this article I mentioned Mr. Hunt’s current justification for this project is the generation of power which will be of great benefit to others on the electric grid, namely others within New York State.
On page 5B of the Wednesday August 9, 2006 issue of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle paper, there is an article on a proposed plan to build a “super power line” through several upstate communities to carry more electricity to New York City. It is proposed to build a 200-mile long line from Utica to Orange County in the lower Hudson Valley. The private company New York Regional Interconnect is proposing this project. This article states: “Northeast metropolitan areas including New York City face unparalleled problems meeting electricity demand, according to a report released Tuesday by the federal Energy Department. NYRI says electricity demand in New York City’s northern suburbs is expected to outstrip supply in a few years, and a new high-capacity line is needed to carry power from central and western New York.”This being the case, any power generated by a wind power project in the Southern Tier, specifically Cohocton, would be used to alleviate power shortages in New York City and the surrounding suburbs. In the past there were several proposed projects to construct landfills and radioactive dumps in Western New York and they were objected to strenuously by the people of Western New York. The principal reason being, why should
our surroundings be deteriorated to make a profit for some developer and to assist New York City or some other urban area to resolve problems of their own making.
In my opinion, the same premise applies to the current proposed wind power projects. The shortage of power in other areas can be alleviated by projects in those areas such as photoelectric cell projects and wind power projects. I do not feel that we should decimate our landscape to provide electricity to other areas of the State.
Much has been made of the statement: “Not In My Backyard”. Currently it is mostly used in a negative manner, mainly by environmentalists and power people who do not even live in our backyard. Yes, some well intentioned people feel that we should contribute our landscape and financial well being to help others. Myself, I feel if we do not protect our Town who will. It should be noted that I have included financial as the study referred to in the DEIS which states that property values would be unaffected by the construction of wind towers appears to be flawed. Please see the Cohocton Wind Watch web site for additional details.
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
Thursday, August 10, 2006
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait August 10, 2006 letter to the Cohocton Planning Board
Date: August 10,2006
To: Town Board and 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.
I respectfully submit a SECOND request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town's negligently, and irresponsibly out of date (i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) "Comprehensive Master Plan" before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered?
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC's track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights and potential liabilities of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town liabilities?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent "oath of silence" and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the Planning Board's Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board's meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article l;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the "PURPOSE of said law is:
"2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:...
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas...
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community."
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987; Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE SECOND TIME IN WRITING and at least the SECOND TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers and that the Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
To: Town Board and 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.
I respectfully submit a SECOND request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town's negligently, and irresponsibly out of date (i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) "Comprehensive Master Plan" before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered?
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC's track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights and potential liabilities of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town liabilities?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent "oath of silence" and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the Planning Board's Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board's meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article l;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the "PURPOSE of said law is:
"2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:...
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas...
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community."
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987; Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE SECOND TIME IN WRITING and at least the SECOND TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers and that the Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Cohocton Clean is back online
Thank you to everyone that assisted in bringing Cohocton Clean back online: Mark Densmore, Jane Towner and "Red Dog".
Cohoctonclean.blogspot.com
Cohoctonclean.blogspot.com
Monday, August 07, 2006
Donna Marmuscak earthquake effects from industrial wind turbines?
Hi everyone in Cohocton,
You don't know me but I am trying to help fight industrial wind turbines along with you. I have been to several of your informational meetings. More on all that at a later date. I am going to try to attach an article that I just sent to Sue Silinski. I have been concerned about the vibrations on our bedrock. These huge wind turbines would have to have an effect. There have been earthquakes in New York. I think someday we are in for a pretty big one. What are those setbacks? Has there been any research done? One of my sisters has a geology degree from Alfred and another, the one who sent me the article, is studying it in Arizona. Let's not bury our heads in the sand. There will be a whole lot of shaking goin' on here too if they put these windturbines in! "talk" to you later.
Donna Marmuscak
MENTOR, Ohio (AP) -- A corner of suburban Cleveland has become the earthquake capital of Ohio, shaking on average every two weeks since New Year's Day and making people wonder: What's next?
The quakes haven't caused any serious problems and sometimes even go unnoticed. Experts aren't sure why they are happening, but they do know they are happening frequently: Twelve were recorded in the area by July 1.
"I heard one," said Jim Farrell, 79, of Mentor, a retired plasterer with an eye for wall damage. Still, he hasn't seen any damage and hasn't felt any of the quakes recorded in Lake County and under adjacent Lake Erie.
The earthquakes have been small, measuring from magnitude 2.0 to 3.8. In comparison, the 1994 quake that hit the Northridge area of Los Angeles, California, was a 6.7 magnitude.
Though they are occurring often now, earthquakes aren't uncommon in the region. Lake County has been the site for 14 of the 20 earthquakes recorded in the state in the past two years. The quakes result from a fault, or crack, that is under pressure, one of a number of faults in Ohio, most of which are under the sedimentary bedrock.
Ground zero for keeping track of the Lake County earthquakes is a busy classroom building on the Lakeland Community College campus, where a seismic monitor sits on the concrete floor of a tiny closet housing electric boxes.
The monitor is sensitive enough to pick up the rumblings of a heavy truck along nearby Interstate 90, according to David Pierce, an assistant geology professor who keeps tabs on readings forwarded to the statewide Ohio Seismic Network near Columbus.
To Pierce, a low-level earthquake "always feels like a semi [tractor-trailer] coming down my street and hits a rock or a speed bump," sending a boom like a burst of compressed air.
Pierce, like police and fire departments, can get dozens of calls when an earthquake strikes, often from people happy to learn that it didn't do damage and wasn't a terror attack.
Without damage or injury from the series of quakes, the question for many is: Will the next one be worse?
"The official take is: We don't know," Pierce said.
The frequent quakes have prompted some caution among officials. A top concern for some Lake County authorities is the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, which was constructed to withstand a building-shaking 6.0 earthquake and opened in 1987 a year after a 5.0 quake in Lake County.
The biggest of the recent earthquakes, a 3.8 temblor recorded June 20, automatically set off alarms to alert a plant command post. That sent 30 inspectors on a four-hour search for any indication of cracked pipes or other damage.
None was found, Perry spokeswoman Jennifer Young said. The plant remained in operation without interruption during detailed inspections of cement walls and pipelines reinforced with shock absorbers to handle shaking.
Data indicates homeowners aren't making many changes to protect against the quakes. There is little evidence that many homeowners have made moves to buy earthquake insurance, said Gary Christy with the Westfield Group insurance. Nine percent of the Westfield-insured homes in Lake County have earthquake insurance.
Nationwide Insurance agent Gerald Merhar in nearby Willoughby said about 15 percent of his homeowner policies have earthquake coverage riders costing about $20 a year for a frame home and $30 for brick.
Merhar, 57, whose own home has a repaired crack from a quake more than 50 years ago, recommends coverage, especially for brick homes. "They don't shake well," he said.
You don't know me but I am trying to help fight industrial wind turbines along with you. I have been to several of your informational meetings. More on all that at a later date. I am going to try to attach an article that I just sent to Sue Silinski. I have been concerned about the vibrations on our bedrock. These huge wind turbines would have to have an effect. There have been earthquakes in New York. I think someday we are in for a pretty big one. What are those setbacks? Has there been any research done? One of my sisters has a geology degree from Alfred and another, the one who sent me the article, is studying it in Arizona. Let's not bury our heads in the sand. There will be a whole lot of shaking goin' on here too if they put these windturbines in! "talk" to you later.
Donna Marmuscak
MENTOR, Ohio (AP) -- A corner of suburban Cleveland has become the earthquake capital of Ohio, shaking on average every two weeks since New Year's Day and making people wonder: What's next?
The quakes haven't caused any serious problems and sometimes even go unnoticed. Experts aren't sure why they are happening, but they do know they are happening frequently: Twelve were recorded in the area by July 1.
"I heard one," said Jim Farrell, 79, of Mentor, a retired plasterer with an eye for wall damage. Still, he hasn't seen any damage and hasn't felt any of the quakes recorded in Lake County and under adjacent Lake Erie.
The earthquakes have been small, measuring from magnitude 2.0 to 3.8. In comparison, the 1994 quake that hit the Northridge area of Los Angeles, California, was a 6.7 magnitude.
Though they are occurring often now, earthquakes aren't uncommon in the region. Lake County has been the site for 14 of the 20 earthquakes recorded in the state in the past two years. The quakes result from a fault, or crack, that is under pressure, one of a number of faults in Ohio, most of which are under the sedimentary bedrock.
Ground zero for keeping track of the Lake County earthquakes is a busy classroom building on the Lakeland Community College campus, where a seismic monitor sits on the concrete floor of a tiny closet housing electric boxes.
The monitor is sensitive enough to pick up the rumblings of a heavy truck along nearby Interstate 90, according to David Pierce, an assistant geology professor who keeps tabs on readings forwarded to the statewide Ohio Seismic Network near Columbus.
To Pierce, a low-level earthquake "always feels like a semi [tractor-trailer] coming down my street and hits a rock or a speed bump," sending a boom like a burst of compressed air.
Pierce, like police and fire departments, can get dozens of calls when an earthquake strikes, often from people happy to learn that it didn't do damage and wasn't a terror attack.
Without damage or injury from the series of quakes, the question for many is: Will the next one be worse?
"The official take is: We don't know," Pierce said.
The frequent quakes have prompted some caution among officials. A top concern for some Lake County authorities is the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, which was constructed to withstand a building-shaking 6.0 earthquake and opened in 1987 a year after a 5.0 quake in Lake County.
The biggest of the recent earthquakes, a 3.8 temblor recorded June 20, automatically set off alarms to alert a plant command post. That sent 30 inspectors on a four-hour search for any indication of cracked pipes or other damage.
None was found, Perry spokeswoman Jennifer Young said. The plant remained in operation without interruption during detailed inspections of cement walls and pipelines reinforced with shock absorbers to handle shaking.
Data indicates homeowners aren't making many changes to protect against the quakes. There is little evidence that many homeowners have made moves to buy earthquake insurance, said Gary Christy with the Westfield Group insurance. Nine percent of the Westfield-insured homes in Lake County have earthquake insurance.
Nationwide Insurance agent Gerald Merhar in nearby Willoughby said about 15 percent of his homeowner policies have earthquake coverage riders costing about $20 a year for a frame home and $30 for brick.
Merhar, 57, whose own home has a repaired crack from a quake more than 50 years ago, recommends coverage, especially for brick homes. "They don't shake well," he said.
Nightly News broadcast regarding Lowville
Last night (Saturday, 8/5), the final report on the Nightly News about the Lowville wind farm was of great interest to me. I’m pleased to see that this important issue is getting some long overdue national broadcast media attention. I understand the time constraints inherent in a Nightly News segment and hope that some of the issues you were not able to cover in this piece will be vetted in subsequent broadcasts on your show or shows like Dateline.
Of particular importance to taxpayers, utility customers, and environmentalists are issues such as:
-the huge publicly funded incentives (there are many) that make wind turbines extremely lucrative,
-the origin of many of these incentives (secret ‘consultations’ between Ken Lay and Dick Cheney),
-the position of energy companies that the current wind technology does not make economic sense,
-the fact that investment bankers, not energy companies, are building ‘wind parks,’ (the Lowville installation portrayed in the piece is half owned by Goldman Sachs, with JP Morgan planning to construct thousands of turbines in New York and Michigan),
-the unreliability of wind power, the destabilizing effects this has on the grid, and GE’s estimate that the net avoided generation from traditional sources is 10 per cent of rated turbine capacity,
-the counter-cyclical nature of wind generation of electricity (highest during the middle of the night when demand is lowest, and smallest at dawn and dusk when demand peaks),
-the requirement that the grid buy wind power whenever it is produced even if it is not needed,
-the pattern of the manufacturers to solve problems by building ever-bigger turbines,
-the fact that the current generation of turbines is almost four hundred feet tall with a footprint bigger than the largest pyramid (Cheops),
-that there are problems with everything from bird and bat deaths, to changes in the microclimate under the turbines, to stray voltage, to unmetered power being used by the operators to run the generators as motors to spin the turbines fast enough to then produce power to sell back to the grid,
-to the developers’ myriad of lies and broken promises for everything from large numbers of jobs and lower electric rates, to ruined roads and lower property values and ‘gag’ clauses in leases and ‘neighbor agreements’ that prevent open and truthful discussion of the problems caused by turbines,
-to the conflicts of interest, questionable business dealings, and outright illegalities of local officials in favor of development,
-to the rush by developers to build tens of thousands of turbines in populated areas of the Northeast before opposition can organize and educate the general population to the magnitude of this scandal.
I would be happy to provide documentation to back any of these statements. I would also be happy to put you in touch with experts in a variety of fields who can elaborate on these and other reasons industrial wind plants are a bad deal for host communities, our country, and the environment.
Best,
Wayne Miller
2852 State Route 11
North Bangor, NY
518-483-0816
P.S. The town of Lowville is not pronounced like ‘low’ as it was at the end of your report, but in a manner that rhymes with the ‘bow’ of a ship.
Of particular importance to taxpayers, utility customers, and environmentalists are issues such as:
-the huge publicly funded incentives (there are many) that make wind turbines extremely lucrative,
-the origin of many of these incentives (secret ‘consultations’ between Ken Lay and Dick Cheney),
-the position of energy companies that the current wind technology does not make economic sense,
-the fact that investment bankers, not energy companies, are building ‘wind parks,’ (the Lowville installation portrayed in the piece is half owned by Goldman Sachs, with JP Morgan planning to construct thousands of turbines in New York and Michigan),
-the unreliability of wind power, the destabilizing effects this has on the grid, and GE’s estimate that the net avoided generation from traditional sources is 10 per cent of rated turbine capacity,
-the counter-cyclical nature of wind generation of electricity (highest during the middle of the night when demand is lowest, and smallest at dawn and dusk when demand peaks),
-the requirement that the grid buy wind power whenever it is produced even if it is not needed,
-the pattern of the manufacturers to solve problems by building ever-bigger turbines,
-the fact that the current generation of turbines is almost four hundred feet tall with a footprint bigger than the largest pyramid (Cheops),
-that there are problems with everything from bird and bat deaths, to changes in the microclimate under the turbines, to stray voltage, to unmetered power being used by the operators to run the generators as motors to spin the turbines fast enough to then produce power to sell back to the grid,
-to the developers’ myriad of lies and broken promises for everything from large numbers of jobs and lower electric rates, to ruined roads and lower property values and ‘gag’ clauses in leases and ‘neighbor agreements’ that prevent open and truthful discussion of the problems caused by turbines,
-to the conflicts of interest, questionable business dealings, and outright illegalities of local officials in favor of development,
-to the rush by developers to build tens of thousands of turbines in populated areas of the Northeast before opposition can organize and educate the general population to the magnitude of this scandal.
I would be happy to provide documentation to back any of these statements. I would also be happy to put you in touch with experts in a variety of fields who can elaborate on these and other reasons industrial wind plants are a bad deal for host communities, our country, and the environment.
Best,
Wayne Miller
2852 State Route 11
North Bangor, NY
518-483-0816
P.S. The town of Lowville is not pronounced like ‘low’ as it was at the end of your report, but in a manner that rhymes with the ‘bow’ of a ship.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Lince responds to Marion Trieste / ACENY
Marion Trieste, Alliance for Clean Energy New York
From the ACENY website...
"NEW REPORT FINDS NO EVIDENCE OF IMPACTS ON
PROPERTY VALUES FROM WIND FARM
Suggests property value effects should take on less importance in siting proceedings"
Larisa Washburn, program associate of Environmental Advocates of New York. “This study sheds light on a common concern in communities deciding whether or not to build a wind farm and shows that property values are not impacted.”
"The report finds there to be no measurable effect on values. These findings held even when concentrating on homes that were within a mile of the turbines"
http://www.aceny.org/pdfs/misc/Property%20Value%20Study%20Press%20Release5_24_06.pdf
Mrs. Trieste, thank you for your response to my letter. The response was posted on the yeswindcohocton.blogspot.com (included below). To ground our dialog in reference to the term paper rather than opinion, I will provide quotes from the report. I find your suggestion that I am "interpreting" fasinating considering I am quoting and using data from the report itself.
1. We agree that no property was analyzed within 3/4 mile. However, you then stating that Mr. Hoen talked to owners and “feeling there is no impact” does not warrant further discussion in a scientific study. Further, it's irresponsible to do so to cover this deficiency. Mr. Hoen writes on page 40/41, “Distance: This study contains homes only as close as 0.75 miles or 4000 feet to the turbines. HVTL studies have found effects exist only inside 500 feet (Des-Rosiers, 2002). Future studies should find communities with homes closer than 0.75 miles, and preferably as close as 500 feet if they exist.”
Mr. Hoen's words - not mine.
2. I’m sorry, this is correct, 38 of the 43 were at 2 or more miles, and the average distance (DIS_TO_WNDMILS) was 3.50 miles. We agree 5 were at 1 mile (I did not state differently). Are you stating Mr. Hoen's data is incorrect? Mr Hoen writes on page 56 (I have removed confusing data Mean/Min/Max)
"Table VIII: Description of Viewshed Variables
VIEWSHED VARIABLES Mean MinimumMaximum Frequency
DIS_TO_WNDMILS 3.50
VIEW 43
VIEW1MILE 5
VIEW2MILE 15
VIEW3MILE 6
VIEW4MILE 11
VIEW5MILE 6 "
Again, Mr. Hoen's data - not an "interpretation"
I’m also somewhat concerned that you stated that 50% (140 of 280) of the homes analyzed sold prior to the implementation of the wind turbines. Please expand on this point.
3. There is no confusion on vista. I fully understand the difference in vista and turbine view. I did not state vista was "intentionally" left out - simply that the value of vista is specifically addressed and it is not included, period. Mr. Hoen writes on page 41: “Vista: This study does not include a separate measurement for “vista” (or good view) in its analysis. For example, Haughton (2004) finds that homes with a high percentage of "vista" represented in their value (such as might be found in homes on the coast) might be affected differently by wind development."
Again, Mr. Hoen's words, not mine.
Mrs. Trieste, I’m sure you stand by the paper’s own words and data. I remain of the position that these three clearly addressed items make it highly irresponsible for the author or your organization to make any conclusion about properties close to wind turbines. Where's the "concentration on homes within 1 mile"???
Further, I wholeheartedly agree when you write in your response (and I quote) “…that there might be an effect inside of 3,000 feet that exists that the study did not discern. What size the effect might be, if it exists, seems to be the important question” It’s not clear if these are Mr. Hoen’s words or yours --- either case, you make the very point of my original letter that this study does not offer any evidence for those closest to the turbines.
Mrs. Trieste, I am calling on you to be fair to the good citizens of Cohocton and other towns in which you speak with authority. You have a responsbility to tell those closest to the wind turbines "there might be an effect inside 3,000 feet; this seems to be the important question". If you can state so here - you should say so in public.
Setbacks being proposed of 500-1,500 feet to residential structures --- right where your study has no data. I realize ACENY's board of directors consists of wind developers(Horizon, PPM, AWS Truewind) but this lack of disclosure and "spin" should greatly concern all property owners closest to proposed wind projects in New York.
Sincerely,
Jim Lince
Cohocton, NY
[Response posted on YESWINDCOHOCTON.BLOGSPOT.COM]
Response to posting of James Lince on Cohocton Wind Watch Blog
Printed with permission from Marion Trieste ACENY
Lince reply LTE
I appreciate the time you have taken to review Mr. Hoen’s study, but respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Going back to Mr. Hoen’s study, the homes in the community surrounding the wind farm did not show evidence of a decline in property values. That said, I would be glad to correct your interpretations of the Hoen study by answering each of your questions in your letter dated Aug. 2, 2006.
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.
Ans: The study is very clear about this, and states that there might be an effect inside of 3,000 feet that exists that the study did not discern. What size the effect might be, if it exists, seems to be the important question. The study used all houses that sold during the study period, it did not choose which ones to study. Why the houses inside 3,000 feet did not sell seems as an important question. Have you talked to the folks that live inside of 3,000 feet? Mr. Hoen has, and they do not feel impacted. I suggest you go to Fenner and talk to them if you don’t believe Mr. Hoen’s account.
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.
Ans: This is not correct. The study states that 5 homes were inside of 1 mile that had a view and the rest were between 1 and 5.99 miles. Regarding the number of homes with a view, the model does not need or want all, or a large percentage of home to have a view. In fact, if all homes had a view it would not be able to control for those without a view. Having 43 homes out of 280 that had a view, half of which sold before the wind farm was put up means that 30% of the homes that sold after the wind farm was put up (43 out of 140) had a view. This seems like a large percentage to me.
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).
Ans: It seems you are confused about what the study concluded. The author makes an important distinction between view (of turbines) and vista (a nice view). Mr. Hoen recommends a variable for vista be included in future studies because it might influence the results of the variable for view (of turbines). It was not excluded intentionally as you suggest. The author suggests that the close in effects would most likely not have been influenced by vista. He goes on to suggest that homes further from the wind farm that can both see the wind farm and have a nice vista might be mixing their results. But homes close in that can see the wind farm do not necessarily have a nice vista. Either way, if the effects were strongly negative in regards to view from the wind farm, they would have shown up, as other variables, such as number of acres did.
I hope I answered all of your questions to your satisfaction.
Marion Trieste
Alliance for Clean Energy New York
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
From the ACENY website...
"NEW REPORT FINDS NO EVIDENCE OF IMPACTS ON
PROPERTY VALUES FROM WIND FARM
Suggests property value effects should take on less importance in siting proceedings"
Larisa Washburn, program associate of Environmental Advocates of New York. “This study sheds light on a common concern in communities deciding whether or not to build a wind farm and shows that property values are not impacted.”
"The report finds there to be no measurable effect on values. These findings held even when concentrating on homes that were within a mile of the turbines"
http://www.aceny.org/pdfs/misc/Property%20Value%20Study%20Press%20Release5_24_06.pdf
Mrs. Trieste, thank you for your response to my letter. The response was posted on the yeswindcohocton.blogspot.com (included below). To ground our dialog in reference to the term paper rather than opinion, I will provide quotes from the report. I find your suggestion that I am "interpreting" fasinating considering I am quoting and using data from the report itself.
1. We agree that no property was analyzed within 3/4 mile. However, you then stating that Mr. Hoen talked to owners and “feeling there is no impact” does not warrant further discussion in a scientific study. Further, it's irresponsible to do so to cover this deficiency. Mr. Hoen writes on page 40/41, “Distance: This study contains homes only as close as 0.75 miles or 4000 feet to the turbines. HVTL studies have found effects exist only inside 500 feet (Des-Rosiers, 2002). Future studies should find communities with homes closer than 0.75 miles, and preferably as close as 500 feet if they exist.”
Mr. Hoen's words - not mine.
2. I’m sorry, this is correct, 38 of the 43 were at 2 or more miles, and the average distance (DIS_TO_WNDMILS) was 3.50 miles. We agree 5 were at 1 mile (I did not state differently). Are you stating Mr. Hoen's data is incorrect? Mr Hoen writes on page 56 (I have removed confusing data Mean/Min/Max)
"Table VIII: Description of Viewshed Variables
VIEWSHED VARIABLES Mean MinimumMaximum Frequency
DIS_TO_WNDMILS 3.50
VIEW 43
VIEW1MILE 5
VIEW2MILE 15
VIEW3MILE 6
VIEW4MILE 11
VIEW5MILE 6 "
Again, Mr. Hoen's data - not an "interpretation"
I’m also somewhat concerned that you stated that 50% (140 of 280) of the homes analyzed sold prior to the implementation of the wind turbines. Please expand on this point.
3. There is no confusion on vista. I fully understand the difference in vista and turbine view. I did not state vista was "intentionally" left out - simply that the value of vista is specifically addressed and it is not included, period. Mr. Hoen writes on page 41: “Vista: This study does not include a separate measurement for “vista” (or good view) in its analysis. For example, Haughton (2004) finds that homes with a high percentage of "vista" represented in their value (such as might be found in homes on the coast) might be affected differently by wind development."
Again, Mr. Hoen's words, not mine.
Mrs. Trieste, I’m sure you stand by the paper’s own words and data. I remain of the position that these three clearly addressed items make it highly irresponsible for the author or your organization to make any conclusion about properties close to wind turbines. Where's the "concentration on homes within 1 mile"???
Further, I wholeheartedly agree when you write in your response (and I quote) “…that there might be an effect inside of 3,000 feet that exists that the study did not discern. What size the effect might be, if it exists, seems to be the important question” It’s not clear if these are Mr. Hoen’s words or yours --- either case, you make the very point of my original letter that this study does not offer any evidence for those closest to the turbines.
Mrs. Trieste, I am calling on you to be fair to the good citizens of Cohocton and other towns in which you speak with authority. You have a responsbility to tell those closest to the wind turbines "there might be an effect inside 3,000 feet; this seems to be the important question". If you can state so here - you should say so in public.
Setbacks being proposed of 500-1,500 feet to residential structures --- right where your study has no data. I realize ACENY's board of directors consists of wind developers(Horizon, PPM, AWS Truewind) but this lack of disclosure and "spin" should greatly concern all property owners closest to proposed wind projects in New York.
Sincerely,
Jim Lince
Cohocton, NY
[Response posted on YESWINDCOHOCTON.BLOGSPOT.COM]
Response to posting of James Lince on Cohocton Wind Watch Blog
Printed with permission from Marion Trieste ACENY
Lince reply LTE
I appreciate the time you have taken to review Mr. Hoen’s study, but respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Going back to Mr. Hoen’s study, the homes in the community surrounding the wind farm did not show evidence of a decline in property values. That said, I would be glad to correct your interpretations of the Hoen study by answering each of your questions in your letter dated Aug. 2, 2006.
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.
Ans: The study is very clear about this, and states that there might be an effect inside of 3,000 feet that exists that the study did not discern. What size the effect might be, if it exists, seems to be the important question. The study used all houses that sold during the study period, it did not choose which ones to study. Why the houses inside 3,000 feet did not sell seems as an important question. Have you talked to the folks that live inside of 3,000 feet? Mr. Hoen has, and they do not feel impacted. I suggest you go to Fenner and talk to them if you don’t believe Mr. Hoen’s account.
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.
Ans: This is not correct. The study states that 5 homes were inside of 1 mile that had a view and the rest were between 1 and 5.99 miles. Regarding the number of homes with a view, the model does not need or want all, or a large percentage of home to have a view. In fact, if all homes had a view it would not be able to control for those without a view. Having 43 homes out of 280 that had a view, half of which sold before the wind farm was put up means that 30% of the homes that sold after the wind farm was put up (43 out of 140) had a view. This seems like a large percentage to me.
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).
Ans: It seems you are confused about what the study concluded. The author makes an important distinction between view (of turbines) and vista (a nice view). Mr. Hoen recommends a variable for vista be included in future studies because it might influence the results of the variable for view (of turbines). It was not excluded intentionally as you suggest. The author suggests that the close in effects would most likely not have been influenced by vista. He goes on to suggest that homes further from the wind farm that can both see the wind farm and have a nice vista might be mixing their results. But homes close in that can see the wind farm do not necessarily have a nice vista. Either way, if the effects were strongly negative in regards to view from the wind farm, they would have shown up, as other variables, such as number of acres did.
I hope I answered all of your questions to your satisfaction.
Marion Trieste
Alliance for Clean Energy New York
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
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Alternatives to current windfarm proposals
We congratulate the Town of Italy Board on their recent decision to establish a fair and reasonable set of zoning regulations. This decision effectively ends the debate about industrial windfarms in Italy. However several proposals continue to be evaluated by residents and leaders in Prattsburgh and Cohocton. In our efforts to objectively evaluate the Ecogen project we have learned a great deal about the pros and cons of windfarms, and offer the following suggestions to our neighbors who are still considering these developments.
1. Wind Turbine Size. If you limit the overall height of turbines to 60 feet rather than the 400 feet that is proposed, many of the legitimate objections to the windfarms will go away. 60-foot turbines do not require lighting. They do not produce low frequency noise. There would be no blade flicker, no concerns with ice throw, and only minimal damage to scenic viewsheds. The risks to tourism revenue and property values are similarly reduced. The developers will tell you that smaller turbines are not financially viable. That is just not true. Smaller units are financially viable, given government subsidies; but they are a little less profitable. A little less profit, a little less greed, seems to be a reasonable alternative to safeguard the 200 million dollars that tourism brings to the central Finger Lakes every year.
2. Lease versus Buy. The current proposals call for the developers to lease the land for the turbines. This approach effectively shields the developers from any legal liabilities. If there are health or safety issues, it is the landowner who will be sued. Neighbors suing neighbors would not be productive. Let’s just require the developers to purchase the land so that they can be held legally accountable. The purchase offer can easily be structured to provide the same revenue stream to the landowner, allow the landowner to continue to use the land, and return the parcel to the landowner when the project is decommissioned.
3. PILOT’s versus Real Estate Taxes. Another advantage of requiring the developers to own the land is that you can tax them fairly. The proposed PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) for Windfarm Prattsburgh would pay only $255,000 a year to Prattsburgh, Italy, and the two school districts. If the turbines were on the tax rolls, Windfarm Prattsburgh would pay six million dollars a year in real estate taxes. That is 24 times what the PILOT would provide, and would make a huge difference for every taxpayer. Just tax them what they are worth, just like everyone else. It is not right that all of the taxpayers of Prattsburgh and Cohocton should have to subsidize commercial developments that benefit only a few. It is pretty clear that Steuben County Industrial Development Authority, which negotiated the PILOT payment schedule, has a vested interest in these projects.
4. Costs of Decommissioning. The Windfarm Prattsburgh Environmental Impact Statement describes the establishment of a Decommissioning Reserve Account, which is intended to pay for the removal of the windfarm at the end of its useful life. However the developers do not have to put any money into the account until year fifteen of the project. This scheme would leave local taxpayers with a decommissioning bill of over 70 million dollars. Windfarms are very expensive to shut down and remediate. To avoid bankrupting town and county governments, be sure to demand a minimum of 1.5 million dollars for each and every turbine in an interest-bearing escrow account, in your name, at your bank, before the start of construction. A windfarm with 50 industrial wind turbines would require a deposit of 75 million dollars. This “reserve account” is no better than an IOU. Ask for real cash, upfront.
With these simple and straightforward changes to the windfarm proposals you can still reap the benefits of renewable energy while protecting the best interests of all of the residents of our region.
Libby and Lottie Jones
Donley Road
Town of Italy
1. Wind Turbine Size. If you limit the overall height of turbines to 60 feet rather than the 400 feet that is proposed, many of the legitimate objections to the windfarms will go away. 60-foot turbines do not require lighting. They do not produce low frequency noise. There would be no blade flicker, no concerns with ice throw, and only minimal damage to scenic viewsheds. The risks to tourism revenue and property values are similarly reduced. The developers will tell you that smaller turbines are not financially viable. That is just not true. Smaller units are financially viable, given government subsidies; but they are a little less profitable. A little less profit, a little less greed, seems to be a reasonable alternative to safeguard the 200 million dollars that tourism brings to the central Finger Lakes every year.
2. Lease versus Buy. The current proposals call for the developers to lease the land for the turbines. This approach effectively shields the developers from any legal liabilities. If there are health or safety issues, it is the landowner who will be sued. Neighbors suing neighbors would not be productive. Let’s just require the developers to purchase the land so that they can be held legally accountable. The purchase offer can easily be structured to provide the same revenue stream to the landowner, allow the landowner to continue to use the land, and return the parcel to the landowner when the project is decommissioned.
3. PILOT’s versus Real Estate Taxes. Another advantage of requiring the developers to own the land is that you can tax them fairly. The proposed PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) for Windfarm Prattsburgh would pay only $255,000 a year to Prattsburgh, Italy, and the two school districts. If the turbines were on the tax rolls, Windfarm Prattsburgh would pay six million dollars a year in real estate taxes. That is 24 times what the PILOT would provide, and would make a huge difference for every taxpayer. Just tax them what they are worth, just like everyone else. It is not right that all of the taxpayers of Prattsburgh and Cohocton should have to subsidize commercial developments that benefit only a few. It is pretty clear that Steuben County Industrial Development Authority, which negotiated the PILOT payment schedule, has a vested interest in these projects.
4. Costs of Decommissioning. The Windfarm Prattsburgh Environmental Impact Statement describes the establishment of a Decommissioning Reserve Account, which is intended to pay for the removal of the windfarm at the end of its useful life. However the developers do not have to put any money into the account until year fifteen of the project. This scheme would leave local taxpayers with a decommissioning bill of over 70 million dollars. Windfarms are very expensive to shut down and remediate. To avoid bankrupting town and county governments, be sure to demand a minimum of 1.5 million dollars for each and every turbine in an interest-bearing escrow account, in your name, at your bank, before the start of construction. A windfarm with 50 industrial wind turbines would require a deposit of 75 million dollars. This “reserve account” is no better than an IOU. Ask for real cash, upfront.
With these simple and straightforward changes to the windfarm proposals you can still reap the benefits of renewable energy while protecting the best interests of all of the residents of our region.
Libby and Lottie Jones
Donley Road
Town of Italy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)