Posted with the permission of The Naples Record, originally published Wednesday April 22, 2009
Prattsburgh Town Board eschews democratic process for intimidation, exclusion
To the editor,
Unbelievable - that was one of several words used by many of he at least 30 people left out of the Prattsburgh town meeting on April 21. The main meeting room was ruled to capacity (45 people). Several people asked town Supervisor Harold McConnell to move the meeting to a place where everyone who came could hear and participate. A motion was even made by Councilman Steve Kula to move the meeting. He offered to make phone calls to see if the school or firehall were available. The motion was voted down by Stacy Bottoni, Sharon Quigley and Harold McConnell.
Is this the democratic process in action or an attempt to intimidate and exclude citizens who came to participate in local government? Many other people came to the Town Hall, saw the situation and left. Perhaps the presence of armed police officers was also meant to scare people away.
There were elderly people standing for over two hours. To really illustrate the injustice of this, the attorney for Ecogen was using an empty seat for his briefcase.
Prattsburgh is in a unique position to "do the right thing" rather than be bullied by Ecogen and its representatives. Real concerns regarding health, safety and finances have consistently been ignored by the majority of the board.
One councilwoman in particular should be noted for her comments. She was very concerned about someone receiving a water bill she felt was unfair. She read a well prepared statement describing the situation and her opinions regarding the issue. In the more than two years that I've been attending these meetings this was the only time she has spoken more than a few words. The issues of the health and safety of Prattsburgh citizens poised to live under industrial wind turbines haven't been enough to invoke a full spoken paragraph from this woman. Aren't board members supposed to represent all the citizens of the town?
People in Prattsburgh and surrounding areas - please attend board meetings and do whatever research you need to do in order to see how business is conducted here. It's unethical, disrespectful, disturbing and yes, unbelievable.
Stephanie Lipp,
Prattsburgh
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Who is looking out for the citizens of Prattsburgh?
Posted with the permission of The Naples Record, originally published Wednesday April 22, 2009
To the editor,
Last Tuesday's Prattsburgh Town Board meeting left me with more questions than answers. Most importantly, does the majority of the Board really have the people's best interests in mind?
Until recently, I thought they did (though I often disagreed with their tactics). Why then, did Supervisor McConnell and the majority of the board refuse to change the location of the meeting to accommodate the people who were not allowed in the room due to lack of space? Is it still considered an open meeting when people are forced to stand out of sight and, for some, out of earshot?
Why does the majority of the board continue to refuse to write and pass regulations that would address citizens' health and safety concerns regarding the proposed wind farms, despite mounting evidence that regulations are needed? The board has heard opinions from people including current wind turbine lease holders, town governments with current wind projects, an independent sound specialist, and a lawyer who has worked on other wind projects. The common thread in all the opinions is that noise is an issue everywhere and it can and should be addressed through regulation and/or increased setbacks.
Whose interest is the majority of the board watching out for -ours or the developer's? As I sat through the meeting, I couldn't help but wonder why a board member's young daughter was chatting comfortably with the developer's attorney. We know the developer is looking out for himself, but who is looking out for Prattsburgh citizens?
Anneke Radin-Snaith,
Prattsburgh
To the editor,
Last Tuesday's Prattsburgh Town Board meeting left me with more questions than answers. Most importantly, does the majority of the Board really have the people's best interests in mind?
Until recently, I thought they did (though I often disagreed with their tactics). Why then, did Supervisor McConnell and the majority of the board refuse to change the location of the meeting to accommodate the people who were not allowed in the room due to lack of space? Is it still considered an open meeting when people are forced to stand out of sight and, for some, out of earshot?
Why does the majority of the board continue to refuse to write and pass regulations that would address citizens' health and safety concerns regarding the proposed wind farms, despite mounting evidence that regulations are needed? The board has heard opinions from people including current wind turbine lease holders, town governments with current wind projects, an independent sound specialist, and a lawyer who has worked on other wind projects. The common thread in all the opinions is that noise is an issue everywhere and it can and should be addressed through regulation and/or increased setbacks.
Whose interest is the majority of the board watching out for -ours or the developer's? As I sat through the meeting, I couldn't help but wonder why a board member's young daughter was chatting comfortably with the developer's attorney. We know the developer is looking out for himself, but who is looking out for Prattsburgh citizens?
Anneke Radin-Snaith,
Prattsburgh
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Modern Wind Turbines Generate Dangerously “Dirty” Electricity
Wind turbines are causing serious health problems. These health problems are often associated, by the people having them, with the flicker and the noise from the wind turbines. This often leads to reports being discounted.
Residents of the area around the Ripley Wind Farm in Ontario where Enercon E82 wind turbines are installed feel that the turbines are making them ill. Residents suffer from ringing in the ears, headaches, sleeplessness, dangerously elevated blood pressure (requiring medication), heart palpitations, itching in the ears, eye watering, earaches, and pressure on the chest causing them to fight to breathe. The symptoms disappear when the residents leave the area. Four residents were forced to move out of their homes, the symptoms were so bad. Residents also complain of poor radio, TV and satellite dish reception. There is no radio reception under or near the power lines from the wind turbines because there is too much interference. Local farmers have found that they get headaches driving along near those power lines.
The waveforms below were taken at one of the residences in the area. The first waveform was taken before the wind farm started operation. (As you can see, a ground current problem existed even before the wind farm started.) The frequency profile of the neutral to earth voltage changed dramatically after the wind farm became operational (second waveform). There are far more high and very high frequencies present; indicated by the increased spikiness of the waveform.
(Click to read entire article)
Residents of the area around the Ripley Wind Farm in Ontario where Enercon E82 wind turbines are installed feel that the turbines are making them ill. Residents suffer from ringing in the ears, headaches, sleeplessness, dangerously elevated blood pressure (requiring medication), heart palpitations, itching in the ears, eye watering, earaches, and pressure on the chest causing them to fight to breathe. The symptoms disappear when the residents leave the area. Four residents were forced to move out of their homes, the symptoms were so bad. Residents also complain of poor radio, TV and satellite dish reception. There is no radio reception under or near the power lines from the wind turbines because there is too much interference. Local farmers have found that they get headaches driving along near those power lines.
The waveforms below were taken at one of the residences in the area. The first waveform was taken before the wind farm started operation. (As you can see, a ground current problem existed even before the wind farm started.) The frequency profile of the neutral to earth voltage changed dramatically after the wind farm became operational (second waveform). There are far more high and very high frequencies present; indicated by the increased spikiness of the waveform.
(Click to read entire article)
First Wind Turbine coming down on Brown Hill - Cohocton Project
The first of many dismantling of First Wind turbines! The project is still not producing electricity for sale to the grid.
TALK BACK: Wind Studies Disputing Health Woes Are Fictional
A reader in Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada, responds to Christine Buurma's column "RENEWED ENERGY: Noise, Shadows Raise Hurdles For Wind Farms":
I note with some interest the comment stating that "wind-energy advocates point to peer-reviewed studies in Canada and the U.K. that dispute any impact on human health from wind-turbine noise or vibrations," and I wonder if you would reproduce absolutely anything I told you, without checking for accuracy.
There are no such studies done in Canada showing these preposterous results. Indeed, I doubt very much that such studies exist in the U.K. either. The quoting of mysterious studies from "far-off" lands is a rather transparent and juvenile tactic to mislead, something the Industrial Wind Industry relies on routinely.
However, I find it astonishing that a credible news organization such as yours would be co-opted into repeating such deception with no caveat or qualification.
You can always tell when Industrial Wind is starting to spin its tales, hurling the words "peer review" around. There are many credible, carefully executed, scientific studies around the world showing a growing health disaster resulting from improperly sited industrial wind turbines.
More to the point, there is a rapidly increasing body of victims in desperate need of help. They do not need to be "peer-reviewed" to know that they are sick and neither does a medical community that is now awakening to this serious dilemma.
(Click to read entire article)
I note with some interest the comment stating that "wind-energy advocates point to peer-reviewed studies in Canada and the U.K. that dispute any impact on human health from wind-turbine noise or vibrations," and I wonder if you would reproduce absolutely anything I told you, without checking for accuracy.
There are no such studies done in Canada showing these preposterous results. Indeed, I doubt very much that such studies exist in the U.K. either. The quoting of mysterious studies from "far-off" lands is a rather transparent and juvenile tactic to mislead, something the Industrial Wind Industry relies on routinely.
However, I find it astonishing that a credible news organization such as yours would be co-opted into repeating such deception with no caveat or qualification.
You can always tell when Industrial Wind is starting to spin its tales, hurling the words "peer review" around. There are many credible, carefully executed, scientific studies around the world showing a growing health disaster resulting from improperly sited industrial wind turbines.
More to the point, there is a rapidly increasing body of victims in desperate need of help. They do not need to be "peer-reviewed" to know that they are sick and neither does a medical community that is now awakening to this serious dilemma.
(Click to read entire article)
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Wind farm firm cutting 1,900 jobs
Wind turbine-maker Vestas Wind Systems is to cut 1,900 jobs - mainly in the UK and Denmark - despite reporting a 70% rise in quarterly profits.
It will be closing its UK turbine plant on the Isle of Wight, cutting 450 jobs.
The Danish firm blamed the headcount reduction, which represents 9% of its workforce, on market oversupply.
It came as Vestas reported a net profit of 56m euros ($73m; £50m) for the first three months of 2009, up from 33m euros for the same period last year.
The company also said it planned to raise funds through a share issue.
Vestas said that supply of wind turbines exceeded demand in Northern Europe, despite the drive of governments including Germany and the UK to increase the amount of electricity generated by green energy alternatives.
(Click to read entire article)
It will be closing its UK turbine plant on the Isle of Wight, cutting 450 jobs.
The Danish firm blamed the headcount reduction, which represents 9% of its workforce, on market oversupply.
It came as Vestas reported a net profit of 56m euros ($73m; £50m) for the first three months of 2009, up from 33m euros for the same period last year.
The company also said it planned to raise funds through a share issue.
Vestas said that supply of wind turbines exceeded demand in Northern Europe, despite the drive of governments including Germany and the UK to increase the amount of electricity generated by green energy alternatives.
(Click to read entire article)
The New York Independent System Operator’s Market-Clearing Price Auction Is Too Expensive for New York
Three alternative auction rules would reduce the price of electricity across New York.
1. Require the NYISO to make the identities of bidders, bids, and the calcula-tions needed to calculate prices immediately available to the public, decision-makers, elected officials, scholars and the media.
2. Adopt the American Public Power Association’s recommendation limiting bids for short-term power sales to true marginal costs.
3. Move consumer supplies back again to fully allocated, cost-of-service electric generating plants. This would produce savings of $2.273 billion or a nearly 10% reduction in the electric bill for each New York residential household.
1. Require the NYISO to make the identities of bidders, bids, and the calcula-tions needed to calculate prices immediately available to the public, decision-makers, elected officials, scholars and the media.
2. Adopt the American Public Power Association’s recommendation limiting bids for short-term power sales to true marginal costs.
3. Move consumer supplies back again to fully allocated, cost-of-service electric generating plants. This would produce savings of $2.273 billion or a nearly 10% reduction in the electric bill for each New York residential household.
Monday, April 27, 2009
John Servo comments at the 4/21/09 Prattsburgh Town Board Meeting
As you know, I and my family have homes directly across from Eocogen turbine sites, and I'm a member of Advocates for Prattsburgh. We and many of our fellow citizens throughout the Town are concerned about the high level of noise these turbines will make.
We hope the Prattsburgh Town Board will implement a three-month moratorium, and that during this moratorium, the Town Board will draft a Wind Law mandating guidelines which will protect both nonparticipating landowners and leasing landowners. A key issue is the critical need for greater setbacks to protect adjacent and nearby landowners from noise, health and safety issues, as shown by the noise problems suffered by Cohocton residents.
To start, I have a letter from Jack Zigenfus, Supervisor for the Town of Cohocton, to First Wind, which I'd like to excerpt.
I'm sure you remember that Mr. Zigenfus has been a strong backer for the First Wind project, and accepted – like Hal Graham and so many others – that these industrial machines were quiet and not a problem.
He starts, "... noise from First Wind's installation and operation of the Clipper Windpower 2.5MW Wind Turbines in the Town of Cohocton has been and continues to be the subject of extensive scrutiny by the Town, including the Town's Code Enforcement Office and its technical consultants, and extensive complaint by the Town's residents. As the Town's Supervisor, and as a non-participating resident of the Town, I can tell you that many of the complaints ... were merited.
"It is my understanding...actual noise levels at and near nonparticipating residences and other property lines may be exceeding the levels which were modeled by First Wind's consultants during the Planning Board's review and consideration of the project applications."
Now, I'd like to point out that Cohocton enacted a Wind Law virtually written by the developer to ALLOW a high threshold of noise, and their turbines exceeding even THIS "pro-noise" ordinance.
Continuing, "The Town will not stand idle during operation of the projects if the projects are not in total compliance with all of the Town's local laws, the conditions of the special use permits issued to First Wind's subsidiaries, or the terms of the agreements between First Wind's subsidiaries and the Town."
I'd like to point out that, even though Cohocton bent over backwards to give First Wind what they wanted, they still had a Wind Law, Special Use Permits, and other agreements in place BEFORE the Town OK'd the developer moving forward. We in Prattsburgh have essentially NOTHING – the Wind Law never got started. And while the Town COULD have done this without a moratorium, the ONLY way to take care of this NOW is to put a three month moratorium in place.
Jack then says, "First Wind should immediately contact the Town and its consultants to explain why noise from operation ... is exceeding the levels modeled during review of the projects, and whether, when and how First Wind and/or Clipper Windpower, anticipate remedying the situation."
As happens again and again, the developer MODELS how LITTLE noise the project MIGHT make, rather than determining how MUCH noise the turbines DO make, through testing at a comparable project. And we have a comparable project, in Cohocton, which uses turbines rated at 106.4dB of noise, just like the Siemens turbines Ecogen claims are so quiet.
Continuing, Supervisor Zigenfus states, "The current state of affairs in Cohocton, insofar as the wind projects are concerned, is unfortunate for Cohocton, and should be unacceptable...". Again, unless we have the Wind Law in place, Prattsburgh will be even more defenseless than Cohocton.
Now, I have with me Rick James of E-Coustic Solutions, a nationally recognized noise expert, who is conducting a noise study at various sites in the Cohocton project, to present what he's found.
Rick speaks
Thank you, Rick. As a reference, the L90 noise level at my property line is 23dB, 21dB at the house. Following the DEC guidelines, the maximum allowable noise at my house should be 6 dB higher – 27dB. As you know, at Ecogen's invitation, Sharron Quigley and Stacy Bottoni visited the Kruger Energy Port Alma Wind Power Project in Chatham Kent, Ontario, Canada. This windfarm uses the same 2.3MW Siemens wind turbines chosen for the Ecogen project. The stated purpose of this visit was to show these Town Board members how "quiet" these turbines are. Ecogen claims these Siemens turbines are quieter than the 2.5MW Clipper turbines causing noise problems in Cohocton, even though industry experts classify both turbines at 106.4dB of noise.
Please note the Ontario Ministry of Environment currently mandates 600 meters – 1968 feet – as setbacks from "any residential zone" at the Port Alma project. In comparison, Ecogen's current setbacks are only 1200 feet from residences – at least 768 feet closer than this Ontario project, the same project Ecogen "showcased" for Sharon and Stacy.
But this additional 768 foot setback – which Ecogen doesn't mention – isn't the best part of the story. This past month a representative from the Ontario Ministry of Environment indicated that the current setbacks for this Ontario project inadequate, due to louder noise than presented in the developer's "projections" – Big Surprise – and new setbacks would be greater still during Phase II of the Project.
There you have it. The very Siemens turbines Ecogen would have us believe are quieter than Cohocton's, have noise levels the Ontario government considers TOO LOUD at even 1968 feet away. Ecogen's current setbacks offer adjacent and nearby landowners woefully inadequate protection from potential serious harm. We could be ruined by turbines sited too close to our properties and homes, and the Town needs to enact a good "Wind Law" to protect us.
A good Wind Law would also protect leasing landowners. Let's not forget about them. The developer or project owner should be required to indemnify the leasing landowners and adjacent landowners from all legal liability arising from the operation of these wind turbines. Right now, if anything goes wrong – as it sometimes does – they're on the hook. And currently, it appears virtually impossible for leasing landowners to get adequate liability insurance for wind turbine related accidents. In addition, escrow provisions should be implemented to protect leasing landowners from potential mechanics liens, which can destroy the landowner's credit. These liens are a proliferating problem arising from deadbeat developers not paying their contractors. And as the Town Board should already know, Ecogen's Australian financial backer, Babcock and Brown, is in serious financial trouble. You don't need to take my word for it. Just search the Internet. In 30 seconds you'll find out that Babcock and Brown is as financially flush as a bad bank without a bailout. The Town Board needs to explicitly and adequately address these clear financial dangers. Our landowners need protection, not just promises, and Prattsburgh leasing landowners shouldn't be stuck paying the tab in what might amount to that "bad bank" bailout.
All of these issues can be effectively addressed during a moratorium period. I can only see one downside to having a brief moratorium and putting in lace the protections we need. Ecogen and their foreign investors – good neighbors that they are – have threatened to immediately sue Prattsburgh for many times our annual revenues if you, our Town Board, don't cave in and give them what they want. And let's get this straight. The reason they don't want a moratorium is not any "hardship" of a three-month delay. The real reason is they don't want a good Wind Law, which would protect us from noise, protect leasing landowners from financial exposure, and may even cut into their huge, taxpayer-subsidized profits.
So the Town Board is now at the point of decision. All we need is three months. So, which would you rather have?
• Would the Town rather be sued by a carpetbagger and his foreign backers, who don't want you to even take a deep breadth to make sure we do this right?
• Or would you rather force Prattsburgh citizens to dip into their life savings to fight the Town – something they DON'T want to do – to protect themselves and their friends and neighbors from ruin?
This is the most momentous decision in the history of the Town. Don't surrender to Ecogen's threats. Pass the moratorium, embrace the work, write a good Wind Law, protect all of us, including the leasing landowners, THEN build the project right. It's easier than you think, and if you want it, you'll have our help.
John Servo
Advocates for Prattsburgh
Prattsburgh, NY
We hope the Prattsburgh Town Board will implement a three-month moratorium, and that during this moratorium, the Town Board will draft a Wind Law mandating guidelines which will protect both nonparticipating landowners and leasing landowners. A key issue is the critical need for greater setbacks to protect adjacent and nearby landowners from noise, health and safety issues, as shown by the noise problems suffered by Cohocton residents.
To start, I have a letter from Jack Zigenfus, Supervisor for the Town of Cohocton, to First Wind, which I'd like to excerpt.
I'm sure you remember that Mr. Zigenfus has been a strong backer for the First Wind project, and accepted – like Hal Graham and so many others – that these industrial machines were quiet and not a problem.
He starts, "... noise from First Wind's installation and operation of the Clipper Windpower 2.5MW Wind Turbines in the Town of Cohocton has been and continues to be the subject of extensive scrutiny by the Town, including the Town's Code Enforcement Office and its technical consultants, and extensive complaint by the Town's residents. As the Town's Supervisor, and as a non-participating resident of the Town, I can tell you that many of the complaints ... were merited.
"It is my understanding...actual noise levels at and near nonparticipating residences and other property lines may be exceeding the levels which were modeled by First Wind's consultants during the Planning Board's review and consideration of the project applications."
Now, I'd like to point out that Cohocton enacted a Wind Law virtually written by the developer to ALLOW a high threshold of noise, and their turbines exceeding even THIS "pro-noise" ordinance.
Continuing, "The Town will not stand idle during operation of the projects if the projects are not in total compliance with all of the Town's local laws, the conditions of the special use permits issued to First Wind's subsidiaries, or the terms of the agreements between First Wind's subsidiaries and the Town."
I'd like to point out that, even though Cohocton bent over backwards to give First Wind what they wanted, they still had a Wind Law, Special Use Permits, and other agreements in place BEFORE the Town OK'd the developer moving forward. We in Prattsburgh have essentially NOTHING – the Wind Law never got started. And while the Town COULD have done this without a moratorium, the ONLY way to take care of this NOW is to put a three month moratorium in place.
Jack then says, "First Wind should immediately contact the Town and its consultants to explain why noise from operation ... is exceeding the levels modeled during review of the projects, and whether, when and how First Wind and/or Clipper Windpower, anticipate remedying the situation."
As happens again and again, the developer MODELS how LITTLE noise the project MIGHT make, rather than determining how MUCH noise the turbines DO make, through testing at a comparable project. And we have a comparable project, in Cohocton, which uses turbines rated at 106.4dB of noise, just like the Siemens turbines Ecogen claims are so quiet.
Continuing, Supervisor Zigenfus states, "The current state of affairs in Cohocton, insofar as the wind projects are concerned, is unfortunate for Cohocton, and should be unacceptable...". Again, unless we have the Wind Law in place, Prattsburgh will be even more defenseless than Cohocton.
Now, I have with me Rick James of E-Coustic Solutions, a nationally recognized noise expert, who is conducting a noise study at various sites in the Cohocton project, to present what he's found.
Rick speaks
Thank you, Rick. As a reference, the L90 noise level at my property line is 23dB, 21dB at the house. Following the DEC guidelines, the maximum allowable noise at my house should be 6 dB higher – 27dB. As you know, at Ecogen's invitation, Sharron Quigley and Stacy Bottoni visited the Kruger Energy Port Alma Wind Power Project in Chatham Kent, Ontario, Canada. This windfarm uses the same 2.3MW Siemens wind turbines chosen for the Ecogen project. The stated purpose of this visit was to show these Town Board members how "quiet" these turbines are. Ecogen claims these Siemens turbines are quieter than the 2.5MW Clipper turbines causing noise problems in Cohocton, even though industry experts classify both turbines at 106.4dB of noise.
Please note the Ontario Ministry of Environment currently mandates 600 meters – 1968 feet – as setbacks from "any residential zone" at the Port Alma project. In comparison, Ecogen's current setbacks are only 1200 feet from residences – at least 768 feet closer than this Ontario project, the same project Ecogen "showcased" for Sharon and Stacy.
But this additional 768 foot setback – which Ecogen doesn't mention – isn't the best part of the story. This past month a representative from the Ontario Ministry of Environment indicated that the current setbacks for this Ontario project inadequate, due to louder noise than presented in the developer's "projections" – Big Surprise – and new setbacks would be greater still during Phase II of the Project.
There you have it. The very Siemens turbines Ecogen would have us believe are quieter than Cohocton's, have noise levels the Ontario government considers TOO LOUD at even 1968 feet away. Ecogen's current setbacks offer adjacent and nearby landowners woefully inadequate protection from potential serious harm. We could be ruined by turbines sited too close to our properties and homes, and the Town needs to enact a good "Wind Law" to protect us.
A good Wind Law would also protect leasing landowners. Let's not forget about them. The developer or project owner should be required to indemnify the leasing landowners and adjacent landowners from all legal liability arising from the operation of these wind turbines. Right now, if anything goes wrong – as it sometimes does – they're on the hook. And currently, it appears virtually impossible for leasing landowners to get adequate liability insurance for wind turbine related accidents. In addition, escrow provisions should be implemented to protect leasing landowners from potential mechanics liens, which can destroy the landowner's credit. These liens are a proliferating problem arising from deadbeat developers not paying their contractors. And as the Town Board should already know, Ecogen's Australian financial backer, Babcock and Brown, is in serious financial trouble. You don't need to take my word for it. Just search the Internet. In 30 seconds you'll find out that Babcock and Brown is as financially flush as a bad bank without a bailout. The Town Board needs to explicitly and adequately address these clear financial dangers. Our landowners need protection, not just promises, and Prattsburgh leasing landowners shouldn't be stuck paying the tab in what might amount to that "bad bank" bailout.
All of these issues can be effectively addressed during a moratorium period. I can only see one downside to having a brief moratorium and putting in lace the protections we need. Ecogen and their foreign investors – good neighbors that they are – have threatened to immediately sue Prattsburgh for many times our annual revenues if you, our Town Board, don't cave in and give them what they want. And let's get this straight. The reason they don't want a moratorium is not any "hardship" of a three-month delay. The real reason is they don't want a good Wind Law, which would protect us from noise, protect leasing landowners from financial exposure, and may even cut into their huge, taxpayer-subsidized profits.
So the Town Board is now at the point of decision. All we need is three months. So, which would you rather have?
• Would the Town rather be sued by a carpetbagger and his foreign backers, who don't want you to even take a deep breadth to make sure we do this right?
• Or would you rather force Prattsburgh citizens to dip into their life savings to fight the Town – something they DON'T want to do – to protect themselves and their friends and neighbors from ruin?
This is the most momentous decision in the history of the Town. Don't surrender to Ecogen's threats. Pass the moratorium, embrace the work, write a good Wind Law, protect all of us, including the leasing landowners, THEN build the project right. It's easier than you think, and if you want it, you'll have our help.
John Servo
Advocates for Prattsburgh
Prattsburgh, NY
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Critically Important Prattsburgh Town Board Meeting Tuesday, April 21
At this upcoming meeting, the Prattsburgh Town Board will decide whether to impose a three-month moratorium for the Ecogen Wind project. It is hoped that during this moratorium, the Town Board would draft a Wind Law mandating guidelines which would protect both non-participating landowners and leasing landowners. A key issue is the critical need for greater setbacks to protect adjacent non-participating landowners from noise, health and safety problems, as shown by the noise problems suffered by Cohocton residents. Leasing landowners also need to be indemnified by the developer from legal liability and protected from the thereat of mechanics liens. Another issue is the incredibly bad PILOT deal previously accepted by the Town at the recommendation of the Town's attorney, John Leyden (who is, coincidentally, also the attorney for SCIDA, the lead agent for the Ecogen project). At the previous meeting, it was voted to give Ecogen two weeks to come up with a better deal, and to address the noise concerns.
Ecogen's response was to invite two Board members – Stacy Bottoni and Sharron Quigley – to visit the Kruger Energy Port Alma Wind Power Project in Chatham Kent, Ontario, Canada. This windfarm uses the 2.3MW Siemens wind turbines chosen for the Ecogen project. The object was to shown these Town Board members how "quiet" these turbines are. The developer claims these Siemens turbines are quieter than the 2.5MW Clipper turbines causing noise problems in Cohocton, even though industry experts classify both turbines at 106dB of noise.
Please note that the Ontario Ministry of Environment currently mandates 600 meters (1968 feet) setbacks from "any residential zone". In comparison, Ecogen's current setbacks are only 1200 feet from residences – at least 768 feet closer to houses than residential zone homes in this Ontario project, which Ecogen "showcased" to these Town Board members. It can also be assumed that the closest home in this residential zone is greater than 1968 feet away from these wind turbines, as the residential zone boundary is at the property lines, not the home itself, as Ecogen would like.
Ecogen should also tell the whole story. For example, this past month a representative from the Ontario Ministry of Environment indicated that the current setbacks for this Ontario project (setbacks which are far greater than what Ecogen is currently offering) were inadequate, due to louder noise than originally presented in the developer's "projections", and new setbacks would be greater still during Phase II of the Project. Our concern is that a Town Board majority will give Ecogen whatever it wants, even though current setbacks offer adjacent and nearby landowners and homeowners inadequate protection from potential serious harm.
The Town should also enact a "Wind Law", to protect not only non-participating landowners, who could be ruined by turbines sited close to their properties and homes. A good Wind Law would protect leasing landowners as well. Ecogen and First Wind should be required to indemnify their leaseholders and adjacent landowners from all legal liability arising from the operation of these wind turbines. Currently, it appears virtually impossible for leasing landowners to get adequate liability insurance. In addition, escrow provisions should be implemented to protect leasing landowners from potential mechanics liens, a proliferating problem arising from deadbeat developers not paying their contractors. And as the Town Board knows, Ecogen's Australian financial backer, Babcock and Brown, is in serious financial trouble. The Town Board needs to explicitly and adequately address these clear dangers. Our landowners need protection, not just promises, and Prattsburgh leasing landowners shouldn't be stuck paying the tab in what would amount to a "bad bank" bailout.
All of these issues can be effectively addressed during a brief moratorium period. The Town Board needs to vote for a moratorium – rather than caving in to the developer's threats to immediately sue the Town if they don't get what they want. An effective Wind Law will be essential for protecting all our citizens. Please attend this critically important meeting this coming Tuesday, April 21 at 7:00PM.
Ecogen's response was to invite two Board members – Stacy Bottoni and Sharron Quigley – to visit the Kruger Energy Port Alma Wind Power Project in Chatham Kent, Ontario, Canada. This windfarm uses the 2.3MW Siemens wind turbines chosen for the Ecogen project. The object was to shown these Town Board members how "quiet" these turbines are. The developer claims these Siemens turbines are quieter than the 2.5MW Clipper turbines causing noise problems in Cohocton, even though industry experts classify both turbines at 106dB of noise.
Please note that the Ontario Ministry of Environment currently mandates 600 meters (1968 feet) setbacks from "any residential zone". In comparison, Ecogen's current setbacks are only 1200 feet from residences – at least 768 feet closer to houses than residential zone homes in this Ontario project, which Ecogen "showcased" to these Town Board members. It can also be assumed that the closest home in this residential zone is greater than 1968 feet away from these wind turbines, as the residential zone boundary is at the property lines, not the home itself, as Ecogen would like.
Ecogen should also tell the whole story. For example, this past month a representative from the Ontario Ministry of Environment indicated that the current setbacks for this Ontario project (setbacks which are far greater than what Ecogen is currently offering) were inadequate, due to louder noise than originally presented in the developer's "projections", and new setbacks would be greater still during Phase II of the Project. Our concern is that a Town Board majority will give Ecogen whatever it wants, even though current setbacks offer adjacent and nearby landowners and homeowners inadequate protection from potential serious harm.
The Town should also enact a "Wind Law", to protect not only non-participating landowners, who could be ruined by turbines sited close to their properties and homes. A good Wind Law would protect leasing landowners as well. Ecogen and First Wind should be required to indemnify their leaseholders and adjacent landowners from all legal liability arising from the operation of these wind turbines. Currently, it appears virtually impossible for leasing landowners to get adequate liability insurance. In addition, escrow provisions should be implemented to protect leasing landowners from potential mechanics liens, a proliferating problem arising from deadbeat developers not paying their contractors. And as the Town Board knows, Ecogen's Australian financial backer, Babcock and Brown, is in serious financial trouble. The Town Board needs to explicitly and adequately address these clear dangers. Our landowners need protection, not just promises, and Prattsburgh leasing landowners shouldn't be stuck paying the tab in what would amount to a "bad bank" bailout.
All of these issues can be effectively addressed during a brief moratorium period. The Town Board needs to vote for a moratorium – rather than caving in to the developer's threats to immediately sue the Town if they don't get what they want. An effective Wind Law will be essential for protecting all our citizens. Please attend this critically important meeting this coming Tuesday, April 21 at 7:00PM.
First Wind Plots Financing For 2GW Pipeline
Newton, Mass.-based First Wind will likely be in the project finance market again this year as it looks to develop nearly 2 GW of projects in Hawaii, Maine, New York, Utah and Vermont. "First Wind is always looking to efficiently capitalize its projects and I wouldn't be surprised if we came to market again this year," says Steve Schauer, v.p. of finance. Wind development costs roughly $2 million per megawatt, project financiers say, bringing the portfolio's costs to $4 ...
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Prattsburgh delays wind farm moratorium
PRATTSBURGH — The topic of wind energy was hotly debated by the Prattsburgh town board last week, although no formal action was taken on concerns raised by board members last month.
With more than two dozen residents crowded into the town hall corridor and roughly 50 in the board room, the councilmen reviewed information and agreed to attend a public meeting hosted by wind developer EcoGen at 6 p.m. May 14.
EcoGen is looking to erect 16 wind turbines in the town.
Concerns about EcoGen's project were first raised in late February when residents from nearby Cohocton complained about excessive noise from the First Wind wind farm operating there since January.
EcoGen representatives countered the Prattsburgh project will use a quieter turbine model, manufactured by Siemens.
The board first considered a moratorium to develop a wind law, but voted to delay the moratorium pending further discussions with EcoGen.
The board also discussed a trip Councilwomen Stacey Bottoni and Sharon Quigley took to the Post Alma wind farm in Ontario, Canada.
The Post Alma wind farm uses Siemens turbines. Bottoni reported their observation was "generally favorable" with strong, 20-mph winds on the second day of the visit. She said the Siemens model has an exhaust fan designed to reduce the turbine noise.
However, Bottoni recommended the town hire an independent technician to test the exhaust fan's reliability, and the board unanimously supported her recommendation.
She said other issues, such as tower collapse and job creation, also were answered by EcoGen representatives. Bottoni claimed collapses are rare, and EcoGen has pledged to hire local, capable workers for unspecialized work if their rates are competitive.
Quigley said the concerns were answered satisfactorily.
But Councilman Steve Kula said information he received on wind speeds at Port Alma on the days Quigley and Bottoni were at the site indicated the speeds were 11-15 mph, with the turbines operating at reduced levels.
He claimed residents near Port Alma have filed complaints about the noise generated by the turbines.
Kula said studies from across the world show 40-60 percent of residents near wind farms are disturbed by the noise, including those with setbacks far greater than any in place in the U.S.
Councilman Chuck Schick said exhaust fans will not prevent the turbines' noise. "They will sound like jet engines because that's what they are," Schick said.
Board members received other input from those in attendance, including comments from acoustical engineer Rick James, of Michigan.
James told the board, based on the state Department of Environmental Conservation recommendations for decibel increases, the acceptable noise level for the region was 27-30 dBA. The current standard for wind farms in Steuben County is 50 dBA.
"Fifty decibels is based on the needs of the wind developers," he said. "It is not based on science ... it is a smokescreen."
James said he worked for 35 years setting up industrial sites before specializing in wind turbines for the past four years.
"And I will tell you this," he said. "Done properly, the problem goes away once the project is done. With the turbines, the problems always escalate."
With more than two dozen residents crowded into the town hall corridor and roughly 50 in the board room, the councilmen reviewed information and agreed to attend a public meeting hosted by wind developer EcoGen at 6 p.m. May 14.
EcoGen is looking to erect 16 wind turbines in the town.
Concerns about EcoGen's project were first raised in late February when residents from nearby Cohocton complained about excessive noise from the First Wind wind farm operating there since January.
EcoGen representatives countered the Prattsburgh project will use a quieter turbine model, manufactured by Siemens.
The board first considered a moratorium to develop a wind law, but voted to delay the moratorium pending further discussions with EcoGen.
The board also discussed a trip Councilwomen Stacey Bottoni and Sharon Quigley took to the Post Alma wind farm in Ontario, Canada.
The Post Alma wind farm uses Siemens turbines. Bottoni reported their observation was "generally favorable" with strong, 20-mph winds on the second day of the visit. She said the Siemens model has an exhaust fan designed to reduce the turbine noise.
However, Bottoni recommended the town hire an independent technician to test the exhaust fan's reliability, and the board unanimously supported her recommendation.
She said other issues, such as tower collapse and job creation, also were answered by EcoGen representatives. Bottoni claimed collapses are rare, and EcoGen has pledged to hire local, capable workers for unspecialized work if their rates are competitive.
Quigley said the concerns were answered satisfactorily.
But Councilman Steve Kula said information he received on wind speeds at Port Alma on the days Quigley and Bottoni were at the site indicated the speeds were 11-15 mph, with the turbines operating at reduced levels.
He claimed residents near Port Alma have filed complaints about the noise generated by the turbines.
Kula said studies from across the world show 40-60 percent of residents near wind farms are disturbed by the noise, including those with setbacks far greater than any in place in the U.S.
Councilman Chuck Schick said exhaust fans will not prevent the turbines' noise. "They will sound like jet engines because that's what they are," Schick said.
Board members received other input from those in attendance, including comments from acoustical engineer Rick James, of Michigan.
James told the board, based on the state Department of Environmental Conservation recommendations for decibel increases, the acceptable noise level for the region was 27-30 dBA. The current standard for wind farms in Steuben County is 50 dBA.
"Fifty decibels is based on the needs of the wind developers," he said. "It is not based on science ... it is a smokescreen."
James said he worked for 35 years setting up industrial sites before specializing in wind turbines for the past four years.
"And I will tell you this," he said. "Done properly, the problem goes away once the project is done. With the turbines, the problems always escalate."
Friday, April 24, 2009
Many feel bill would spell doom for IDAs
Editors NOTE: Mr. Griffin is getting $13,000.00 a month for being on the Hornell IDA and SCIDA. IDAs tax exemptions drive up property taxes for residents that are forced to make up the difference of the corporate welfare. Sen Winner's law firm represents Fortuna Energy gas developers who seeks to benefit from IDA exemptions. SCIDA operates as a criminal enterprise. Steuben County would be served well with the abolishment of the IDAs.
Area representatives to Albany and local industrial development agency leaders are up in arms over a new piece of legislation seeking to reform IDAs, but the assemblyman who wrote the bill said he is open to compromise if it helps the bill pass.
So far this year, 28 separate bills — not counting identical bills introduced into each house of the Legislature — have been introduced to regulate IDAs.
One of the bills, named the Hoyt Bill after its sponsor, Assemblyman Sam Hoyt, D-Buffalo, is a combination of many of the reforms, including some local leaders feel will drive business out of the state.
The biggest impact of the 32-point bill, said State Sen. George Winner, R-Elmira, is requiring construction workers to be paid prevailing wages for all construction work and a “living wage” for all employees beyond the life of the project.
“Those mandates would create a significant increase in costs ... and remove any real advantage of using an IDA,” he said. “That’s the death of IDAs upstate.”
Winner said one IDA attempted to make those changes and it effectively stopped all new development.
“Ulster (County IDA) put something like that in place,” Winner said, adding that organization had to repeal the measure after 18 months because no applications for assistance were submitted in that time.
“Couple it with the fact that we no longer have an effective Empire Zone,” Winner said, and there is little to bring business to upstate.
And the legislation would cause even more harm in the southern parts of Steuben and Chemung counties.
“It would become almost laughable,” Winner said, to try and attract businesses close to the Pennsylvania border because there would be almost no benefit to companies to choose New York over the Pennsylvania’s Northern Tier.
Hornell IDA Executive Director Jim Griffin said the biggest problem is not when building the projects, but when it comes to paying employees through the long term.
“The living wage is the big stickler around here,” he said, adding the living wage for the area is around $11.50 an hour.
“A lot of our jobs are second income jobs,” Griffin said. “A lot of families need those second income jobs.”
With that provision, the IDA would not have been able to assist Wal-Mart or Lowe’s in Hornell, which likely would have led to the businesses going somewhere else.
The prevailing wage regulations on building projects are moot points, Griffin said, because most projects are union-shop projects already.
“We encourage them (to pay prevailing wage) because it keeps peace in the valley,” he said, adding work on the Lowe’s in Hornell is being constructed using union labor. “They (Lowe’s) could have brought in some contractor from Wisconsin to build it, but they didn’t.”
Griffin said local IDAs are important because they can focus on a wider variety of projects than a state system could.
“The value, to me, of IDAs is they respond to area needs,” he said. “For some areas it’s tourism, for some it’s commercial. For some, it’s industrial. For the state to take on economic development with a blanket policy, it doesn’t make sense to me.”
Griffin also said if local IDAs are rendered useless, nothing else is available to bring business to the area.
“Right now, at this stage of New York’s history, there’s nothing else,” he added, citing the upcoming sunset of the Empire Zone program in 2010 and the loss of state economic development loan money.
John Foels, director of the Allegany County DA, said the impacts of wage restrictions could be dire, especially for the many civic projects on hold.
“What that basically does is drive the cost up 25-30 percent,” Foels said.
Before those projects go through, Foels said, the state will need to re-adopt a law allowing IDAs to assist not-for-profit organizations.
Our ability to do those projects sunset over a year ago,” he said. “We have a project pending in Cuba for Cuba Memorial Hospital for an assisted living campus ... There’s a considerable amount of these projects on hold around the state.”
A far as regulations requiring more reporting and disclosure, Foels said that would not be a problem.
“We do very extensive reporting to the Comptroller’s Office annually,” he said. “We’re very used to it.”
Assemblyman James Bacalles, R-Corning, agreed the prevailing and living wage clauses would seriously increase the cost of projects.
“If the Hoyt bill becomes law, you might as well not have an IDA. It’s as simple as that,” Bacalles said.
“In two years, they only did projects that were exempt from that rule because they were already in the planning stages,” he said.
One part of the legislation — restricting IDA developments outside of brownfields unless there is a reason why it is not feasible — would shut down local IDAs because few brownfields are located in the area.
“He’s trying to eliminate IDAs in rural areas,” Bacalles said, adding the move would push for more development in urban areas where many brownfields are located. “It works well for his district, but not the rest of us.
“The only brownfield we have in Steuben County is the old foundry site for Ingersoll-Rand,” he said, adding there are other possible sites for use, but businesses already occupy those locations.
Leaders have said they do support many of the measures in the bill, however.
Requiring IDA boards to have members from education and environmental groups could help offer input to groups affected by projects.
“PILOT agreements have an impact on school taxes,” Winner said, adding letting schools have input on project negotiations could help secure better deals for everyone involved.
Other regulation changes, including shutting down IDAs with no outstanding debt, will clean up the system.
“I think they’re getting at IDAs that haven't done anything,” Winner said. “Our IDAs are very active.”
Winner also said IDAs should crack down on companies that do not follow the laws governing their projects.
“If it’s a violation, it should be corrected,” he added.
Could there be a compromise?
Hoyt said in an interview with The Evening Tribune this morning he recognizes some of the measures in his bill are controversial for rural business development, but he knows some kind of reform is needed to clean up the system.
"There's widespread — almost unanimous — support for IDA reform," he said. "I suspect my friends George and Jim probably support 90-percent of the bill. I've said from Day 1 that I am willing to compromise to get the bill done."
Hoyt said measures requiring prevailing and living wages are important for IDA projects because he has seen too many projects where minimum-wage jobs are the result of government investment.
“There’s been all sorts of information in many reports from the Comptroller’s Office that show, like many public authorities, IDAs are wasting taxpayer dollars,” he said. “They’re meant to attract good jobs. We want to make sure those create jobs with good wages.”
Hoyt also defended the increased restrictions on developments outside of brownfields, saying the intent of the clause is to stop urban sprawl and save taxpayers money.
“We’ve seen in many of our communities too much sprawl,” he said, adding instead of moving to the suburban areas, IDAs need “to encourage development where there is already infrastructure, saving the taxpayers money.”
Area representatives to Albany and local industrial development agency leaders are up in arms over a new piece of legislation seeking to reform IDAs, but the assemblyman who wrote the bill said he is open to compromise if it helps the bill pass.
So far this year, 28 separate bills — not counting identical bills introduced into each house of the Legislature — have been introduced to regulate IDAs.
One of the bills, named the Hoyt Bill after its sponsor, Assemblyman Sam Hoyt, D-Buffalo, is a combination of many of the reforms, including some local leaders feel will drive business out of the state.
The biggest impact of the 32-point bill, said State Sen. George Winner, R-Elmira, is requiring construction workers to be paid prevailing wages for all construction work and a “living wage” for all employees beyond the life of the project.
“Those mandates would create a significant increase in costs ... and remove any real advantage of using an IDA,” he said. “That’s the death of IDAs upstate.”
Winner said one IDA attempted to make those changes and it effectively stopped all new development.
“Ulster (County IDA) put something like that in place,” Winner said, adding that organization had to repeal the measure after 18 months because no applications for assistance were submitted in that time.
“Couple it with the fact that we no longer have an effective Empire Zone,” Winner said, and there is little to bring business to upstate.
And the legislation would cause even more harm in the southern parts of Steuben and Chemung counties.
“It would become almost laughable,” Winner said, to try and attract businesses close to the Pennsylvania border because there would be almost no benefit to companies to choose New York over the Pennsylvania’s Northern Tier.
Hornell IDA Executive Director Jim Griffin said the biggest problem is not when building the projects, but when it comes to paying employees through the long term.
“The living wage is the big stickler around here,” he said, adding the living wage for the area is around $11.50 an hour.
“A lot of our jobs are second income jobs,” Griffin said. “A lot of families need those second income jobs.”
With that provision, the IDA would not have been able to assist Wal-Mart or Lowe’s in Hornell, which likely would have led to the businesses going somewhere else.
The prevailing wage regulations on building projects are moot points, Griffin said, because most projects are union-shop projects already.
“We encourage them (to pay prevailing wage) because it keeps peace in the valley,” he said, adding work on the Lowe’s in Hornell is being constructed using union labor. “They (Lowe’s) could have brought in some contractor from Wisconsin to build it, but they didn’t.”
Griffin said local IDAs are important because they can focus on a wider variety of projects than a state system could.
“The value, to me, of IDAs is they respond to area needs,” he said. “For some areas it’s tourism, for some it’s commercial. For some, it’s industrial. For the state to take on economic development with a blanket policy, it doesn’t make sense to me.”
Griffin also said if local IDAs are rendered useless, nothing else is available to bring business to the area.
“Right now, at this stage of New York’s history, there’s nothing else,” he added, citing the upcoming sunset of the Empire Zone program in 2010 and the loss of state economic development loan money.
John Foels, director of the Allegany County DA, said the impacts of wage restrictions could be dire, especially for the many civic projects on hold.
“What that basically does is drive the cost up 25-30 percent,” Foels said.
Before those projects go through, Foels said, the state will need to re-adopt a law allowing IDAs to assist not-for-profit organizations.
Our ability to do those projects sunset over a year ago,” he said. “We have a project pending in Cuba for Cuba Memorial Hospital for an assisted living campus ... There’s a considerable amount of these projects on hold around the state.”
A far as regulations requiring more reporting and disclosure, Foels said that would not be a problem.
“We do very extensive reporting to the Comptroller’s Office annually,” he said. “We’re very used to it.”
Assemblyman James Bacalles, R-Corning, agreed the prevailing and living wage clauses would seriously increase the cost of projects.
“If the Hoyt bill becomes law, you might as well not have an IDA. It’s as simple as that,” Bacalles said.
“In two years, they only did projects that were exempt from that rule because they were already in the planning stages,” he said.
One part of the legislation — restricting IDA developments outside of brownfields unless there is a reason why it is not feasible — would shut down local IDAs because few brownfields are located in the area.
“He’s trying to eliminate IDAs in rural areas,” Bacalles said, adding the move would push for more development in urban areas where many brownfields are located. “It works well for his district, but not the rest of us.
“The only brownfield we have in Steuben County is the old foundry site for Ingersoll-Rand,” he said, adding there are other possible sites for use, but businesses already occupy those locations.
Leaders have said they do support many of the measures in the bill, however.
Requiring IDA boards to have members from education and environmental groups could help offer input to groups affected by projects.
“PILOT agreements have an impact on school taxes,” Winner said, adding letting schools have input on project negotiations could help secure better deals for everyone involved.
Other regulation changes, including shutting down IDAs with no outstanding debt, will clean up the system.
“I think they’re getting at IDAs that haven't done anything,” Winner said. “Our IDAs are very active.”
Winner also said IDAs should crack down on companies that do not follow the laws governing their projects.
“If it’s a violation, it should be corrected,” he added.
Could there be a compromise?
Hoyt said in an interview with The Evening Tribune this morning he recognizes some of the measures in his bill are controversial for rural business development, but he knows some kind of reform is needed to clean up the system.
"There's widespread — almost unanimous — support for IDA reform," he said. "I suspect my friends George and Jim probably support 90-percent of the bill. I've said from Day 1 that I am willing to compromise to get the bill done."
Hoyt said measures requiring prevailing and living wages are important for IDA projects because he has seen too many projects where minimum-wage jobs are the result of government investment.
“There’s been all sorts of information in many reports from the Comptroller’s Office that show, like many public authorities, IDAs are wasting taxpayer dollars,” he said. “They’re meant to attract good jobs. We want to make sure those create jobs with good wages.”
Hoyt also defended the increased restrictions on developments outside of brownfields, saying the intent of the clause is to stop urban sprawl and save taxpayers money.
“We’ve seen in many of our communities too much sprawl,” he said, adding instead of moving to the suburban areas, IDAs need “to encourage development where there is already infrastructure, saving the taxpayers money.”
Prattsburgh Town Board Meeting Recap - April 21, 2009
Each time it appears that a Prattsburgh Town Board Meeting couldn't possibly become more heated, more contentious, more raucous, more issue-partisan than last month's; the next Meeting trumps the last. If it weren't so tragic, it would be humorous to watch the spirited sparring - but the last thing the Tuesday, April 21, 2009 Prattsburgh Town Board Meeting was even remotely funny.
The tenor was set in the first 30 seconds of the Meeting. While attendees were greeted by not one, but 2, armed Steuben County Sherriff's Department officers, there was no 'wanding' this month. As has been the case now for every meeting of consequence for now the past several years, every of the ± 45 visitors seats was taken by shortly after 6:30 pm. The hallway and lobby was standing room only with at least another 25-30 people trying to hear; more people stood in the rain under umbrellas at the open side door. Others were standing on the porch, out in the driveway, and could be seen driving away because they couldn't get in.
Immediately after the Supervisor gaveled the Meeting to order shortly after 7 pm, Steve Kula introduced a motion, seconded by Chuck Shick, to move the session to the Fire Hall to accommodate the overflow crowd of those interested in both sides of the issues on the agenda. After a brief attempt by Harold McConnell to characterize moving the meeting as difficult "at this late hour" because he'd had no forewarning that the meeting would be "well attended", a 3-2 vote - Steve and Chuck voting Yes, Staci, Sharon and Harold voting No - ended any discussion of whether the meeting should be moved to another venue just because doing so would be in the best interests of the taxpayers.
The meeting was, as the saying goes, all down hill from there.
The battle lines are drawn.
Staci Bottoni and Sharon Quigley want whatever Ecogen wants. They want wind turbines now, wherever and however Ecogen wants them - taxpayers, scientific data and public opinion be damned. Who cares if the people in Europe and other parts of the world with many, many years more first-hand experience with wind power have dramatically rethought siting regulations and now understand that the low frequency noise generated by the turbines really does cause serious health problems? Who cares if almost all the initial impressions of those who live near the Cohocton sites are bad? Who cares if Hal Graham's windows rattle and he and his neighbors near the turbine can't sleep from the noise? Who cares if Ecogen's backer appears on the brink of bankruptcy?
Staci said she was not personally going to be impacted by turbine noise anyway because she could not afford the expensive land "up in the hills" where "those people" live and the turbines will be placed. Sharon said she paid "a lot of taxes" and that the Baptists should have drained their pipes.
Steve Kula and Chuck Shick are not yet sold. Steve Kula, a self-avowed wind power advocate who still supports the concept and feels a wind project might be good for Prattsburgh, is not willing to proceed without solid assurances that both participating and non-participating landowners would be equally protected. Charles Shick has been skeptical from the offset, cautiously optimistic but still skeptical - not opposed, but firm in his position that it would be inappropriate to proceed without more facts backed by solid scientific data.
And, so far at least, Harold's position has been to vote with the developers.
Time and again, the discussion became way beyond heated - hostile would be a more accurate description.
Steve Kula went after John Leydon and Harold like a rat terrier. John didn't like having his billing and whether it was appropriate for him to represent the Town, SCIDA and the developers questioned. Steve asked Harold for a copy of the letter he'd written apparently supporting the Ecogen project that some landowners have said the developers appear to be using to convince landowners to sign up. There seem to be questions about whether the developers have been billed by the Town for all the expenses and cost they had agreed to pay.
Steve and Chuck made a valiant effort to turn the Board's attention back to the need for developing a Wind Law. Staci and Sharon - after accepting Ecogen's invitation to visit a wind farm in Canada sporting the Siemens 2.3 MW turbine at the Town's expense - are convinced that Ecogen is prepared to respond positively to all the issues that came up last month - noise, safety & liability, and local jobs - and that a Prattsburgh Wind Law or a moratorium - is not necessary.
The Board's on-going position and planned next steps about what they intend to do about why Italy is getting a hugely 'better deal' was less clear.
The mystery stenographer was there again but was sporadic in what discussion topics she fully transcribed.
Many from the audience spoke when afforded the opportunity.
Many expressed outrage that the Board was so aloof and unencumbered by the interests of those who elected them that the idea of moving the meeting to a location where the at least 75-100 members of the public could all hear and participate was dismissed out-of-hand. Several questioned whether the Town should consider a new attorney with clearer allegiance.
Al Wordingham presented detailed siting, blade throw and noise data from other parts of the world that should be incorporated in a Wind Law.
John Servo spoke eloquently about some of the legal, liability and mechanics lien issues that rendered participating landowners unable to protect themselves or even sell their properties once a wind turbine had been erected on their land.
A licensed noise engineer, Rick James, paid for by John Servo, described in detail that - allowed to proceed as planned - the noise from turbines for Prattsburgh residents is going to be a serious issue and that considerable uncontroversial data proved that the low frequency noise from the turbines, in fact, presents health hazards.
Terry Drake repeated what he presented in a recent letter to the Naples Record - that although Ecogen had told him that the lease he'd signed with them would not stand in the way of his agreement to sell John Servo an easement across his land for a power line - today, several years after he and John had reached their agreement, Ecogen had successfully stopped them from moving ahead.
Other speakers said that Ecogen had trespassed on their property, used harassment to them get them to sign up, and told them things that did not appear to be true as an inducement to proceed.
Prattsburgh residents and landowners are missing a real spectacle - small town politics at their best and their worst - if they don't attend these meetings.
In truth, if this month's meeting was typical, you may not be able to get in unless you arrive early or call Harold McConnell in advance so he can anticipate how many people may come, but by coming and complaining if you cannot get in, you'll send a clear message that the Board represents you and you want to be able to watch while they do so.
Next month's meeting - 6:30 pm on Thursday, May 21st at either the Fire Hall or the School - will be a Public Meeting at which Ecogen will make a presentation and answer questions on their project.
Nancy Wahlstrom
The tenor was set in the first 30 seconds of the Meeting. While attendees were greeted by not one, but 2, armed Steuben County Sherriff's Department officers, there was no 'wanding' this month. As has been the case now for every meeting of consequence for now the past several years, every of the ± 45 visitors seats was taken by shortly after 6:30 pm. The hallway and lobby was standing room only with at least another 25-30 people trying to hear; more people stood in the rain under umbrellas at the open side door. Others were standing on the porch, out in the driveway, and could be seen driving away because they couldn't get in.
Immediately after the Supervisor gaveled the Meeting to order shortly after 7 pm, Steve Kula introduced a motion, seconded by Chuck Shick, to move the session to the Fire Hall to accommodate the overflow crowd of those interested in both sides of the issues on the agenda. After a brief attempt by Harold McConnell to characterize moving the meeting as difficult "at this late hour" because he'd had no forewarning that the meeting would be "well attended", a 3-2 vote - Steve and Chuck voting Yes, Staci, Sharon and Harold voting No - ended any discussion of whether the meeting should be moved to another venue just because doing so would be in the best interests of the taxpayers.
The meeting was, as the saying goes, all down hill from there.
The battle lines are drawn.
Staci Bottoni and Sharon Quigley want whatever Ecogen wants. They want wind turbines now, wherever and however Ecogen wants them - taxpayers, scientific data and public opinion be damned. Who cares if the people in Europe and other parts of the world with many, many years more first-hand experience with wind power have dramatically rethought siting regulations and now understand that the low frequency noise generated by the turbines really does cause serious health problems? Who cares if almost all the initial impressions of those who live near the Cohocton sites are bad? Who cares if Hal Graham's windows rattle and he and his neighbors near the turbine can't sleep from the noise? Who cares if Ecogen's backer appears on the brink of bankruptcy?
Staci said she was not personally going to be impacted by turbine noise anyway because she could not afford the expensive land "up in the hills" where "those people" live and the turbines will be placed. Sharon said she paid "a lot of taxes" and that the Baptists should have drained their pipes.
Steve Kula and Chuck Shick are not yet sold. Steve Kula, a self-avowed wind power advocate who still supports the concept and feels a wind project might be good for Prattsburgh, is not willing to proceed without solid assurances that both participating and non-participating landowners would be equally protected. Charles Shick has been skeptical from the offset, cautiously optimistic but still skeptical - not opposed, but firm in his position that it would be inappropriate to proceed without more facts backed by solid scientific data.
And, so far at least, Harold's position has been to vote with the developers.
Time and again, the discussion became way beyond heated - hostile would be a more accurate description.
Steve Kula went after John Leydon and Harold like a rat terrier. John didn't like having his billing and whether it was appropriate for him to represent the Town, SCIDA and the developers questioned. Steve asked Harold for a copy of the letter he'd written apparently supporting the Ecogen project that some landowners have said the developers appear to be using to convince landowners to sign up. There seem to be questions about whether the developers have been billed by the Town for all the expenses and cost they had agreed to pay.
Steve and Chuck made a valiant effort to turn the Board's attention back to the need for developing a Wind Law. Staci and Sharon - after accepting Ecogen's invitation to visit a wind farm in Canada sporting the Siemens 2.3 MW turbine at the Town's expense - are convinced that Ecogen is prepared to respond positively to all the issues that came up last month - noise, safety & liability, and local jobs - and that a Prattsburgh Wind Law or a moratorium - is not necessary.
The Board's on-going position and planned next steps about what they intend to do about why Italy is getting a hugely 'better deal' was less clear.
The mystery stenographer was there again but was sporadic in what discussion topics she fully transcribed.
Many from the audience spoke when afforded the opportunity.
Many expressed outrage that the Board was so aloof and unencumbered by the interests of those who elected them that the idea of moving the meeting to a location where the at least 75-100 members of the public could all hear and participate was dismissed out-of-hand. Several questioned whether the Town should consider a new attorney with clearer allegiance.
Al Wordingham presented detailed siting, blade throw and noise data from other parts of the world that should be incorporated in a Wind Law.
John Servo spoke eloquently about some of the legal, liability and mechanics lien issues that rendered participating landowners unable to protect themselves or even sell their properties once a wind turbine had been erected on their land.
A licensed noise engineer, Rick James, paid for by John Servo, described in detail that - allowed to proceed as planned - the noise from turbines for Prattsburgh residents is going to be a serious issue and that considerable uncontroversial data proved that the low frequency noise from the turbines, in fact, presents health hazards.
Terry Drake repeated what he presented in a recent letter to the Naples Record - that although Ecogen had told him that the lease he'd signed with them would not stand in the way of his agreement to sell John Servo an easement across his land for a power line - today, several years after he and John had reached their agreement, Ecogen had successfully stopped them from moving ahead.
Other speakers said that Ecogen had trespassed on their property, used harassment to them get them to sign up, and told them things that did not appear to be true as an inducement to proceed.
Prattsburgh residents and landowners are missing a real spectacle - small town politics at their best and their worst - if they don't attend these meetings.
In truth, if this month's meeting was typical, you may not be able to get in unless you arrive early or call Harold McConnell in advance so he can anticipate how many people may come, but by coming and complaining if you cannot get in, you'll send a clear message that the Board represents you and you want to be able to watch while they do so.
Next month's meeting - 6:30 pm on Thursday, May 21st at either the Fire Hall or the School - will be a Public Meeting at which Ecogen will make a presentation and answer questions on their project.
Nancy Wahlstrom
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Prattsburgh Councilman Charles A Shick Letter to the Editor
After recently hearing about the noise problems in Cohocton, the tower collapse in Altona, and the mechanic liens placed on homeowners in Franklin County, it is beyond any rational thought to continue placing wind turbine generators too close to homes. The medical evidence of neurological problems with children under six years old and the elderly caused by living too close to turbines is well documented in Europe and other places around the world and is currently being studied in Maine. Turbines that are erected too close to people’s homes impose threatening health and safety issues. The setbacks in Cohocton are 1,500 feet from a home. Whereas, SCIDA has setbacks in Prattsburgh at 800 feet from your home and 480 feet from your property line. Most of Europe now has incorporated a one mile or greater setback law. Even the prowind Town Supervisor of Cohocton, Jack Zigenfuss, has written a letter pleading with the developer to fix the severe and pressing noise issues there. This is not new information; SCIDA and the Prattsburgh Town Board have known it for years and have chosen to ignore the facts. The Clipper Turbines used in Cohocton and the Siemens Turbines chosen for Prattsburgh are rated in the same intermediate category and have the identical noise rating of 106 decibels. State agencies and elected state and federal representatives are well aware of the issues and yet few have come forward to stop this travesty.
Environmentally conscious Prattsburgh residents who are opposed to the Prattsburgh project have always supported clean, green energy with the importance of proper placements of turbines. SCIDA chose the setbacks based on being able to get enough turbines in an area to make the project worthwhile for the developers. Corporations should not be put before people.
Never was there a concern for the nonparticipating land owner’s health and safety. Based on faulty data and information, provided by the developers, small towns have set noise levels that are completely inadequate. The DEC says an increase in ambient noise of 6 decibels will cause a disturbance. The ambient noise for rural areas is about 20-25 decibels. So, the noise level should not be over 31 decibels at the property line. Measurements in Cohocton are just under the limit of 50 decibels. This is 19 decibels above the DEC’s recommendation and that is why the people of Cohocton cannot sleep at night. We have all paid for Government Agencies (DEC, PSC, and NYSERDA) to study issues and make recommendations to avoid problems like those in Cohocton. Now the Prattsburgh developer wants to hold a special meeting to explain their plan and answer questions. I am sure they will offer the town many incentives like fire trucks, town barns, road signs, and the like. The Town Board shouldn’t allow itself to be bought off at the expense of its citizens. The Ecogen Turbines have the same noise rating as the turbines in Cohocton, but our setbacks are considerably less. This will cause serious harm to our citizens living in the area. To allow this project to move forward without significant change is negligence at best. The issues are health and safety, plain and simple!
Best Regards,
Councilman Charles A Shick
Environmentally conscious Prattsburgh residents who are opposed to the Prattsburgh project have always supported clean, green energy with the importance of proper placements of turbines. SCIDA chose the setbacks based on being able to get enough turbines in an area to make the project worthwhile for the developers. Corporations should not be put before people.
Never was there a concern for the nonparticipating land owner’s health and safety. Based on faulty data and information, provided by the developers, small towns have set noise levels that are completely inadequate. The DEC says an increase in ambient noise of 6 decibels will cause a disturbance. The ambient noise for rural areas is about 20-25 decibels. So, the noise level should not be over 31 decibels at the property line. Measurements in Cohocton are just under the limit of 50 decibels. This is 19 decibels above the DEC’s recommendation and that is why the people of Cohocton cannot sleep at night. We have all paid for Government Agencies (DEC, PSC, and NYSERDA) to study issues and make recommendations to avoid problems like those in Cohocton. Now the Prattsburgh developer wants to hold a special meeting to explain their plan and answer questions. I am sure they will offer the town many incentives like fire trucks, town barns, road signs, and the like. The Town Board shouldn’t allow itself to be bought off at the expense of its citizens. The Ecogen Turbines have the same noise rating as the turbines in Cohocton, but our setbacks are considerably less. This will cause serious harm to our citizens living in the area. To allow this project to move forward without significant change is negligence at best. The issues are health and safety, plain and simple!
Best Regards,
Councilman Charles A Shick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)