I am writing regarding the Ian Hanna case being heard presently in Ontario, and to offer a little more information and insight than was described in Lee Greenberg’s article today (1-24-11).
My expertise is not in health issues, but there is a direct relationship between those impacts and my proffesional studies of real estate impacts.
For example, numerous families have been forced to abandon their homes due to the factual impacts to health, sleep disturbances and the like, which the Canadian Wind Energy Association and the American Wind Energy Association prefer to dismiss as “concerns.” Many others have been unable to sell their homes due to the presence of nearby turbines, and which a growing list of realtors and estate agents report as being the deciding factor in would-be buyer’s decisions to look elsewhere.
There is a measurable and significant loss of values within 2 to 3 miles, and noise impacts have been broadcast as far as 5 miles or more, in some instances, with 1 to 2 miles being commonplace. Value losses have been measured at 20% to 40%, with a total loss of equity in some instances.
Wind developers have been known to buy out the most vocal neighbors who refuse to roll over and play dead when they are initially ignored, and then turn around and sell those same homes for 60% to 80% below the appraised value—thus confirming value losses by their own actions.
Other developers have avoided future liability by bulldozing the purchased homes.
In fact, wind developers and the existing Canadian setback are even inadequate to protect neighbors from ice throw or from sections of turbine blades, which are documented as occurring up to half a mile from the turbines, and I have personally heard of a blade throw (piece) that went about 1 mile.
Regardless of these facts, the wind industry often tries to convince the siting decision makers that safety issues are satisfied by setbacks of 1.1 X the height of turbines (550 meters in Canada), as if preventing a toppling turbine from landing on a neighbors house is the correct standard.
It is obvious what is happening here: The wind industry is playing a numbers game, under the assumption or actuarial calculations that it is less costly for them to fight a number of lawsuits from citizens who do not have deep pockets, than it is to buy out the property they need to create huge projects.
The solution is simple, also: Mandate that all property they seek to encompass with industrial overlays be purchased outright, so people have an option as to whether they choose to live in a large, noisy industrial setting.
I am quite certain any of your staff can confirm my factual comments by simply driving to any number of projects and counting the abandned and for sale homes, talking with a few remaining neighbors, etc. Maybe start with the Clear Creek project, where a dozen homes are reported abandoned, due to proximity of about 3 dozen turbines. The list will grow as large as time devoted to research of this issue will allow.
Like most other people, I initially assumed that wind energy would be a good trend. Unlike most people, I have expended something on the order of 2,000 hours looking into it, and my findings are quite contrary to the “positions” of the wind industry and their lobbyists. However, even the wind industry’s counterpart to my profession, Mr. Ben Hoen, has now gone on record saying that Property Value Guarantees should be used for nearby homeowners, and that “if wind developers won’t guarantee that, then they really don’t have a leg to stand on.”
Your publication can do much to bring the truth to public view, and I am available to answer any questions you may have. Also, you have my permission to publish this letter as you see fit.
Incidentally, if you Google my name + Adams County, Illinois, you will find a lengthier report which provides more details of property value impacts, along with public documents on buyouts made by Canadian Hydro of turbine neighbors homes.
Respectfully,
Michael S. McCann
McCann Appraisal, LLC
500 North Michigan Avenue, Suite # 300
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Real Estate Appraisal & Consulting
Fax: (312) 644-9244
Cell: (312) 961-1601
mikesmccann@comcast.net
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Giacalone takes 'pro-resident' approach
His critics call him anti-development and an obstructionist, and he has found himself on the losing end of some high-profile cases. But attorney Arthur Giacalone says he knows - and more important, his clients know - for what he stands.
Though he has spent much of his 34-year career fighting for the rights of residents against corporations, cities and counties - passing up a more-lucrative legal practice in the process - Giacalone wouldn't have it any other way.
Sitting in a modest office in the front of his East Aurora home, he doesn't look like a man who was just handed a bitter defeat in a headline-grabbing case. In fact, just days after losing a bid to block Verizon from building a 1 million-square-foot data center across the street from his client's farm, he remains passionate about why he should have won the case yet reflective on "David vs. Goliath" battles that he has often finds himself involved in.
Read the entire interview
Though he has spent much of his 34-year career fighting for the rights of residents against corporations, cities and counties - passing up a more-lucrative legal practice in the process - Giacalone wouldn't have it any other way.
Sitting in a modest office in the front of his East Aurora home, he doesn't look like a man who was just handed a bitter defeat in a headline-grabbing case. In fact, just days after losing a bid to block Verizon from building a 1 million-square-foot data center across the street from his client's farm, he remains passionate about why he should have won the case yet reflective on "David vs. Goliath" battles that he has often finds himself involved in.
Read the entire interview
Monday, January 24, 2011
Judge sets Ecogen, Prattsburgh hearing
Prattsburgh, NY — A court hearing has been set for Jan. 27 to learn more details about the events behind a year-long lawsuit between the town of Prattsburgh and a wind farm developer.
The hearing will resolve some issues and lead to a final decision in the dispute between the town and the developer, Ecogen, according to state Supreme Court Justice John Ark.
Ark wants sworn testimony from former town officials, including Attorney John Leyden and Supervisor Harold McConnell, Ecogen representatives and other town officials.
Questions appear to pinpoint Ecogen’s contention that it has been ready to set up 16 turbines for more than two years and questions Ecogen’s claim it had “vested rights” by late 2008.
Ecogen also claims board members have stymied the builder’s efforts to proceed with the project.
“Which is funny, when they’re on record telling the Town of Italy, Prattsburgh has been very cooperative throughout,” said Prattsburgh’s attorney Ed Hourihan.
Hourihan said the town is pleased to see the judge has narrowed the issues to “specifically pin down Ecogen’s ever changing position. Since this litigation has started, Ecogen had changed its position so many times its hard to tell what is the truth.”
Hourihan said he will question the witnesses and can present evidence proving any testimony is incorrect.
Last fall Ark said he was close to a decision in the case, but urged Ecogen and the town to meet and find an out-of-court compromise.
Town officials offered to provide other sites for the proposed turbines, but Ecogen maintained the December 2009 agreement was binding and refused to compromise.
An offer to meet with Prattsburgh by Ecogen’s parent company, Pattern, apparently fell through last month, current town Supervisor Al Wordingham said.
Wordingham said he called Pattern representative John Galloway just before Christmas to follow up on several phone conferences and a plan to meet.
“He told me he had some internal issues to resolve,” Wordingham said.
Galloway has not returned his final call, Wordingham told residents at the town board meeting Monday night.
“And we still don’t have their final site map,” Wordingham said.
In related action, the board held a public hearing on extending their moratorium on tower construction another six months. Several residents said they supported the moratorium, although they thought six months was too long.
The board will vote on the moratorium during their regular Feb. 22 meeting.
The hearing will resolve some issues and lead to a final decision in the dispute between the town and the developer, Ecogen, according to state Supreme Court Justice John Ark.
Ark wants sworn testimony from former town officials, including Attorney John Leyden and Supervisor Harold McConnell, Ecogen representatives and other town officials.
Questions appear to pinpoint Ecogen’s contention that it has been ready to set up 16 turbines for more than two years and questions Ecogen’s claim it had “vested rights” by late 2008.
Ecogen also claims board members have stymied the builder’s efforts to proceed with the project.
“Which is funny, when they’re on record telling the Town of Italy, Prattsburgh has been very cooperative throughout,” said Prattsburgh’s attorney Ed Hourihan.
Hourihan said the town is pleased to see the judge has narrowed the issues to “specifically pin down Ecogen’s ever changing position. Since this litigation has started, Ecogen had changed its position so many times its hard to tell what is the truth.”
Hourihan said he will question the witnesses and can present evidence proving any testimony is incorrect.
Last fall Ark said he was close to a decision in the case, but urged Ecogen and the town to meet and find an out-of-court compromise.
Town officials offered to provide other sites for the proposed turbines, but Ecogen maintained the December 2009 agreement was binding and refused to compromise.
An offer to meet with Prattsburgh by Ecogen’s parent company, Pattern, apparently fell through last month, current town Supervisor Al Wordingham said.
Wordingham said he called Pattern representative John Galloway just before Christmas to follow up on several phone conferences and a plan to meet.
“He told me he had some internal issues to resolve,” Wordingham said.
Galloway has not returned his final call, Wordingham told residents at the town board meeting Monday night.
“And we still don’t have their final site map,” Wordingham said.
In related action, the board held a public hearing on extending their moratorium on tower construction another six months. Several residents said they supported the moratorium, although they thought six months was too long.
The board will vote on the moratorium during their regular Feb. 22 meeting.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The Week In Green Energy: Mr. Hu Comes to America
In remarks published on the Huffington Post, Energy Secretary Steven Chu bluntly stated that when it comes to green energy, the U.S. has one goal: Beat China. “The United Sates is competing for leadership in energy innovation,” Chu wrote.
The U.S. might have ambitious goals in developing its renewable and cleantech industries, but right now , Beijing is is well ahead of Washington.
China’s renewable sector enjoys huge government subsidies, a seemingly endless demand for wind turbines and solar panels, and, most importantly, the ability to produce these turbines and panels at bargain basement prices. The numbers back up China’s position; last year renewable energy and cleantech investments into China topped to more than $51.1 billion, up 30 percent from 2009 levels. In fact, China accounted for 21 percent of all global green investments last year.
The U.S. only managed to attract $18 billion in investments to its own green energy sector in 2009. And largely because of lingering regulatory uncertainty and cheap natural gas, 2010 proved to be little better. According to the American Wind Energy Associations the third quarter was the slowest for the U.S. wind industry since 2007.
The investments flowing into China have helped create game-changing companies like solar panel makers (and World Cup sponsor) Yingli Solar and Suntech, which recently said it expected its panel shipments to jump by 50 percent this year. With a host of well capitalized Chinese companies looking to grow their market share both at home and abroad, U.S. companies are rightfully worried about potential competition from China.
Some Chinese companies are already moving in on U.S. companies’ turf. For example, GoldWind, a subsidiary of Urumqi, China-based Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co,recently hired First Wind CFO Tim Rosenzweig to oversee its U.S. expansion, including the development of the 104 megawatts Shady Oaks farm in Illinois.
GoldWind is serious about growing its U.S. revenues and is scouting for major office space in Chicago to house its North American subsidiary. Coincidentally, Chicago was also the only stop President Hu made outside Washington during his American sojourn.
The U.S. might have ambitious goals in developing its renewable and cleantech industries, but right now , Beijing is is well ahead of Washington.
China’s renewable sector enjoys huge government subsidies, a seemingly endless demand for wind turbines and solar panels, and, most importantly, the ability to produce these turbines and panels at bargain basement prices. The numbers back up China’s position; last year renewable energy and cleantech investments into China topped to more than $51.1 billion, up 30 percent from 2009 levels. In fact, China accounted for 21 percent of all global green investments last year.
The U.S. only managed to attract $18 billion in investments to its own green energy sector in 2009. And largely because of lingering regulatory uncertainty and cheap natural gas, 2010 proved to be little better. According to the American Wind Energy Associations the third quarter was the slowest for the U.S. wind industry since 2007.
The investments flowing into China have helped create game-changing companies like solar panel makers (and World Cup sponsor) Yingli Solar and Suntech, which recently said it expected its panel shipments to jump by 50 percent this year. With a host of well capitalized Chinese companies looking to grow their market share both at home and abroad, U.S. companies are rightfully worried about potential competition from China.
Some Chinese companies are already moving in on U.S. companies’ turf. For example, GoldWind, a subsidiary of Urumqi, China-based Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co,recently hired First Wind CFO Tim Rosenzweig to oversee its U.S. expansion, including the development of the 104 megawatts Shady Oaks farm in Illinois.
GoldWind is serious about growing its U.S. revenues and is scouting for major office space in Chicago to house its North American subsidiary. Coincidentally, Chicago was also the only stop President Hu made outside Washington during his American sojourn.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Bellying-up to the Corporate Welfare Bar Hurts Us All
Dear Editor,
After reading Invenergy's self-serving pontifications in their 1/13 article, "Invenergy and NYSERDA enter renewable energy credit purchase agreement", it seems we need to step back and take a look at the bigger picture here:
1.) I (and most citizens) agree we have environmental and energy issues, and
2.) I (and most citizens) agree that these technical matters should be solved using real science - not propaganda being put forth by corporate salesmen.
Real Science is not a collection of theorems, but is a PROCESS - the core process being the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method consists of a hypothesis (e.g. that wind energy is equivalent to our conventional power sources) being subjected to a: (1) comprehensive, (2) objective, (3) independent, (4) transparent, and (5) empirical-based assessment.
The fact is: This has NOT been done for wind energy - Anyplace!
Said in an another easy-to-understand way:
Since we are in agreement that we have energy and environmental issues, let's say that some entrepreneurs step forward and present us with a black box they claim holds a partial solution to these issues. Due to "confidentiality" reasons, they can't tell us what's in the box, but they assure us that it will work. Would we just say, "Great - Who do we make the $100 Billion Dollar check out to?" I think not.
We would say something like, "Thanks - that sounds good, but FIRST we need to see the PROOF that your product will be an effective cost-benefit solution BEFORE we mandate your product on citizens."
Again, this is exactly what has NOT been done for wind energy. All the Invenergy & NYSERDA propaganda puff-pieces in the world will not change this simple fact. As we've been asking for years now -- Show us the PROOF!
The fact is: Because industrial wind is NOT reliable, predictable, or dispatchable - it provides virtually NO Capacity Value (specified amounts of power on demand), and therefore, needs constant "shadow capacity" from our conventional power sources. Thus, wind has NOT, and can NOT replace our conventional power generators (i.e. - coal plants), and has NOT been proven to significantly reduce CO2 emissions anywhere.
The "economics" of wind are just as grim. (See) The direct grant program from the U.S. treasury worth 30% of the value of these industrial wind projects had been due to expire 12/31/10. However, thanks to politics in Washington, this very generous federal grant program (OUR money) was extended for another year when it was inserted at the last minute into in the recent federal tax compromise bill. We wouldn't even be talking about the Stony Creek project anymore if this "FREE taxpayer money handout program" had not been extended. This my friends, is corporate welfare!
Adding insult to injury, now NYSERDA is paying Invenergy for the "RECs" (Renewable Energy Credits) using ratepayer dollars that NYSERDA collects from us every month in our electric bills via the "Systems Benefit Charge" (SBC) - transferring even more of our money from our pockets to the international developers' pockets.
What part of "It's OUR money!" don't our political leaders get? Industrial wind salesmen offer to give communities back a mere pittance of their own money in return for permission to destroy the very environment they claim they wish to save. Those who are content to participate in this energy scam, drawing in dollars by bellying-up to the corporate welfare bar, are - unwittingly or not, hurting us all.
Environmental Activist for Sound Scientific Solutions,
Mary Kay Barton
CitizenPowerAlliance.org
After reading Invenergy's self-serving pontifications in their 1/13 article, "Invenergy and NYSERDA enter renewable energy credit purchase agreement", it seems we need to step back and take a look at the bigger picture here:
1.) I (and most citizens) agree we have environmental and energy issues, and
2.) I (and most citizens) agree that these technical matters should be solved using real science - not propaganda being put forth by corporate salesmen.
Real Science is not a collection of theorems, but is a PROCESS - the core process being the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method consists of a hypothesis (e.g. that wind energy is equivalent to our conventional power sources) being subjected to a: (1) comprehensive, (2) objective, (3) independent, (4) transparent, and (5) empirical-based assessment.
The fact is: This has NOT been done for wind energy - Anyplace!
Said in an another easy-to-understand way:
Since we are in agreement that we have energy and environmental issues, let's say that some entrepreneurs step forward and present us with a black box they claim holds a partial solution to these issues. Due to "confidentiality" reasons, they can't tell us what's in the box, but they assure us that it will work. Would we just say, "Great - Who do we make the $100 Billion Dollar check out to?" I think not.
We would say something like, "Thanks - that sounds good, but FIRST we need to see the PROOF that your product will be an effective cost-benefit solution BEFORE we mandate your product on citizens."
Again, this is exactly what has NOT been done for wind energy. All the Invenergy & NYSERDA propaganda puff-pieces in the world will not change this simple fact. As we've been asking for years now -- Show us the PROOF!
The fact is: Because industrial wind is NOT reliable, predictable, or dispatchable - it provides virtually NO Capacity Value (specified amounts of power on demand), and therefore, needs constant "shadow capacity" from our conventional power sources. Thus, wind has NOT, and can NOT replace our conventional power generators (i.e. - coal plants), and has NOT been proven to significantly reduce CO2 emissions anywhere.
The "economics" of wind are just as grim. (See) The direct grant program from the U.S. treasury worth 30% of the value of these industrial wind projects had been due to expire 12/31/10. However, thanks to politics in Washington, this very generous federal grant program (OUR money) was extended for another year when it was inserted at the last minute into in the recent federal tax compromise bill. We wouldn't even be talking about the Stony Creek project anymore if this "FREE taxpayer money handout program" had not been extended. This my friends, is corporate welfare!
Adding insult to injury, now NYSERDA is paying Invenergy for the "RECs" (Renewable Energy Credits) using ratepayer dollars that NYSERDA collects from us every month in our electric bills via the "Systems Benefit Charge" (SBC) - transferring even more of our money from our pockets to the international developers' pockets.
What part of "It's OUR money!" don't our political leaders get? Industrial wind salesmen offer to give communities back a mere pittance of their own money in return for permission to destroy the very environment they claim they wish to save. Those who are content to participate in this energy scam, drawing in dollars by bellying-up to the corporate welfare bar, are - unwittingly or not, hurting us all.
Environmental Activist for Sound Scientific Solutions,
Mary Kay Barton
CitizenPowerAlliance.org
Ag commissioner’s ethics questioned
I am writing in response to the Batavia Daily News/Johnson News Service editorial (“Ag and Markets”) of Jan. 14, 2011, praising the appointment of Darrel Aubertine’s appointment by Gov. Cuomo.
Voters in the 48th State Senate District kicked out Darrel Aubertine in November’s election. His term as senator didn’t last long — from February 2008 to December 2010. Aubertine’s defeat comes mainly as a result of his advocacy with wind energy and his blatant conflicts of interest with wind developers. Now, like a bad penny, Gov. Cuomo has cursed New York State voters and hired Aubertine as commissioner of the state Department of Agriculture and Markets. So here’s Aubertine feeding again at the public trough after North Country voters just ousted him — bounced out of the Energy Valley of New York State by voters who understand the truth.
But Aubertine is still very much a conflicted state officer and should not have been appointed by Cuomo to this patronage position because of his conflicts of interest, integrity and ethics — well known by Mr. Cuomo from his AG days. His appointment is in direct violation of Public Officer’s Law §73 and §74 (See entire article at BewareNYWind, to read the blatant violations of the law by Aubertine). Aubertine, by his own admission, has wind contracts (See ).
Cuomo has reneged his position, violated his own ethics policies, and forced an unwanted, conflicted turbine-hugger back on the public payroll. And what has Cuomo done to deal with the corrupt municipal officials in Cape Vincent (and across New York State, for that matter) since starting his investigation — nothing! (See)
Aubertine, now a New York State officer who is being compensated by a wind developer that has leases with mainly agricultural lands in New York State. Aubertine is being investigated by the state’s AG. Aubertine’s New York State ag business would be directly involved and interface with rural land owners, farmers, etc., many of whom already have leases with wind energy companies or might soon sign leases. Wind leases are part of ag business — can anyone dispute that? Could anyone possibly think rural property owners wouldn’t want to discuss wind leases with Aubertine as he makes his rounds as ag commissioner? How would Aubertine respond? This is an unquestionable conflict of interest. How could Cuomo appoint Aubertine knowing Aubertine is conflicted and part of an ongoing investigation? Why would Cuomo taint his strong ethics/integrity stand by taking such controversial action thus making himself a certifiable hypocrite?
Alan Isselhard
Great Lakes Wind Truth
Great Lakes Concerned Citizens
Wolcott
Voters in the 48th State Senate District kicked out Darrel Aubertine in November’s election. His term as senator didn’t last long — from February 2008 to December 2010. Aubertine’s defeat comes mainly as a result of his advocacy with wind energy and his blatant conflicts of interest with wind developers. Now, like a bad penny, Gov. Cuomo has cursed New York State voters and hired Aubertine as commissioner of the state Department of Agriculture and Markets. So here’s Aubertine feeding again at the public trough after North Country voters just ousted him — bounced out of the Energy Valley of New York State by voters who understand the truth.
But Aubertine is still very much a conflicted state officer and should not have been appointed by Cuomo to this patronage position because of his conflicts of interest, integrity and ethics — well known by Mr. Cuomo from his AG days. His appointment is in direct violation of Public Officer’s Law §73 and §74 (See entire article at BewareNYWind, to read the blatant violations of the law by Aubertine). Aubertine, by his own admission, has wind contracts (See ).
Cuomo has reneged his position, violated his own ethics policies, and forced an unwanted, conflicted turbine-hugger back on the public payroll. And what has Cuomo done to deal with the corrupt municipal officials in Cape Vincent (and across New York State, for that matter) since starting his investigation — nothing! (See)
Aubertine, now a New York State officer who is being compensated by a wind developer that has leases with mainly agricultural lands in New York State. Aubertine is being investigated by the state’s AG. Aubertine’s New York State ag business would be directly involved and interface with rural land owners, farmers, etc., many of whom already have leases with wind energy companies or might soon sign leases. Wind leases are part of ag business — can anyone dispute that? Could anyone possibly think rural property owners wouldn’t want to discuss wind leases with Aubertine as he makes his rounds as ag commissioner? How would Aubertine respond? This is an unquestionable conflict of interest. How could Cuomo appoint Aubertine knowing Aubertine is conflicted and part of an ongoing investigation? Why would Cuomo taint his strong ethics/integrity stand by taking such controversial action thus making himself a certifiable hypocrite?
Alan Isselhard
Great Lakes Wind Truth
Great Lakes Concerned Citizens
Wolcott
First Wind TIF deal rejected
Commissioners in Somerset County recently voted against forming a tax-increment financing district proposed by Massachusetts-based wind farm developer First Wind.
The refusal to set up a TIF in Mayfield Township marks the first time a wind farm developer's TIF request has been turned down in the state, according to the Morning Sentinel. It's also the first time First Wind has seen a TIF request rejected for any of its projects in the country. In their decision, commissioners expressed concern over the environmental and tourism impacts of First Wind's proposal to build 52 turbines in the town of Bingham, Mayfield Township and the Piscataquis County town of Blanchard, with 32 of those planned for Mayfield. First Wind, operating as Bingham Wind Power LLC, plans to submit its permit applications this spring, and a company representative said the project will continue. The TIF decision for Mayfield will not impact any TIF arrangements in the other two towns.
The TIF would have funneled estimated additional tax revenue of $1.35 million, with an undetermined percentage going to First Wind and the rest used by county commissioners for economic development projects.
The refusal to set up a TIF in Mayfield Township marks the first time a wind farm developer's TIF request has been turned down in the state, according to the Morning Sentinel. It's also the first time First Wind has seen a TIF request rejected for any of its projects in the country. In their decision, commissioners expressed concern over the environmental and tourism impacts of First Wind's proposal to build 52 turbines in the town of Bingham, Mayfield Township and the Piscataquis County town of Blanchard, with 32 of those planned for Mayfield. First Wind, operating as Bingham Wind Power LLC, plans to submit its permit applications this spring, and a company representative said the project will continue. The TIF decision for Mayfield will not impact any TIF arrangements in the other two towns.
The TIF would have funneled estimated additional tax revenue of $1.35 million, with an undetermined percentage going to First Wind and the rest used by county commissioners for economic development projects.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Monroe Co. Rejects GLOW
Rochester, NY - Monroe County Republican legislators have passed a non-binding resolution opposing the GLOW (Great Lakes Offshore Wind) project being promoted by the New York Power Authority and Gov. Cuomo. The Republican majority in the legislature (16 to 13) is what passed the resolution while all 13 Democrats did nothing - voters will be reminded of this come November. This NO Glow resolution is a Memorializing Referral (resolution). So signatures "Lend Support" to this Monroe County opposition to the presence of wind turbines off the shores of Monroe County in Lake Ontario as part of the GLOW project. It's non-binding. The article in this morning's Rochester Democrat & Chronicle newspaper by Steve Orr is found below. Monroe County now joins Jefferson, Oswego, Wayne, Chautauqua counties in rejecting the NYPA's GLOW project or any other project seeking to industrialize the Great Lakes.
Legislator Rick Antelli of Greece, NY sponsored the resolution beginning last July after hearing members of the Great Lakes Concerned Citizens make a presentation in Greece to area residents on the problems an offshore wind farm would create. Originally Antelli's resolution could not gain enough votes to carry a majority but in November he recirculated the resolution and it finally did produce a majority vote. Another nail in NYPA's coffin!
A BIG thanks to Greece, NY legislator Rick Antelli!
On July 20 the Greece town board voted unanimously against GLOW. On July 22, representatives of the Great Lakes Concerned citizens made a presentation to the Webster town board and at their August 5 town board meeting they voted unanimously against the GLOW project. Our same group spoke to the Irondequoit town board on July 27 sharing the same anti-GLOW message and spoke again on October 19 at a packed Irondequoit TB meeting. At the Oct. 19 town board meeting after listening to numerous Great Lakes Concerned Citizens and many others in attendance speak against GLOW - the Irondequoit town board (including 2 Democrats) voted unanimously against the GLOW proposal. Greece, Webster and Irondequoit have now joined many other Great Lakes lakeside towns and counties in opposing the GLOW project after each municipality did their own independent research on GLOW and came to the same conclusions.
The heavily Democrat controlled city council of Rochester didn't care to listen to our anti-GLOW message when we approached them nor did former Rochester mayor, Democrat Bob Duffy - now Lt. Governor. We had just sent a letter offering to speak to Democrat Tom Richards who was made Rochester mayor after Duffy resigned to become NYS Lt. Governor 3 weeks ago but now Richards has resigned after only 3 weeks over problems involving the Hatch Act. Do you think Democrats have problems??
Unfortunately, the Niagara County legislature is still stalling on considering reversing their original vote to support GLOW and the Erie County legislature has their head in the sand. Several Great Lakes Concerned Citizens made their presentations at the Sept. 21 Niagara County legislature meeting in Lockport, NY and the legislature has taken no action since then which is unfortunate for their constituents and helpful to NYPA. NYPA is hardly a friend of Niagara County and several entities there have expressed their outrage to legislators over the possibility of wind turbines in Lake Ontario. Waiting for NYPA to announce the GLOW project location(s) is dangerous and helpful to NYPA and the developer(s) and not the county near where the project is located. Hasn't Erie County seen enough with the failed Steel Winds I project in Lackawanna, NY and failure to see even the start of Steel Winds II that was supposed to be completed in 2010? The cost & availability of natural gas has pulled the rug out from under wind energy, among many other things, and people are finally beginning to realize nuclear is an ever better non-polluting cost effective energy choice.
The November elections will see more wind advocates kicked out. Thanks to so many anti-GLOW committee members that have contributed to the fight against the GLOW project and the encouraging actions like the one just taken by the Monroe Co. Republican legislators is encouraging. We can and will defeat the GLOW project and any similar offshore wind project.
Al Isselhard
Great Lakes Concerned Citizens
Great Lakes Wind Truth
Wolcott, New York
Read the D&C Article
Legislator Rick Antelli of Greece, NY sponsored the resolution beginning last July after hearing members of the Great Lakes Concerned Citizens make a presentation in Greece to area residents on the problems an offshore wind farm would create. Originally Antelli's resolution could not gain enough votes to carry a majority but in November he recirculated the resolution and it finally did produce a majority vote. Another nail in NYPA's coffin!
A BIG thanks to Greece, NY legislator Rick Antelli!
On July 20 the Greece town board voted unanimously against GLOW. On July 22, representatives of the Great Lakes Concerned citizens made a presentation to the Webster town board and at their August 5 town board meeting they voted unanimously against the GLOW project. Our same group spoke to the Irondequoit town board on July 27 sharing the same anti-GLOW message and spoke again on October 19 at a packed Irondequoit TB meeting. At the Oct. 19 town board meeting after listening to numerous Great Lakes Concerned Citizens and many others in attendance speak against GLOW - the Irondequoit town board (including 2 Democrats) voted unanimously against the GLOW proposal. Greece, Webster and Irondequoit have now joined many other Great Lakes lakeside towns and counties in opposing the GLOW project after each municipality did their own independent research on GLOW and came to the same conclusions.
The heavily Democrat controlled city council of Rochester didn't care to listen to our anti-GLOW message when we approached them nor did former Rochester mayor, Democrat Bob Duffy - now Lt. Governor. We had just sent a letter offering to speak to Democrat Tom Richards who was made Rochester mayor after Duffy resigned to become NYS Lt. Governor 3 weeks ago but now Richards has resigned after only 3 weeks over problems involving the Hatch Act. Do you think Democrats have problems??
Unfortunately, the Niagara County legislature is still stalling on considering reversing their original vote to support GLOW and the Erie County legislature has their head in the sand. Several Great Lakes Concerned Citizens made their presentations at the Sept. 21 Niagara County legislature meeting in Lockport, NY and the legislature has taken no action since then which is unfortunate for their constituents and helpful to NYPA. NYPA is hardly a friend of Niagara County and several entities there have expressed their outrage to legislators over the possibility of wind turbines in Lake Ontario. Waiting for NYPA to announce the GLOW project location(s) is dangerous and helpful to NYPA and the developer(s) and not the county near where the project is located. Hasn't Erie County seen enough with the failed Steel Winds I project in Lackawanna, NY and failure to see even the start of Steel Winds II that was supposed to be completed in 2010? The cost & availability of natural gas has pulled the rug out from under wind energy, among many other things, and people are finally beginning to realize nuclear is an ever better non-polluting cost effective energy choice.
The November elections will see more wind advocates kicked out. Thanks to so many anti-GLOW committee members that have contributed to the fight against the GLOW project and the encouraging actions like the one just taken by the Monroe Co. Republican legislators is encouraging. We can and will defeat the GLOW project and any similar offshore wind project.
Al Isselhard
Great Lakes Concerned Citizens
Great Lakes Wind Truth
Wolcott, New York
Read the D&C Article
Ron Stephens ‘Why Wind Farms?’
WIND FARMS EXPOSED as a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT land grab and economic scheme based on carbon tax/credits, Wind Energy & U.N. Agenda 21 explained in a presentation by Ron Stephens at the ‘What is Truth Conference’ in Woodford, Ontario, Canada (19/12/2010)
Toronto Truth Seekers – http://www.torontotruthseekers.com
MORE VIDEO FOOTAGE of the Woodford Truth Conference COMING SOON…
Residents raise noise on windmills
Town of Allegany officials once again heard from local residents who are against a wind turbine farm in their community during a public hearing Tuesday at the Allegany Senior Center.
The public hearing was held to hear comments from residents regarding a requested increase for the noise level that would be emitted by an industrial wind turbine farm proposed for the Chipmonk and Knapp Creek area. A 29-turbine commercial wind farm has been proposed for the town by New York City-based EverPower Renewables. EverPower officials have requested that the noise level emitted by the wind turbines be raised to 40 decibels. The current town law allows for the noise level to be raised 3 decibels above the ambient level of 25 decibels.
Residents who have attended meetings and hearings in the past have generally opposed a wind turbine farm locating in the community. Their opposition to the proposal has included concerns that a wind turbine farm will create noise, aesthetic and environmental issues for the community.
The public hearing was held to hear comments from residents regarding a requested increase for the noise level that would be emitted by an industrial wind turbine farm proposed for the Chipmonk and Knapp Creek area. A 29-turbine commercial wind farm has been proposed for the town by New York City-based EverPower Renewables. EverPower officials have requested that the noise level emitted by the wind turbines be raised to 40 decibels. The current town law allows for the noise level to be raised 3 decibels above the ambient level of 25 decibels.
Residents who have attended meetings and hearings in the past have generally opposed a wind turbine farm locating in the community. Their opposition to the proposal has included concerns that a wind turbine farm will create noise, aesthetic and environmental issues for the community.
Wind Power Ethics Group asking for residents’ aid in lawsuit
CAPE VINCENT, N.Y. — The Wind Power Ethics Group began gathering public comments Sunday regarding its Article 78 lawsuit filed against both the town Planning Board and Acciona Wind Energy USA in an effort to gain momentum against its defendants.
Jefferson’s Leaning Left and Pandora’s Box of Rocks, two local blogs apparently against wind development in the town, featured a message from WPEG entitled, “The Pen is Mightier than the Sword.”
Directly naming Acciona Project Manager Tim Q. Conboy, Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall, former supervisor Thomas K. Reinbeck and Planning Board attorney Todd M. Mathes, the message reads, “If anyone has knowledge about any unreasonable, unfair or devious actions of the Cape Vincent Planning Board, the wind developer Acciona or their attorneys, please let us know.
John L. Byrne, the organization’s president, said WPEG has had an “overwhelming response” from town residents. Included with the group’s message are affidavits from various town officials, along with their testimonies regarding the lawsuit.
“We’ve received, I would say 20 to 30 e-mails so far that have come in with solid holes in their response,” he said. “The citizens are actually participating in the lawsuit now, which is a really interesting thing.”
But not all Cape Vincent town residents say they are in favor of the plaintiff, WPEG, or its claim, “The residents are suing the town in Cape Vincent,” as read in the subject line of an e-mail sent to Newzjunky.com from Byrne.
“They would like to believe that, but that’s not true,” Darrell E. Burton, Jr., a member of Voters for Wind said. “You know, there’s been an awful lot of lies and that’s not how you win a case. You win a case by proving what’s been going on.”
Burton, referring to WPEG’s allegations that the Planning Board breached the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which played into the Article 78 lawsuit filed Oct. 27, 2010, believes the anti-wind group’s concern with sound is over-exaggerated.
“These noise, sound tests that they’ve done, they’re so far off,” Burton said. “They don’t really give you the true picture, they choose when they do them. If they do it out in the farmer’s field and the farmer happens to drive his tractor, which makes an extreme amount a noise, they eliminate that.”
He continued, “I live right on the Lake Ontario shore and you should have been here last night to hear the noise from the waves and the ice bouncing on the shore. It doesn’t bother me at all.”
Last week Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey was criticized by town citizens for allegedly sharing confidential documents regarding the sound study with WPEG, labeled as “Soundgate” by wind development critics.
Byrne, however, believes the ambient sound study, conducted by Hessler Associates Inc., Haymarket, Va., is a critical piece of information to town residents and should be publicly available.
“The information very, clearly shows that the sound study by the developer, which was accepted by our planning board, was flawed.”
If you know something about the actions of Cape Vincent'sconflicted officials and there accomplices, we need your help!
If anyone has knowledge about any unreasonable, unfair or devious actions of the CapeVincent Planning Board, the wind developer Acciona or their attorneys, pleaselet us know.If you are concerned, frustrated or angry about the actions of our conflicted officials youcan help support justice by reviewing the affidavits of Mathes, Edsall, Rienbeck, Accionaand Conboy If you find any statements made in their affidavits that you know to be false, or if youhave information that can refute any statements they make, pleaselet us know.
Send any information you may have that can help us in our legal battle to:
WPEG email address
cvny1@me.com
Your name will be kept confidential. If you include your phone number, we will followup with a personal contact. Thank you for your help and assistance, all your efforts are greatly appreciated. WPEG's legal team
Jefferson’s Leaning Left and Pandora’s Box of Rocks, two local blogs apparently against wind development in the town, featured a message from WPEG entitled, “The Pen is Mightier than the Sword.”
Directly naming Acciona Project Manager Tim Q. Conboy, Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall, former supervisor Thomas K. Reinbeck and Planning Board attorney Todd M. Mathes, the message reads, “If anyone has knowledge about any unreasonable, unfair or devious actions of the Cape Vincent Planning Board, the wind developer Acciona or their attorneys, please let us know.
John L. Byrne, the organization’s president, said WPEG has had an “overwhelming response” from town residents. Included with the group’s message are affidavits from various town officials, along with their testimonies regarding the lawsuit.
“We’ve received, I would say 20 to 30 e-mails so far that have come in with solid holes in their response,” he said. “The citizens are actually participating in the lawsuit now, which is a really interesting thing.”
But not all Cape Vincent town residents say they are in favor of the plaintiff, WPEG, or its claim, “The residents are suing the town in Cape Vincent,” as read in the subject line of an e-mail sent to Newzjunky.com from Byrne.
“They would like to believe that, but that’s not true,” Darrell E. Burton, Jr., a member of Voters for Wind said. “You know, there’s been an awful lot of lies and that’s not how you win a case. You win a case by proving what’s been going on.”
Burton, referring to WPEG’s allegations that the Planning Board breached the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which played into the Article 78 lawsuit filed Oct. 27, 2010, believes the anti-wind group’s concern with sound is over-exaggerated.
“These noise, sound tests that they’ve done, they’re so far off,” Burton said. “They don’t really give you the true picture, they choose when they do them. If they do it out in the farmer’s field and the farmer happens to drive his tractor, which makes an extreme amount a noise, they eliminate that.”
He continued, “I live right on the Lake Ontario shore and you should have been here last night to hear the noise from the waves and the ice bouncing on the shore. It doesn’t bother me at all.”
Last week Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey was criticized by town citizens for allegedly sharing confidential documents regarding the sound study with WPEG, labeled as “Soundgate” by wind development critics.
Byrne, however, believes the ambient sound study, conducted by Hessler Associates Inc., Haymarket, Va., is a critical piece of information to town residents and should be publicly available.
“The information very, clearly shows that the sound study by the developer, which was accepted by our planning board, was flawed.”
If you know something about the actions of Cape Vincent'sconflicted officials and there accomplices, we need your help!
If anyone has knowledge about any unreasonable, unfair or devious actions of the CapeVincent Planning Board, the wind developer Acciona or their attorneys, pleaselet us know.If you are concerned, frustrated or angry about the actions of our conflicted officials youcan help support justice by reviewing the affidavits of Mathes, Edsall, Rienbeck, Accionaand Conboy If you find any statements made in their affidavits that you know to be false, or if youhave information that can refute any statements they make, pleaselet us know.
Send any information you may have that can help us in our legal battle to:
WPEG email address
cvny1@me.com
Your name will be kept confidential. If you include your phone number, we will followup with a personal contact. Thank you for your help and assistance, all your efforts are greatly appreciated. WPEG's legal team
Majority of Monroe County legislators oppose state's wind farm plan
The New York Power Authority continues to consider proposals to build offshore wind turbines, but a majority of Monroe County legislators have now gone on record opposing the idea.
The Power Authority, an independent arm of state government, solicited proposals in 2009 from the private sector to build one or more wind farms in the near-shore waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. Five proposals were submitted last June, and authority officials have been studying them since then. Officials have refused to reveal any information about the proposals.
Authority spokeswoman Connie Cullen said Tuesday that officials were on track to select one or more developers by the end of the first quarter, or March 31. The authority, which would purchase power generated by the wind turbines, is pushing the project as a source of renewable energy and green jobs.
A Voice of the Voter poll conducted in the fall found that 68 percent of the likely Monroe County voters surveyed supported allowing wind turbines offshore in Lake Ontario, 17 percent were opposed and 15 percent were undecided.
But opposition has surfaced in a number of shoreline communities, with county lawmakers in Wayne, Oswego, Jefferson and Chautauqua counties coming out against the idea.
Monroe County Legislator Rick Antelli, R-Greece, circulated a non-binding resolution among Monroe lawmakers in July, but drew only 12 signatures — three fewer than would constitute a majority of the 29-member body.
But Antelli said Tuesday that he resubmitted the resolution to his colleagues around Thanksgiving, and got four more signatures. All 16 Republicans have now signed, though none of the 13 Democrats joined them.
"There is a majority now. The Power Authority always said they're not going to go where they're not wanted," said Antelli, noting that town boards in Greece, Irondequoit and Webster also have expressed opposition. "At least in Monroe County, we're sending a message. So we'll see."
Power Authority spokeswoman Cullen said, "NYPA is always interested in receiving comment on the project, and will consider it as we do all public comment."
News of the four new signatories on Antelli's resolution first began making the rounds Tuesday, buoying offshore wind opponents.
"I believe it is clear that there is strong resistance ... around lakes Ontario and Erie, a message NYPA must consider," said Suzanne Albright, a Greece resident and a leader of Great Lakes Wind Truth, a citizens group that questions offshore turbines. "At a time when New York state is in serious debt, why would NYPA even be considering such a wasteful, expensive idea?"
The Power Authority, an independent arm of state government, solicited proposals in 2009 from the private sector to build one or more wind farms in the near-shore waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. Five proposals were submitted last June, and authority officials have been studying them since then. Officials have refused to reveal any information about the proposals.
Authority spokeswoman Connie Cullen said Tuesday that officials were on track to select one or more developers by the end of the first quarter, or March 31. The authority, which would purchase power generated by the wind turbines, is pushing the project as a source of renewable energy and green jobs.
A Voice of the Voter poll conducted in the fall found that 68 percent of the likely Monroe County voters surveyed supported allowing wind turbines offshore in Lake Ontario, 17 percent were opposed and 15 percent were undecided.
But opposition has surfaced in a number of shoreline communities, with county lawmakers in Wayne, Oswego, Jefferson and Chautauqua counties coming out against the idea.
Monroe County Legislator Rick Antelli, R-Greece, circulated a non-binding resolution among Monroe lawmakers in July, but drew only 12 signatures — three fewer than would constitute a majority of the 29-member body.
But Antelli said Tuesday that he resubmitted the resolution to his colleagues around Thanksgiving, and got four more signatures. All 16 Republicans have now signed, though none of the 13 Democrats joined them.
"There is a majority now. The Power Authority always said they're not going to go where they're not wanted," said Antelli, noting that town boards in Greece, Irondequoit and Webster also have expressed opposition. "At least in Monroe County, we're sending a message. So we'll see."
Power Authority spokeswoman Cullen said, "NYPA is always interested in receiving comment on the project, and will consider it as we do all public comment."
News of the four new signatories on Antelli's resolution first began making the rounds Tuesday, buoying offshore wind opponents.
"I believe it is clear that there is strong resistance ... around lakes Ontario and Erie, a message NYPA must consider," said Suzanne Albright, a Greece resident and a leader of Great Lakes Wind Truth, a citizens group that questions offshore turbines. "At a time when New York state is in serious debt, why would NYPA even be considering such a wasteful, expensive idea?"
Monday, January 17, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)