Date: August 10,2006
To: Town Board and Town Planning Board of Cohocton cc: Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton.
I respectfully submit a SECOND request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town's negligently, and irresponsibly out of date (i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) "Comprehensive Master Plan" before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered?
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC's track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights and potential liabilities of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town liabilities?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent "oath of silence" and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the Planning Board's Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board's meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article l;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the "PURPOSE of said law is:
"2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:...
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas...
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community."
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987; Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE SECOND TIME IN WRITING and at least the SECOND TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers and that the Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Cohocton Clean is back online
Thank you to everyone that assisted in bringing Cohocton Clean back online: Mark Densmore, Jane Towner and "Red Dog".
Cohoctonclean.blogspot.com
Cohoctonclean.blogspot.com
Monday, August 07, 2006
Donna Marmuscak earthquake effects from industrial wind turbines?
Hi everyone in Cohocton,
You don't know me but I am trying to help fight industrial wind turbines along with you. I have been to several of your informational meetings. More on all that at a later date. I am going to try to attach an article that I just sent to Sue Silinski. I have been concerned about the vibrations on our bedrock. These huge wind turbines would have to have an effect. There have been earthquakes in New York. I think someday we are in for a pretty big one. What are those setbacks? Has there been any research done? One of my sisters has a geology degree from Alfred and another, the one who sent me the article, is studying it in Arizona. Let's not bury our heads in the sand. There will be a whole lot of shaking goin' on here too if they put these windturbines in! "talk" to you later.
Donna Marmuscak
MENTOR, Ohio (AP) -- A corner of suburban Cleveland has become the earthquake capital of Ohio, shaking on average every two weeks since New Year's Day and making people wonder: What's next?
The quakes haven't caused any serious problems and sometimes even go unnoticed. Experts aren't sure why they are happening, but they do know they are happening frequently: Twelve were recorded in the area by July 1.
"I heard one," said Jim Farrell, 79, of Mentor, a retired plasterer with an eye for wall damage. Still, he hasn't seen any damage and hasn't felt any of the quakes recorded in Lake County and under adjacent Lake Erie.
The earthquakes have been small, measuring from magnitude 2.0 to 3.8. In comparison, the 1994 quake that hit the Northridge area of Los Angeles, California, was a 6.7 magnitude.
Though they are occurring often now, earthquakes aren't uncommon in the region. Lake County has been the site for 14 of the 20 earthquakes recorded in the state in the past two years. The quakes result from a fault, or crack, that is under pressure, one of a number of faults in Ohio, most of which are under the sedimentary bedrock.
Ground zero for keeping track of the Lake County earthquakes is a busy classroom building on the Lakeland Community College campus, where a seismic monitor sits on the concrete floor of a tiny closet housing electric boxes.
The monitor is sensitive enough to pick up the rumblings of a heavy truck along nearby Interstate 90, according to David Pierce, an assistant geology professor who keeps tabs on readings forwarded to the statewide Ohio Seismic Network near Columbus.
To Pierce, a low-level earthquake "always feels like a semi [tractor-trailer] coming down my street and hits a rock or a speed bump," sending a boom like a burst of compressed air.
Pierce, like police and fire departments, can get dozens of calls when an earthquake strikes, often from people happy to learn that it didn't do damage and wasn't a terror attack.
Without damage or injury from the series of quakes, the question for many is: Will the next one be worse?
"The official take is: We don't know," Pierce said.
The frequent quakes have prompted some caution among officials. A top concern for some Lake County authorities is the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, which was constructed to withstand a building-shaking 6.0 earthquake and opened in 1987 a year after a 5.0 quake in Lake County.
The biggest of the recent earthquakes, a 3.8 temblor recorded June 20, automatically set off alarms to alert a plant command post. That sent 30 inspectors on a four-hour search for any indication of cracked pipes or other damage.
None was found, Perry spokeswoman Jennifer Young said. The plant remained in operation without interruption during detailed inspections of cement walls and pipelines reinforced with shock absorbers to handle shaking.
Data indicates homeowners aren't making many changes to protect against the quakes. There is little evidence that many homeowners have made moves to buy earthquake insurance, said Gary Christy with the Westfield Group insurance. Nine percent of the Westfield-insured homes in Lake County have earthquake insurance.
Nationwide Insurance agent Gerald Merhar in nearby Willoughby said about 15 percent of his homeowner policies have earthquake coverage riders costing about $20 a year for a frame home and $30 for brick.
Merhar, 57, whose own home has a repaired crack from a quake more than 50 years ago, recommends coverage, especially for brick homes. "They don't shake well," he said.
You don't know me but I am trying to help fight industrial wind turbines along with you. I have been to several of your informational meetings. More on all that at a later date. I am going to try to attach an article that I just sent to Sue Silinski. I have been concerned about the vibrations on our bedrock. These huge wind turbines would have to have an effect. There have been earthquakes in New York. I think someday we are in for a pretty big one. What are those setbacks? Has there been any research done? One of my sisters has a geology degree from Alfred and another, the one who sent me the article, is studying it in Arizona. Let's not bury our heads in the sand. There will be a whole lot of shaking goin' on here too if they put these windturbines in! "talk" to you later.
Donna Marmuscak
MENTOR, Ohio (AP) -- A corner of suburban Cleveland has become the earthquake capital of Ohio, shaking on average every two weeks since New Year's Day and making people wonder: What's next?
The quakes haven't caused any serious problems and sometimes even go unnoticed. Experts aren't sure why they are happening, but they do know they are happening frequently: Twelve were recorded in the area by July 1.
"I heard one," said Jim Farrell, 79, of Mentor, a retired plasterer with an eye for wall damage. Still, he hasn't seen any damage and hasn't felt any of the quakes recorded in Lake County and under adjacent Lake Erie.
The earthquakes have been small, measuring from magnitude 2.0 to 3.8. In comparison, the 1994 quake that hit the Northridge area of Los Angeles, California, was a 6.7 magnitude.
Though they are occurring often now, earthquakes aren't uncommon in the region. Lake County has been the site for 14 of the 20 earthquakes recorded in the state in the past two years. The quakes result from a fault, or crack, that is under pressure, one of a number of faults in Ohio, most of which are under the sedimentary bedrock.
Ground zero for keeping track of the Lake County earthquakes is a busy classroom building on the Lakeland Community College campus, where a seismic monitor sits on the concrete floor of a tiny closet housing electric boxes.
The monitor is sensitive enough to pick up the rumblings of a heavy truck along nearby Interstate 90, according to David Pierce, an assistant geology professor who keeps tabs on readings forwarded to the statewide Ohio Seismic Network near Columbus.
To Pierce, a low-level earthquake "always feels like a semi [tractor-trailer] coming down my street and hits a rock or a speed bump," sending a boom like a burst of compressed air.
Pierce, like police and fire departments, can get dozens of calls when an earthquake strikes, often from people happy to learn that it didn't do damage and wasn't a terror attack.
Without damage or injury from the series of quakes, the question for many is: Will the next one be worse?
"The official take is: We don't know," Pierce said.
The frequent quakes have prompted some caution among officials. A top concern for some Lake County authorities is the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, which was constructed to withstand a building-shaking 6.0 earthquake and opened in 1987 a year after a 5.0 quake in Lake County.
The biggest of the recent earthquakes, a 3.8 temblor recorded June 20, automatically set off alarms to alert a plant command post. That sent 30 inspectors on a four-hour search for any indication of cracked pipes or other damage.
None was found, Perry spokeswoman Jennifer Young said. The plant remained in operation without interruption during detailed inspections of cement walls and pipelines reinforced with shock absorbers to handle shaking.
Data indicates homeowners aren't making many changes to protect against the quakes. There is little evidence that many homeowners have made moves to buy earthquake insurance, said Gary Christy with the Westfield Group insurance. Nine percent of the Westfield-insured homes in Lake County have earthquake insurance.
Nationwide Insurance agent Gerald Merhar in nearby Willoughby said about 15 percent of his homeowner policies have earthquake coverage riders costing about $20 a year for a frame home and $30 for brick.
Merhar, 57, whose own home has a repaired crack from a quake more than 50 years ago, recommends coverage, especially for brick homes. "They don't shake well," he said.
Nightly News broadcast regarding Lowville
Last night (Saturday, 8/5), the final report on the Nightly News about the Lowville wind farm was of great interest to me. I’m pleased to see that this important issue is getting some long overdue national broadcast media attention. I understand the time constraints inherent in a Nightly News segment and hope that some of the issues you were not able to cover in this piece will be vetted in subsequent broadcasts on your show or shows like Dateline.
Of particular importance to taxpayers, utility customers, and environmentalists are issues such as:
-the huge publicly funded incentives (there are many) that make wind turbines extremely lucrative,
-the origin of many of these incentives (secret ‘consultations’ between Ken Lay and Dick Cheney),
-the position of energy companies that the current wind technology does not make economic sense,
-the fact that investment bankers, not energy companies, are building ‘wind parks,’ (the Lowville installation portrayed in the piece is half owned by Goldman Sachs, with JP Morgan planning to construct thousands of turbines in New York and Michigan),
-the unreliability of wind power, the destabilizing effects this has on the grid, and GE’s estimate that the net avoided generation from traditional sources is 10 per cent of rated turbine capacity,
-the counter-cyclical nature of wind generation of electricity (highest during the middle of the night when demand is lowest, and smallest at dawn and dusk when demand peaks),
-the requirement that the grid buy wind power whenever it is produced even if it is not needed,
-the pattern of the manufacturers to solve problems by building ever-bigger turbines,
-the fact that the current generation of turbines is almost four hundred feet tall with a footprint bigger than the largest pyramid (Cheops),
-that there are problems with everything from bird and bat deaths, to changes in the microclimate under the turbines, to stray voltage, to unmetered power being used by the operators to run the generators as motors to spin the turbines fast enough to then produce power to sell back to the grid,
-to the developers’ myriad of lies and broken promises for everything from large numbers of jobs and lower electric rates, to ruined roads and lower property values and ‘gag’ clauses in leases and ‘neighbor agreements’ that prevent open and truthful discussion of the problems caused by turbines,
-to the conflicts of interest, questionable business dealings, and outright illegalities of local officials in favor of development,
-to the rush by developers to build tens of thousands of turbines in populated areas of the Northeast before opposition can organize and educate the general population to the magnitude of this scandal.
I would be happy to provide documentation to back any of these statements. I would also be happy to put you in touch with experts in a variety of fields who can elaborate on these and other reasons industrial wind plants are a bad deal for host communities, our country, and the environment.
Best,
Wayne Miller
2852 State Route 11
North Bangor, NY
518-483-0816
P.S. The town of Lowville is not pronounced like ‘low’ as it was at the end of your report, but in a manner that rhymes with the ‘bow’ of a ship.
Of particular importance to taxpayers, utility customers, and environmentalists are issues such as:
-the huge publicly funded incentives (there are many) that make wind turbines extremely lucrative,
-the origin of many of these incentives (secret ‘consultations’ between Ken Lay and Dick Cheney),
-the position of energy companies that the current wind technology does not make economic sense,
-the fact that investment bankers, not energy companies, are building ‘wind parks,’ (the Lowville installation portrayed in the piece is half owned by Goldman Sachs, with JP Morgan planning to construct thousands of turbines in New York and Michigan),
-the unreliability of wind power, the destabilizing effects this has on the grid, and GE’s estimate that the net avoided generation from traditional sources is 10 per cent of rated turbine capacity,
-the counter-cyclical nature of wind generation of electricity (highest during the middle of the night when demand is lowest, and smallest at dawn and dusk when demand peaks),
-the requirement that the grid buy wind power whenever it is produced even if it is not needed,
-the pattern of the manufacturers to solve problems by building ever-bigger turbines,
-the fact that the current generation of turbines is almost four hundred feet tall with a footprint bigger than the largest pyramid (Cheops),
-that there are problems with everything from bird and bat deaths, to changes in the microclimate under the turbines, to stray voltage, to unmetered power being used by the operators to run the generators as motors to spin the turbines fast enough to then produce power to sell back to the grid,
-to the developers’ myriad of lies and broken promises for everything from large numbers of jobs and lower electric rates, to ruined roads and lower property values and ‘gag’ clauses in leases and ‘neighbor agreements’ that prevent open and truthful discussion of the problems caused by turbines,
-to the conflicts of interest, questionable business dealings, and outright illegalities of local officials in favor of development,
-to the rush by developers to build tens of thousands of turbines in populated areas of the Northeast before opposition can organize and educate the general population to the magnitude of this scandal.
I would be happy to provide documentation to back any of these statements. I would also be happy to put you in touch with experts in a variety of fields who can elaborate on these and other reasons industrial wind plants are a bad deal for host communities, our country, and the environment.
Best,
Wayne Miller
2852 State Route 11
North Bangor, NY
518-483-0816
P.S. The town of Lowville is not pronounced like ‘low’ as it was at the end of your report, but in a manner that rhymes with the ‘bow’ of a ship.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Lince responds to Marion Trieste / ACENY
Marion Trieste, Alliance for Clean Energy New York
From the ACENY website...
"NEW REPORT FINDS NO EVIDENCE OF IMPACTS ON
PROPERTY VALUES FROM WIND FARM
Suggests property value effects should take on less importance in siting proceedings"
Larisa Washburn, program associate of Environmental Advocates of New York. “This study sheds light on a common concern in communities deciding whether or not to build a wind farm and shows that property values are not impacted.”
"The report finds there to be no measurable effect on values. These findings held even when concentrating on homes that were within a mile of the turbines"
http://www.aceny.org/pdfs/misc/Property%20Value%20Study%20Press%20Release5_24_06.pdf
Mrs. Trieste, thank you for your response to my letter. The response was posted on the yeswindcohocton.blogspot.com (included below). To ground our dialog in reference to the term paper rather than opinion, I will provide quotes from the report. I find your suggestion that I am "interpreting" fasinating considering I am quoting and using data from the report itself.
1. We agree that no property was analyzed within 3/4 mile. However, you then stating that Mr. Hoen talked to owners and “feeling there is no impact” does not warrant further discussion in a scientific study. Further, it's irresponsible to do so to cover this deficiency. Mr. Hoen writes on page 40/41, “Distance: This study contains homes only as close as 0.75 miles or 4000 feet to the turbines. HVTL studies have found effects exist only inside 500 feet (Des-Rosiers, 2002). Future studies should find communities with homes closer than 0.75 miles, and preferably as close as 500 feet if they exist.”
Mr. Hoen's words - not mine.
2. I’m sorry, this is correct, 38 of the 43 were at 2 or more miles, and the average distance (DIS_TO_WNDMILS) was 3.50 miles. We agree 5 were at 1 mile (I did not state differently). Are you stating Mr. Hoen's data is incorrect? Mr Hoen writes on page 56 (I have removed confusing data Mean/Min/Max)
"Table VIII: Description of Viewshed Variables
VIEWSHED VARIABLES Mean MinimumMaximum Frequency
DIS_TO_WNDMILS 3.50
VIEW 43
VIEW1MILE 5
VIEW2MILE 15
VIEW3MILE 6
VIEW4MILE 11
VIEW5MILE 6 "
Again, Mr. Hoen's data - not an "interpretation"
I’m also somewhat concerned that you stated that 50% (140 of 280) of the homes analyzed sold prior to the implementation of the wind turbines. Please expand on this point.
3. There is no confusion on vista. I fully understand the difference in vista and turbine view. I did not state vista was "intentionally" left out - simply that the value of vista is specifically addressed and it is not included, period. Mr. Hoen writes on page 41: “Vista: This study does not include a separate measurement for “vista” (or good view) in its analysis. For example, Haughton (2004) finds that homes with a high percentage of "vista" represented in their value (such as might be found in homes on the coast) might be affected differently by wind development."
Again, Mr. Hoen's words, not mine.
Mrs. Trieste, I’m sure you stand by the paper’s own words and data. I remain of the position that these three clearly addressed items make it highly irresponsible for the author or your organization to make any conclusion about properties close to wind turbines. Where's the "concentration on homes within 1 mile"???
Further, I wholeheartedly agree when you write in your response (and I quote) “…that there might be an effect inside of 3,000 feet that exists that the study did not discern. What size the effect might be, if it exists, seems to be the important question” It’s not clear if these are Mr. Hoen’s words or yours --- either case, you make the very point of my original letter that this study does not offer any evidence for those closest to the turbines.
Mrs. Trieste, I am calling on you to be fair to the good citizens of Cohocton and other towns in which you speak with authority. You have a responsbility to tell those closest to the wind turbines "there might be an effect inside 3,000 feet; this seems to be the important question". If you can state so here - you should say so in public.
Setbacks being proposed of 500-1,500 feet to residential structures --- right where your study has no data. I realize ACENY's board of directors consists of wind developers(Horizon, PPM, AWS Truewind) but this lack of disclosure and "spin" should greatly concern all property owners closest to proposed wind projects in New York.
Sincerely,
Jim Lince
Cohocton, NY
[Response posted on YESWINDCOHOCTON.BLOGSPOT.COM]
Response to posting of James Lince on Cohocton Wind Watch Blog
Printed with permission from Marion Trieste ACENY
Lince reply LTE
I appreciate the time you have taken to review Mr. Hoen’s study, but respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Going back to Mr. Hoen’s study, the homes in the community surrounding the wind farm did not show evidence of a decline in property values. That said, I would be glad to correct your interpretations of the Hoen study by answering each of your questions in your letter dated Aug. 2, 2006.
1. No property was analyzed within 4,000 feet (3/4 mile) of a turbine. In addition, the average distance of a property with any view of a turbine was 3.5 miles.
Ans: The study is very clear about this, and states that there might be an effect inside of 3,000 feet that exists that the study did not discern. What size the effect might be, if it exists, seems to be the important question. The study used all houses that sold during the study period, it did not choose which ones to study. Why the houses inside 3,000 feet did not sell seems as an important question. Have you talked to the folks that live inside of 3,000 feet? Mr. Hoen has, and they do not feel impacted. I suggest you go to Fenner and talk to them if you don’t believe Mr. Hoen’s account.
2. Out of the 280 properties analyzed only 43 had any view of a turbine. 38 of these 43 were 2 miles or more (up to 5.99 miles) away from the nearest turbine.
Ans: This is not correct. The study states that 5 homes were inside of 1 mile that had a view and the rest were between 1 and 5.99 miles. Regarding the number of homes with a view, the model does not need or want all, or a large percentage of home to have a view. In fact, if all homes had a view it would not be able to control for those without a view. Having 43 homes out of 280 that had a view, half of which sold before the wind farm was put up means that 30% of the homes that sold after the wind farm was put up (43 out of 140) had a view. This seems like a large percentage to me.
3. The concept of “vista” or value of a view shed was specifically mentioned and excluded as a variable in the study (no value for view from a property).
Ans: It seems you are confused about what the study concluded. The author makes an important distinction between view (of turbines) and vista (a nice view). Mr. Hoen recommends a variable for vista be included in future studies because it might influence the results of the variable for view (of turbines). It was not excluded intentionally as you suggest. The author suggests that the close in effects would most likely not have been influenced by vista. He goes on to suggest that homes further from the wind farm that can both see the wind farm and have a nice vista might be mixing their results. But homes close in that can see the wind farm do not necessarily have a nice vista. Either way, if the effects were strongly negative in regards to view from the wind farm, they would have shown up, as other variables, such as number of acres did.
I hope I answered all of your questions to your satisfaction.
Marion Trieste
Alliance for Clean Energy New York
July 30, 2006
Dear Mrs. Trieste,
You were a panel member at the YESWindCohocton Forum on July 26th, 2006.
You stated in regards to a question about property values that the study completed by student Ben Hoen was evidence that property values did not go down as a result of wind turbine projects.Mrs. Trieste are you aware of the following issues (among many) regarding this study?
1. No property was analyzed within 4,000 feet (3/4 mile) of a turbine. In addition, the average distance of a property with any view of a turbine was 3.5 miles.
2. Out of the 280 properties analyzed only 43 had any view of a turbine. 38 of these 43 were 2 miles or more (up to 5.99 miles) away from the nearest turbine.
3. The concept of “vista” or value of a view shed was specifically mentioned and excluded as a variable in the study (no value for view from a property).
You may believe it is responsible for you to continue to cite Hoen’s thesis as “fact based” assurance to a community. I suggest that the responsible and ethical position would be to provide disclosure. This would avoid property owners closest to these proposed projects relying on your statements as proof that their property values will not be impacted.Obviously those closest to these turbines have the most concern. These citizens deserve responsible answers from those who represent themselves as having researched and detailed factual knowledge of the issues with industrial wind power.
Sincerely,
James G. Lince
Cohocton, NY
From the ACENY website...
"NEW REPORT FINDS NO EVIDENCE OF IMPACTS ON
PROPERTY VALUES FROM WIND FARM
Suggests property value effects should take on less importance in siting proceedings"
Larisa Washburn, program associate of Environmental Advocates of New York. “This study sheds light on a common concern in communities deciding whether or not to build a wind farm and shows that property values are not impacted.”
"The report finds there to be no measurable effect on values. These findings held even when concentrating on homes that were within a mile of the turbines"
http://www.aceny.org/pdfs/misc/Property%20Value%20Study%20Press%20Release5_24_06.pdf
Mrs. Trieste, thank you for your response to my letter. The response was posted on the yeswindcohocton.blogspot.com (included below). To ground our dialog in reference to the term paper rather than opinion, I will provide quotes from the report. I find your suggestion that I am "interpreting" fasinating considering I am quoting and using data from the report itself.
1. We agree that no property was analyzed within 3/4 mile. However, you then stating that Mr. Hoen talked to owners and “feeling there is no impact” does not warrant further discussion in a scientific study. Further, it's irresponsible to do so to cover this deficiency. Mr. Hoen writes on page 40/41, “Distance: This study contains homes only as close as 0.75 miles or 4000 feet to the turbines. HVTL studies have found effects exist only inside 500 feet (Des-Rosiers, 2002). Future studies should find communities with homes closer than 0.75 miles, and preferably as close as 500 feet if they exist.”
Mr. Hoen's words - not mine.
2. I’m sorry, this is correct, 38 of the 43 were at 2 or more miles, and the average distance (DIS_TO_WNDMILS) was 3.50 miles. We agree 5 were at 1 mile (I did not state differently). Are you stating Mr. Hoen's data is incorrect? Mr Hoen writes on page 56 (I have removed confusing data Mean/Min/Max)
"Table VIII: Description of Viewshed Variables
VIEWSHED VARIABLES Mean MinimumMaximum Frequency
DIS_TO_WNDMILS 3.50
VIEW 43
VIEW1MILE 5
VIEW2MILE 15
VIEW3MILE 6
VIEW4MILE 11
VIEW5MILE 6 "
Again, Mr. Hoen's data - not an "interpretation"
I’m also somewhat concerned that you stated that 50% (140 of 280) of the homes analyzed sold prior to the implementation of the wind turbines. Please expand on this point.
3. There is no confusion on vista. I fully understand the difference in vista and turbine view. I did not state vista was "intentionally" left out - simply that the value of vista is specifically addressed and it is not included, period. Mr. Hoen writes on page 41: “Vista: This study does not include a separate measurement for “vista” (or good view) in its analysis. For example, Haughton (2004) finds that homes with a high percentage of "vista" represented in their value (such as might be found in homes on the coast) might be affected differently by wind development."
Again, Mr. Hoen's words, not mine.
Mrs. Trieste, I’m sure you stand by the paper’s own words and data. I remain of the position that these three clearly addressed items make it highly irresponsible for the author or your organization to make any conclusion about properties close to wind turbines. Where's the "concentration on homes within 1 mile"???
Further, I wholeheartedly agree when you write in your response (and I quote) “…that there might be an effect inside of 3,000 feet that exists that the study did not discern. What size the effect might be, if it exists, seems to be the important question” It’s not clear if these are Mr. Hoen’s words or yours --- either case, you make the very point of my original letter that this study does not offer any evidence for those closest to the turbines.
Mrs. Trieste, I am calling on you to be fair to the good citizens of Cohocton and other towns in which you speak with authority. You have a responsbility to tell those closest to the wind turbines "there might be an effect inside 3,000 feet; this seems to be the important question". If you can state so here - you should say so in public.
Setbacks being proposed of 500-1,500 feet to residential structures --- right where your study has no data. I realize ACENY's board of directors consists of wind developers(Horizon, PPM, AWS Truewind) but this lack of disclosure and "spin" should greatly concern all property owners closest to proposed wind projects in New York.
Sincerely,
Jim Lince
Cohocton, NY
[Response posted on YESWINDCOHOCTON.BLOGSPOT.COM]
Response to posting of James Lince on Cohocton Wind Watch Blog
Printed with permission from Marion Trieste ACENY
Lince reply LTE
I appreciate the time you have taken to review Mr. Hoen’s study, but respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Going back to Mr. Hoen’s study, the homes in the community surrounding the wind farm did not show evidence of a decline in property values. That said, I would be glad to correct your interpretations of the Hoen study by answering each of your questions in your letter dated Aug. 2, 2006.
1. No property was analyzed within 4,000 feet (3/4 mile) of a turbine. In addition, the average distance of a property with any view of a turbine was 3.5 miles.
Ans: The study is very clear about this, and states that there might be an effect inside of 3,000 feet that exists that the study did not discern. What size the effect might be, if it exists, seems to be the important question. The study used all houses that sold during the study period, it did not choose which ones to study. Why the houses inside 3,000 feet did not sell seems as an important question. Have you talked to the folks that live inside of 3,000 feet? Mr. Hoen has, and they do not feel impacted. I suggest you go to Fenner and talk to them if you don’t believe Mr. Hoen’s account.
2. Out of the 280 properties analyzed only 43 had any view of a turbine. 38 of these 43 were 2 miles or more (up to 5.99 miles) away from the nearest turbine.
Ans: This is not correct. The study states that 5 homes were inside of 1 mile that had a view and the rest were between 1 and 5.99 miles. Regarding the number of homes with a view, the model does not need or want all, or a large percentage of home to have a view. In fact, if all homes had a view it would not be able to control for those without a view. Having 43 homes out of 280 that had a view, half of which sold before the wind farm was put up means that 30% of the homes that sold after the wind farm was put up (43 out of 140) had a view. This seems like a large percentage to me.
3. The concept of “vista” or value of a view shed was specifically mentioned and excluded as a variable in the study (no value for view from a property).
Ans: It seems you are confused about what the study concluded. The author makes an important distinction between view (of turbines) and vista (a nice view). Mr. Hoen recommends a variable for vista be included in future studies because it might influence the results of the variable for view (of turbines). It was not excluded intentionally as you suggest. The author suggests that the close in effects would most likely not have been influenced by vista. He goes on to suggest that homes further from the wind farm that can both see the wind farm and have a nice vista might be mixing their results. But homes close in that can see the wind farm do not necessarily have a nice vista. Either way, if the effects were strongly negative in regards to view from the wind farm, they would have shown up, as other variables, such as number of acres did.
I hope I answered all of your questions to your satisfaction.
Marion Trieste
Alliance for Clean Energy New York
July 30, 2006
Dear Mrs. Trieste,
You were a panel member at the YESWindCohocton Forum on July 26th, 2006.
You stated in regards to a question about property values that the study completed by student Ben Hoen was evidence that property values did not go down as a result of wind turbine projects.Mrs. Trieste are you aware of the following issues (among many) regarding this study?
1. No property was analyzed within 4,000 feet (3/4 mile) of a turbine. In addition, the average distance of a property with any view of a turbine was 3.5 miles.
2. Out of the 280 properties analyzed only 43 had any view of a turbine. 38 of these 43 were 2 miles or more (up to 5.99 miles) away from the nearest turbine.
3. The concept of “vista” or value of a view shed was specifically mentioned and excluded as a variable in the study (no value for view from a property).
You may believe it is responsible for you to continue to cite Hoen’s thesis as “fact based” assurance to a community. I suggest that the responsible and ethical position would be to provide disclosure. This would avoid property owners closest to these proposed projects relying on your statements as proof that their property values will not be impacted.Obviously those closest to these turbines have the most concern. These citizens deserve responsible answers from those who represent themselves as having researched and detailed factual knowledge of the issues with industrial wind power.
Sincerely,
James G. Lince
Cohocton, NY
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Alternatives to current windfarm proposals
We congratulate the Town of Italy Board on their recent decision to establish a fair and reasonable set of zoning regulations. This decision effectively ends the debate about industrial windfarms in Italy. However several proposals continue to be evaluated by residents and leaders in Prattsburgh and Cohocton. In our efforts to objectively evaluate the Ecogen project we have learned a great deal about the pros and cons of windfarms, and offer the following suggestions to our neighbors who are still considering these developments.
1. Wind Turbine Size. If you limit the overall height of turbines to 60 feet rather than the 400 feet that is proposed, many of the legitimate objections to the windfarms will go away. 60-foot turbines do not require lighting. They do not produce low frequency noise. There would be no blade flicker, no concerns with ice throw, and only minimal damage to scenic viewsheds. The risks to tourism revenue and property values are similarly reduced. The developers will tell you that smaller turbines are not financially viable. That is just not true. Smaller units are financially viable, given government subsidies; but they are a little less profitable. A little less profit, a little less greed, seems to be a reasonable alternative to safeguard the 200 million dollars that tourism brings to the central Finger Lakes every year.
2. Lease versus Buy. The current proposals call for the developers to lease the land for the turbines. This approach effectively shields the developers from any legal liabilities. If there are health or safety issues, it is the landowner who will be sued. Neighbors suing neighbors would not be productive. Let’s just require the developers to purchase the land so that they can be held legally accountable. The purchase offer can easily be structured to provide the same revenue stream to the landowner, allow the landowner to continue to use the land, and return the parcel to the landowner when the project is decommissioned.
3. PILOT’s versus Real Estate Taxes. Another advantage of requiring the developers to own the land is that you can tax them fairly. The proposed PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) for Windfarm Prattsburgh would pay only $255,000 a year to Prattsburgh, Italy, and the two school districts. If the turbines were on the tax rolls, Windfarm Prattsburgh would pay six million dollars a year in real estate taxes. That is 24 times what the PILOT would provide, and would make a huge difference for every taxpayer. Just tax them what they are worth, just like everyone else. It is not right that all of the taxpayers of Prattsburgh and Cohocton should have to subsidize commercial developments that benefit only a few. It is pretty clear that Steuben County Industrial Development Authority, which negotiated the PILOT payment schedule, has a vested interest in these projects.
4. Costs of Decommissioning. The Windfarm Prattsburgh Environmental Impact Statement describes the establishment of a Decommissioning Reserve Account, which is intended to pay for the removal of the windfarm at the end of its useful life. However the developers do not have to put any money into the account until year fifteen of the project. This scheme would leave local taxpayers with a decommissioning bill of over 70 million dollars. Windfarms are very expensive to shut down and remediate. To avoid bankrupting town and county governments, be sure to demand a minimum of 1.5 million dollars for each and every turbine in an interest-bearing escrow account, in your name, at your bank, before the start of construction. A windfarm with 50 industrial wind turbines would require a deposit of 75 million dollars. This “reserve account” is no better than an IOU. Ask for real cash, upfront.
With these simple and straightforward changes to the windfarm proposals you can still reap the benefits of renewable energy while protecting the best interests of all of the residents of our region.
Libby and Lottie Jones
Donley Road
Town of Italy
1. Wind Turbine Size. If you limit the overall height of turbines to 60 feet rather than the 400 feet that is proposed, many of the legitimate objections to the windfarms will go away. 60-foot turbines do not require lighting. They do not produce low frequency noise. There would be no blade flicker, no concerns with ice throw, and only minimal damage to scenic viewsheds. The risks to tourism revenue and property values are similarly reduced. The developers will tell you that smaller turbines are not financially viable. That is just not true. Smaller units are financially viable, given government subsidies; but they are a little less profitable. A little less profit, a little less greed, seems to be a reasonable alternative to safeguard the 200 million dollars that tourism brings to the central Finger Lakes every year.
2. Lease versus Buy. The current proposals call for the developers to lease the land for the turbines. This approach effectively shields the developers from any legal liabilities. If there are health or safety issues, it is the landowner who will be sued. Neighbors suing neighbors would not be productive. Let’s just require the developers to purchase the land so that they can be held legally accountable. The purchase offer can easily be structured to provide the same revenue stream to the landowner, allow the landowner to continue to use the land, and return the parcel to the landowner when the project is decommissioned.
3. PILOT’s versus Real Estate Taxes. Another advantage of requiring the developers to own the land is that you can tax them fairly. The proposed PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) for Windfarm Prattsburgh would pay only $255,000 a year to Prattsburgh, Italy, and the two school districts. If the turbines were on the tax rolls, Windfarm Prattsburgh would pay six million dollars a year in real estate taxes. That is 24 times what the PILOT would provide, and would make a huge difference for every taxpayer. Just tax them what they are worth, just like everyone else. It is not right that all of the taxpayers of Prattsburgh and Cohocton should have to subsidize commercial developments that benefit only a few. It is pretty clear that Steuben County Industrial Development Authority, which negotiated the PILOT payment schedule, has a vested interest in these projects.
4. Costs of Decommissioning. The Windfarm Prattsburgh Environmental Impact Statement describes the establishment of a Decommissioning Reserve Account, which is intended to pay for the removal of the windfarm at the end of its useful life. However the developers do not have to put any money into the account until year fifteen of the project. This scheme would leave local taxpayers with a decommissioning bill of over 70 million dollars. Windfarms are very expensive to shut down and remediate. To avoid bankrupting town and county governments, be sure to demand a minimum of 1.5 million dollars for each and every turbine in an interest-bearing escrow account, in your name, at your bank, before the start of construction. A windfarm with 50 industrial wind turbines would require a deposit of 75 million dollars. This “reserve account” is no better than an IOU. Ask for real cash, upfront.
With these simple and straightforward changes to the windfarm proposals you can still reap the benefits of renewable energy while protecting the best interests of all of the residents of our region.
Libby and Lottie Jones
Donley Road
Town of Italy
Friday, August 04, 2006
Jeff Goldthwait letter to the Cohocton Planning Board
Date: August 3, 2006
To: Town Planning Board of Cohocton
cc: Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton.
There has to be a better way to improve the economics in Cohocton than the permanent damage UPC proposes.
We have neither reviewed nor revised the Cohocton Comprehensive Master Plan since it was first adopted in 1970 - TFflRTY SIX YEARS AGO! That plan's sole purpose was then and is now to provide an informed, accurate, independent plan for desirable economic and environmentally sound land uses for the Town and Village of Cohocton, to improve the Town's and Village's future and attract new residents, retain current ones and to provide jobs locally for our graduating children so that we can all remain here and enjoy the natural, unspoiled, beauty of the hills, fields, wildlife and forests that God has blessed us with. It was also designed to protect the property values of ALL property owners equally.
Before the Town or Village commits to ANY major new land use, should not the first and most important step be to review and update the Cohocton Comprehensive Master Plan?
Public and governmental assistance is available for such a project and I would be happy to provide sources and contacts to you and assist you in any way I can. You can call me direct at 384.9832.
I respectfully request the Planning Board's written response to this singularly critical and important question before any recommendation is made to the Town Board re the proposed Wind Turbine project.
To: Town Planning Board of Cohocton
cc: Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton.
There has to be a better way to improve the economics in Cohocton than the permanent damage UPC proposes.
We have neither reviewed nor revised the Cohocton Comprehensive Master Plan since it was first adopted in 1970 - TFflRTY SIX YEARS AGO! That plan's sole purpose was then and is now to provide an informed, accurate, independent plan for desirable economic and environmentally sound land uses for the Town and Village of Cohocton, to improve the Town's and Village's future and attract new residents, retain current ones and to provide jobs locally for our graduating children so that we can all remain here and enjoy the natural, unspoiled, beauty of the hills, fields, wildlife and forests that God has blessed us with. It was also designed to protect the property values of ALL property owners equally.
Before the Town or Village commits to ANY major new land use, should not the first and most important step be to review and update the Cohocton Comprehensive Master Plan?
Public and governmental assistance is available for such a project and I would be happy to provide sources and contacts to you and assist you in any way I can. You can call me direct at 384.9832.
I respectfully request the Planning Board's written response to this singularly critical and important question before any recommendation is made to the Town Board re the proposed Wind Turbine project.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
UK Noise Association - Wind Farms are Causing Noise Problems
Within weeks of the Government's Energy Review (1) proposing that planning controls be relaxed to speed up the introduction of wind farms, a new report (2) reveals that badly-sited wind turbines can cause real noise problems for local communities.
August 2, 2006 by UK Noise Association Press Release in IWA
Within weeks of the Government's Energy Review (1) proposing that planning controls be relaxed to speed up the introduction of wind farms, a new report (2) reveals that badly-sited wind turbines can cause real noise problems for local communities.
In compiling its report, the Noise Association carried out a comprehensive review of the research done into wind farm noise. It found that the stress and annoyance some people experience as a result of noise from wind farms is made worse by the flicker effect created by the rotating blades of the turbines. The report concluded that this was the most likely reason why wind farm noise generates many more complaints than equivalent noise levels from other sources.
The Noise Association research found that wind turbine noise can be a particular problem in rural areas, where many of the wind farms are sited, because of low background noise levels.
The report, however, does not come out against the building of wind farms. It argues that 'sensible siting' of wind farms can overcome most noise problems: "It's all about location, location, location."
John Stewart, the author of the report, said, "It would be a mistake to see this as an anti-wind farm report. But there is a real danger that, in the enthusiasm to embrace clean technology, legitimate concerns about noise are being brushed aside."
The report recommends that:
-as a general rule turbines should not be sited within a mile of where people live
-the official government guidelines for the siting of wind farms be revised to take account of the more intrusive nature of the noise in areas where the overall background noise is low
-there is a clear and public recognition by the Wind Power Industry, which has tended to dismiss noise as an issue, that wind farms can cause real noise problems for some people.
The report argues that this could open the door to "constructive discussion" ENDS
Notes for Editors:
(1) The Energy Review was published in the second week of July. One of its proposals was to limit wind farm planning inquiries to discussing local impacts rather that national issues.
(2) The report, Location, Location, Location, is enclosed. It is published by the Noise Association and has been funded by the Ashden Trust. The Noise Association is the research arm of the UK Noise Association. John Stewart, the author of the report, chairs the UK Noise Association.
For more information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650 NB Hard copies FREE to journalists and members of the UK Noise Association
August 2, 2006 by UK Noise Association Press Release in IWA
Within weeks of the Government's Energy Review (1) proposing that planning controls be relaxed to speed up the introduction of wind farms, a new report (2) reveals that badly-sited wind turbines can cause real noise problems for local communities.
In compiling its report, the Noise Association carried out a comprehensive review of the research done into wind farm noise. It found that the stress and annoyance some people experience as a result of noise from wind farms is made worse by the flicker effect created by the rotating blades of the turbines. The report concluded that this was the most likely reason why wind farm noise generates many more complaints than equivalent noise levels from other sources.
The Noise Association research found that wind turbine noise can be a particular problem in rural areas, where many of the wind farms are sited, because of low background noise levels.
The report, however, does not come out against the building of wind farms. It argues that 'sensible siting' of wind farms can overcome most noise problems: "It's all about location, location, location."
John Stewart, the author of the report, said, "It would be a mistake to see this as an anti-wind farm report. But there is a real danger that, in the enthusiasm to embrace clean technology, legitimate concerns about noise are being brushed aside."
The report recommends that:
-as a general rule turbines should not be sited within a mile of where people live
-the official government guidelines for the siting of wind farms be revised to take account of the more intrusive nature of the noise in areas where the overall background noise is low
-there is a clear and public recognition by the Wind Power Industry, which has tended to dismiss noise as an issue, that wind farms can cause real noise problems for some people.
The report argues that this could open the door to "constructive discussion" ENDS
Notes for Editors:
(1) The Energy Review was published in the second week of July. One of its proposals was to limit wind farm planning inquiries to discussing local impacts rather that national issues.
(2) The report, Location, Location, Location, is enclosed. It is published by the Noise Association and has been funded by the Ashden Trust. The Noise Association is the research arm of the UK Noise Association. John Stewart, the author of the report, chairs the UK Noise Association.
For more information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650 NB Hard copies FREE to journalists and members of the UK Noise Association
COHOCTON WIND POWER LETTER TO MESERES ZIGENFUS, WISE, DYCKMAN, LEVESQUE AND HUNT by Paul Gettys
I recently read a July 25, 2006 article in this paper by Wayne Hunt, where he characterizes those in the Town who question the validity of moving forward with the Wind Power project as chickens. Initially I took offense at this comparison, but upon further reflection, it has some validity. As “Farmer Hunt” frightens his chickens as he approaches them, I feel you gentlemen have frighten many of us as we were not brought into the discussion process about Wind Power until the project was well advanced. Leases were signed, the DEIS was almost fully completed when this project was first made public. I attended many Town Board Meetings over the last two years and no mention was made that the “Town Fathers” were considering this type of project. When it did finally become public, notification was made by posting at selected locations. It would have been far better if in addition a mailing was made to each house in the Town with the appropriate information. I understand that it was stated that the Town could not afford the cost of a mailing. On an issue as critical to the welfare of the Town as this, it would seem that money could have been obtained in some manner. If no other way were available, you could have requested that UPC bear the cost, as they were willing to do so to send out a mailing when it suited their timetable. This secrecy, whether intentional or not, lead to much wild speculation as to why this happened and did not give people sufficient time to adjust to this project prior to the Public Hearings for the DEIS and the revised Zoning Ordinances.
As “Farmer Hunt” finally coaxes his chickens out of hiding by an offering of food, so did the Town Supervisor of the Town where the Tug Hill project is located by obtaining funds for the project of approximately $12,000 per tower per year, while Farmer Hunt is only offering us chickens somewhat less than $4000 per tower per year for a total of $160,000 per year. With increased roadway maintenance and security costs, care will have to be taken to be sure that the Wind Tower project does not end up costing the Town money. If the Zoning Ordinance is not revised to require UPC to indemnify and hold harmless the Town from any legal action arising out of this project, taxes will likely have to be increased just to cover this cost.
If indeed we who differ with Mr. Hunt in opinion of Wind Power can be characterized as chickens, I suggest that your actions are similar to ostriches who stick their heads in the ground rather than seeing what is going on in their surroundings. There were three or four very informative meetings put on by Cohocton Wind Watch, which only were given token attendance by you gentlemen. While it is true that several people became somewhat emotional during their statements, there was much good information provided by the main speakers. Unfortunately this emotionalism is the result of many people feeling that their way of life and properties are threatened. This seems to be particularly true of those who live in the close proximity of the proposed project. Although these meetings are complete, there is still much useful information on the web. I would suggest that you look at this information rather than just reading that information which is in agreement with your own views. It should be born in mind that the DEIS was developed for and paid by UPC and therefore may be slanted.
The original justification for this project was the money that would be provided to the Town. As this sum now is only $160,000, the current justification for advancing the project is now that it would be good for the people of the State of New York that we provide sites for generating this renewable source of electricity. The point was made at the July 26, 2006 YES meeting that generating power near the source where it is to be used is a good thing for the grid. I agree, but it my understanding that Western New York already is supplying more than they need, but the need is in New York City and surrounding areas. Using this analogy power should be generated in that area. It was suggested that photoelectric cells on roof tops could contribute and I recently read something about building offshore wind towers. These suggestions would seem to fit better into the needs of the grid.
In a previous article Mr. Hunt indicated his concern that if the Wind Tower project were defeated in Cohocton, it would make it that much more difficult for any project in the Finger Lakes Region to be approved. I do not look at this negatively; in fact I believe that we have a responsibility to do just that. The Finger Lakes with all its beautiful lakes and vineyards is a national treasure which is irreplaceable. Just the visual affect on the region from a wind towers project would have a far reaching impact.
It is my feeling, based upon comments at the last Public Meeting Hearing, that you are representing the will of the minority of the voters. Although it would be impossible to run this Town as a pure democracy where all decisions are made by the public, I feel that this issue will have such a significant affect on the Town for twenty years or more, that it should be put to a binding vote by all of the property owners. I feel this is too important an issue to remain in the hands of five people, no matter how good their intentions. Putting this issue to a vote would also help to disseminate the negative feelings that are developing between the pro and anti groups in that the will of the majority would be followed.
I hope you gentlemen will take this article as it was meant, as constructive criticism and not as an attack on any of you personally. As stated previously, I attended a number of Town Meeting over the last several years and was impressed by the service each of you provides the Town. I just feel that you are going down the wrong path on this issue and hope that you will listen to different viewpoints and not just those who are in agreement with yours. Whether you like it or not this project is so significant that it will be your legacy after you complete your terms of office, so you want to be sure that it is indeed the will of the voters and it is truly in their best interests.
Paul Gettys
North Cohocton
As “Farmer Hunt” finally coaxes his chickens out of hiding by an offering of food, so did the Town Supervisor of the Town where the Tug Hill project is located by obtaining funds for the project of approximately $12,000 per tower per year, while Farmer Hunt is only offering us chickens somewhat less than $4000 per tower per year for a total of $160,000 per year. With increased roadway maintenance and security costs, care will have to be taken to be sure that the Wind Tower project does not end up costing the Town money. If the Zoning Ordinance is not revised to require UPC to indemnify and hold harmless the Town from any legal action arising out of this project, taxes will likely have to be increased just to cover this cost.
If indeed we who differ with Mr. Hunt in opinion of Wind Power can be characterized as chickens, I suggest that your actions are similar to ostriches who stick their heads in the ground rather than seeing what is going on in their surroundings. There were three or four very informative meetings put on by Cohocton Wind Watch, which only were given token attendance by you gentlemen. While it is true that several people became somewhat emotional during their statements, there was much good information provided by the main speakers. Unfortunately this emotionalism is the result of many people feeling that their way of life and properties are threatened. This seems to be particularly true of those who live in the close proximity of the proposed project. Although these meetings are complete, there is still much useful information on the web. I would suggest that you look at this information rather than just reading that information which is in agreement with your own views. It should be born in mind that the DEIS was developed for and paid by UPC and therefore may be slanted.
The original justification for this project was the money that would be provided to the Town. As this sum now is only $160,000, the current justification for advancing the project is now that it would be good for the people of the State of New York that we provide sites for generating this renewable source of electricity. The point was made at the July 26, 2006 YES meeting that generating power near the source where it is to be used is a good thing for the grid. I agree, but it my understanding that Western New York already is supplying more than they need, but the need is in New York City and surrounding areas. Using this analogy power should be generated in that area. It was suggested that photoelectric cells on roof tops could contribute and I recently read something about building offshore wind towers. These suggestions would seem to fit better into the needs of the grid.
In a previous article Mr. Hunt indicated his concern that if the Wind Tower project were defeated in Cohocton, it would make it that much more difficult for any project in the Finger Lakes Region to be approved. I do not look at this negatively; in fact I believe that we have a responsibility to do just that. The Finger Lakes with all its beautiful lakes and vineyards is a national treasure which is irreplaceable. Just the visual affect on the region from a wind towers project would have a far reaching impact.
It is my feeling, based upon comments at the last Public Meeting Hearing, that you are representing the will of the minority of the voters. Although it would be impossible to run this Town as a pure democracy where all decisions are made by the public, I feel that this issue will have such a significant affect on the Town for twenty years or more, that it should be put to a binding vote by all of the property owners. I feel this is too important an issue to remain in the hands of five people, no matter how good their intentions. Putting this issue to a vote would also help to disseminate the negative feelings that are developing between the pro and anti groups in that the will of the majority would be followed.
I hope you gentlemen will take this article as it was meant, as constructive criticism and not as an attack on any of you personally. As stated previously, I attended a number of Town Meeting over the last several years and was impressed by the service each of you provides the Town. I just feel that you are going down the wrong path on this issue and hope that you will listen to different viewpoints and not just those who are in agreement with yours. Whether you like it or not this project is so significant that it will be your legacy after you complete your terms of office, so you want to be sure that it is indeed the will of the voters and it is truly in their best interests.
Paul Gettys
North Cohocton
Robert C. Strasburg II's comments regarding Pat Drum YES ad
Pat Drum has posted on the Yes blog:
“I’M ASKING THE HEART AND SOUL OF THIS COMMUNITY, COHOCTON, not Naples, Prattsburgh or anywhere else to support the landowners, lease holders and farmer. Let’s look at the positives of this project not the distorted picture that the anti-wind group is trying to show. They even put a DISCLAINER at the bottom of Mr. Strasburg’s questions presented to The Planning Board: stating; ALL THE FACTS WINDWATCH PRINTED MAY NOT BE TRUE. I guess you were supposed to check that out for yourself! Did you read the small print at the end of Mr. Strasburg’s paper?”
Mrs. Drum, I would like to offer a courteous reminder of the facts surrounding the disclaimer. If you were present at the meeting where I distributed that paper with the disclaimer, it was early in our efforts of shedding light on the issue at hand and I carefully explained that since the Town Board was not offering us unbiased information on the subject of industrial wind turbines, we were in the early stages of engaging our own research effort and I clearly explained that since we did not have time to sort through all the facts and verify their accuracy, each person should carefully examine the facts to discern their accuracy.
Since that time we have had ample time to properly research and you cannot point to any other disclaimer offered by me. Now, where is the “distorted picture”? Is it possible that what you offered in your article is somewhat distorted? You can easily review all my statements of that meeting as they are on video that your group took. We also have a copy if you need one.
We are now getting down to the core of what this issue is all about. Time has revealed that the main issue driving the supporters of this project is the desire for income. May I quote you from your posting? You wrote, “Let’s all try to support the positives of this project. COHOCTON NEEDS HELP…do we want to generate some $$$ here or wait for the government to say we need clean safe energy and take the necessary measures to put a project in.”
I cannot respond to your call to support this project as it is being proposed if it means accepting all the negatives offered to us without proper mitigation. We have exposed the negatives, asked for responsible mitigation and have been scorned by your group unjustly for slowing the flow of money to you.
Robert C. Strasburg II
“I’M ASKING THE HEART AND SOUL OF THIS COMMUNITY, COHOCTON, not Naples, Prattsburgh or anywhere else to support the landowners, lease holders and farmer. Let’s look at the positives of this project not the distorted picture that the anti-wind group is trying to show. They even put a DISCLAINER at the bottom of Mr. Strasburg’s questions presented to The Planning Board: stating; ALL THE FACTS WINDWATCH PRINTED MAY NOT BE TRUE. I guess you were supposed to check that out for yourself! Did you read the small print at the end of Mr. Strasburg’s paper?”
Mrs. Drum, I would like to offer a courteous reminder of the facts surrounding the disclaimer. If you were present at the meeting where I distributed that paper with the disclaimer, it was early in our efforts of shedding light on the issue at hand and I carefully explained that since the Town Board was not offering us unbiased information on the subject of industrial wind turbines, we were in the early stages of engaging our own research effort and I clearly explained that since we did not have time to sort through all the facts and verify their accuracy, each person should carefully examine the facts to discern their accuracy.
Since that time we have had ample time to properly research and you cannot point to any other disclaimer offered by me. Now, where is the “distorted picture”? Is it possible that what you offered in your article is somewhat distorted? You can easily review all my statements of that meeting as they are on video that your group took. We also have a copy if you need one.
We are now getting down to the core of what this issue is all about. Time has revealed that the main issue driving the supporters of this project is the desire for income. May I quote you from your posting? You wrote, “Let’s all try to support the positives of this project. COHOCTON NEEDS HELP…do we want to generate some $$$ here or wait for the government to say we need clean safe energy and take the necessary measures to put a project in.”
I cannot respond to your call to support this project as it is being proposed if it means accepting all the negatives offered to us without proper mitigation. We have exposed the negatives, asked for responsible mitigation and have been scorned by your group unjustly for slowing the flow of money to you.
Robert C. Strasburg II
Finger Lakes Times: Hobart student studies wind turbines over summer by MIKE MASLANIK
GENEVA - When high school and college students think about camping over summer vacation, they're usually not envisioning what Aeron Hurley recently did.
Hurley, who is entering his senior year at Hobart College, camped out under some wind power turbines to get data for an independent research project he's conducting.
Setting out to answer whether wind power is feasible for New York state, Hurley visited two wind farms and the proposed location for a third. He also sat in on a number of town meetings to hear residents debate the hot issue.
His conclusion: Yep, wind power is a viable option. But some sites are better suited for the turbines than others.
"Find the best areas around New York state and put turbines there, but don't overdo it because you'll make a lot of people mad," said Hurley, 21, of Windham, Maine.
Although he admits he's an advocate of wind power, Hurley said he believes his assessment is fair and unbiased.
"You can see in my research that I'm for it, but I talked to a wide range of people and looked at it as objectively as I could," he said.
Basing his research on three criteria - potential wind energy, environmental impact and whether a community was conducive to wind harvesting - Hurley traveled to wind farm sites at Tug Hill, near Lowville, in Lewis County, and Fenner in Madison County. He also surveyed a proposed site in Cohocton, Steuben County. His research spanned roughly eight weeks, wrapping up in late July.
The Tug Hill and Fenner projects were ideal, he said, because both sites got plenty of unobstructed wind, were built on unused farmland and were far enough from towns to be unobtrusive.
Construction of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm at Tug Hill started in May 2005 and its 140 turbines, so far, produce about 231 megawatts of power. When completed in October, the facility will house 195 turbines and produce 321 megawatts of power, enough for 98,000 homes, said Operations Manager Scott Alexander.
Tug Hill is owned jointly by PPM Energy and Horizon Wind Energy.
The Fenner Windpower Project went online in 2001 and has 20 turbines making 30 megawatts of power, enough for 7,000 homes. It is owned by Canastota Windpower LLC, a subsidiary of Enel North America Inc.
The 280 turbines around New York state produce about 62 billion kilowatt hours of electricity a year, according to New York State Wind Energy Projects.
Hurley said that wind turbine opponents frequently complain that they emit low, persistent thumping noises that can drive residents crazy, so he decided to find out for himself, by sleeping within a few hundred feet of the turbines at each site.
"I slept pretty well, there was a swishing sound, but I didn't hear any thumping," Hurley said, noting that he did hear from people that the vibrations can cause a home's foundation and insulation to shake.
Through a series of random interviews, Hurley found that the farms had the overwhelming support of nearby residents, and farmers especially praised the arrangement.
"The farms are kind of going downhill, and the turbines provide income for the farmers," he said, noting that wind companies lease the land where the turbines are built and pay rent to the farmers who own it.
Hurley gave the proposed Cohocton site a thumbs down. While the area gets a decent amount of wind, the site is heavily wooded and the impact on the environment would be too great, he said. The Cohocton plan calls for 40 turbines that would stand nearly 500 feet tall, Hurley said, and he didn't think they would be a good idea for the town.
Indeed, he saw strong opposition in the form of the Cohocton Wind Watch. At town meetings, members said they were concerned about how turbines would affect property values and change the town's landscape.
Wind farms have a tendency to industrialize areas where they're built, Hurley said, and that scares some people.
"There were some people who moved there from the city and talked about how they wanted to get away from noise and traffic," he said.
Others cited environmental concerns, including danger to birds.
Large wind turbines move slowly and are less likely to kill birds than the smaller models in California, he said.
As for property values, the Environmental Advocates of New York recently released a study that showed turbines did nothing to affect values near the Fenner site.
Locally, Hurley said that the Geneva area doesn't fit his criteria for ideal wind farm placement. More conducive environments exist in southern Seneca County, Hurley said.
Hurley was originally a pre-med major at Hobart but then took a few environmental science classes from professors Thomas Drennen and John Halfman, which sparked his interest in renewable energy, he said.
Drennen was an adviser during his research, buying his sound-monitoring equipment and answering questions, but Hurley acted independently.
Drennen said he's proud of Hurley's initiative and plans to use his data in upcoming seminars on wind power.
"I was impressed that he didn't say all wind power is good or all wind power is bad," he said.
Hurley condensed his research into a poster that will hang in the Finger Lakes Institute, Drennen said. He also plans to develop his study further and submit it as an honors project before he graduates in 2007.
As for the future, Hurley hopes to stay in the field of wind power, perhaps working as an adviser for a wind energy company.
"I think a lot of people are pro-wind," he said. "You just have to make sure that you just don't put turbines where they don't belong."
Hurley, who is entering his senior year at Hobart College, camped out under some wind power turbines to get data for an independent research project he's conducting.
Setting out to answer whether wind power is feasible for New York state, Hurley visited two wind farms and the proposed location for a third. He also sat in on a number of town meetings to hear residents debate the hot issue.
His conclusion: Yep, wind power is a viable option. But some sites are better suited for the turbines than others.
"Find the best areas around New York state and put turbines there, but don't overdo it because you'll make a lot of people mad," said Hurley, 21, of Windham, Maine.
Although he admits he's an advocate of wind power, Hurley said he believes his assessment is fair and unbiased.
"You can see in my research that I'm for it, but I talked to a wide range of people and looked at it as objectively as I could," he said.
Basing his research on three criteria - potential wind energy, environmental impact and whether a community was conducive to wind harvesting - Hurley traveled to wind farm sites at Tug Hill, near Lowville, in Lewis County, and Fenner in Madison County. He also surveyed a proposed site in Cohocton, Steuben County. His research spanned roughly eight weeks, wrapping up in late July.
The Tug Hill and Fenner projects were ideal, he said, because both sites got plenty of unobstructed wind, were built on unused farmland and were far enough from towns to be unobtrusive.
Construction of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm at Tug Hill started in May 2005 and its 140 turbines, so far, produce about 231 megawatts of power. When completed in October, the facility will house 195 turbines and produce 321 megawatts of power, enough for 98,000 homes, said Operations Manager Scott Alexander.
Tug Hill is owned jointly by PPM Energy and Horizon Wind Energy.
The Fenner Windpower Project went online in 2001 and has 20 turbines making 30 megawatts of power, enough for 7,000 homes. It is owned by Canastota Windpower LLC, a subsidiary of Enel North America Inc.
The 280 turbines around New York state produce about 62 billion kilowatt hours of electricity a year, according to New York State Wind Energy Projects.
Hurley said that wind turbine opponents frequently complain that they emit low, persistent thumping noises that can drive residents crazy, so he decided to find out for himself, by sleeping within a few hundred feet of the turbines at each site.
"I slept pretty well, there was a swishing sound, but I didn't hear any thumping," Hurley said, noting that he did hear from people that the vibrations can cause a home's foundation and insulation to shake.
Through a series of random interviews, Hurley found that the farms had the overwhelming support of nearby residents, and farmers especially praised the arrangement.
"The farms are kind of going downhill, and the turbines provide income for the farmers," he said, noting that wind companies lease the land where the turbines are built and pay rent to the farmers who own it.
Hurley gave the proposed Cohocton site a thumbs down. While the area gets a decent amount of wind, the site is heavily wooded and the impact on the environment would be too great, he said. The Cohocton plan calls for 40 turbines that would stand nearly 500 feet tall, Hurley said, and he didn't think they would be a good idea for the town.
Indeed, he saw strong opposition in the form of the Cohocton Wind Watch. At town meetings, members said they were concerned about how turbines would affect property values and change the town's landscape.
Wind farms have a tendency to industrialize areas where they're built, Hurley said, and that scares some people.
"There were some people who moved there from the city and talked about how they wanted to get away from noise and traffic," he said.
Others cited environmental concerns, including danger to birds.
Large wind turbines move slowly and are less likely to kill birds than the smaller models in California, he said.
As for property values, the Environmental Advocates of New York recently released a study that showed turbines did nothing to affect values near the Fenner site.
Locally, Hurley said that the Geneva area doesn't fit his criteria for ideal wind farm placement. More conducive environments exist in southern Seneca County, Hurley said.
Hurley was originally a pre-med major at Hobart but then took a few environmental science classes from professors Thomas Drennen and John Halfman, which sparked his interest in renewable energy, he said.
Drennen was an adviser during his research, buying his sound-monitoring equipment and answering questions, but Hurley acted independently.
Drennen said he's proud of Hurley's initiative and plans to use his data in upcoming seminars on wind power.
"I was impressed that he didn't say all wind power is good or all wind power is bad," he said.
Hurley condensed his research into a poster that will hang in the Finger Lakes Institute, Drennen said. He also plans to develop his study further and submit it as an honors project before he graduates in 2007.
As for the future, Hurley hopes to stay in the field of wind power, perhaps working as an adviser for a wind energy company.
"I think a lot of people are pro-wind," he said. "You just have to make sure that you just don't put turbines where they don't belong."
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Letter from Jim Lince to Marion Trieste
James G. Lince
9955 Wagner Gully Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
Marion Trieste
Trieste Inc.
324 Lake Avenue
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
July 30, 2006
Dear Mrs. Trieste,
You were a panel member at the YESWindCohocton Forum on July 26th, 2006.
You stated in regards to a question about property values that the study completed by student Ben Hoen was evidence that property values did not go down as a result of wind turbine projects.
Mrs. Trieste are you aware of the following issues (among many) regarding this study?
1. No property was analyzed within 4,000 feet (3/4 mile) of a turbine. In addition, the average distance of a property with any view of a turbine was 3.5 miles.
2. Out of the 280 properties analyzed only 43 had any view of a turbine. 38 of these 43 were 2 miles or more (up to 5.99 miles) away from the nearest turbine.
3. The concept of “vista” or value of a view shed was specifically mentioned and excluded as a variable in the study (no value for view from a property).
You may believe it is responsible for you to continue to cite Hoen’s thesis as “fact based” assurance to a community. I suggest that the responsible and ethical position would be to provide disclosure. This would avoid property owners closest to these proposed projects relying on your statements as proof that their property values will not be impacted.
Obviously those closest to these turbines have the most concern. These citizens deserve responsible answers from those who represent themselves as having researched and detailed factual knowledge of the issues with industrial wind power.
Sincerely,
James G. Lince
Cohocton, NY
9955 Wagner Gully Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
Marion Trieste
Trieste Inc.
324 Lake Avenue
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
July 30, 2006
Dear Mrs. Trieste,
You were a panel member at the YESWindCohocton Forum on July 26th, 2006.
You stated in regards to a question about property values that the study completed by student Ben Hoen was evidence that property values did not go down as a result of wind turbine projects.
Mrs. Trieste are you aware of the following issues (among many) regarding this study?
1. No property was analyzed within 4,000 feet (3/4 mile) of a turbine. In addition, the average distance of a property with any view of a turbine was 3.5 miles.
2. Out of the 280 properties analyzed only 43 had any view of a turbine. 38 of these 43 were 2 miles or more (up to 5.99 miles) away from the nearest turbine.
3. The concept of “vista” or value of a view shed was specifically mentioned and excluded as a variable in the study (no value for view from a property).
You may believe it is responsible for you to continue to cite Hoen’s thesis as “fact based” assurance to a community. I suggest that the responsible and ethical position would be to provide disclosure. This would avoid property owners closest to these proposed projects relying on your statements as proof that their property values will not be impacted.
Obviously those closest to these turbines have the most concern. These citizens deserve responsible answers from those who represent themselves as having researched and detailed factual knowledge of the issues with industrial wind power.
Sincerely,
James G. Lince
Cohocton, NY
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
NO Proof Given, Just A Selected Panel of YES! And The King of Cohocton by Karl Palmiter
In an article in the Tribune, Cohocton Yes! Offers proof. I have to respond by asking the question, What Proof? Cohocton Town King merely invited some like-minded kings from other townships to parrot what the wind developer has told them. Everyone knows it’s about money for the leaseholders and developers, that’s never been the argument. The argument is about destroying the landscape for 400-500’ industrial machines, that don’t belong in agriculturally zones land. The argument is about destroying the lives of a lot of people that love the country and are going to have to live in their shadows.
At the Yes! Forum, you were told to write questions on an index card and give them to Yes! They went through the questions with other members of Yes! Saying they were categorizing them, more like hand picking the questions that were asked to the panel of people. The questions asked to panel were questions that everyone has already asked, such as ice throws, bird kills, and noise. These questions were answered predictably; they proved that they have read UPC’s Literature. One question that was asked was about fatalities, the Tug Hill Supervisor thought that question was amusing, he said they had one fatality, but that was because a construction worker got run over by a truck, but heck that happens on any construction job. This brought chuckles from some of the crowd also; I guess GREED does outweigh Compassion. I find no amusement in a fatality of any kind.
Haste makes waste. Town Boards are in a stampede to get wind power. The King of Cohocton, as he refers to himself, claims that the wind farm opponents are like Chicken Little; in fact he has drawn several cartoons for the Valley News, depicting this. Actually UPC, Yes Wind! And our Town Board is the Chicken Little that use what amounts to psychological terrorism to sway public opinions in their favor. They would have you believe that if we don’t get these wind turbines up NOW! We’ll have a nuclear power station built right here in town.
The fact of the matter is clear; once they start putting these turbines up, and because they won’t do what the developers are saying they will, they won’t come down they will simply put up more to make up the difference.
Yes wind! And the developers say that THOSE people that oppose the wind projects can’t see the forest because of the trees. Well once again they’re wrong. We love the forest and trees and everything Natural about our environment and are fighting to keep money hungry people from replacing those trees with 4-500’ Industrial Turbines.
Alternative power, Safe Clean Power, doesn’t necessarily mean wind power. Why not just slow down a little and check out some other less intrusive options. I believe this energy crisis will bring out some good, more efficient ways, possibly solar power, but not if we have already committed ourselves to the First thing that has come along-wind!
Karl Palmiter
Wagner Gully Rd.
Cohocton, NY 14826
At the Yes! Forum, you were told to write questions on an index card and give them to Yes! They went through the questions with other members of Yes! Saying they were categorizing them, more like hand picking the questions that were asked to the panel of people. The questions asked to panel were questions that everyone has already asked, such as ice throws, bird kills, and noise. These questions were answered predictably; they proved that they have read UPC’s Literature. One question that was asked was about fatalities, the Tug Hill Supervisor thought that question was amusing, he said they had one fatality, but that was because a construction worker got run over by a truck, but heck that happens on any construction job. This brought chuckles from some of the crowd also; I guess GREED does outweigh Compassion. I find no amusement in a fatality of any kind.
Haste makes waste. Town Boards are in a stampede to get wind power. The King of Cohocton, as he refers to himself, claims that the wind farm opponents are like Chicken Little; in fact he has drawn several cartoons for the Valley News, depicting this. Actually UPC, Yes Wind! And our Town Board is the Chicken Little that use what amounts to psychological terrorism to sway public opinions in their favor. They would have you believe that if we don’t get these wind turbines up NOW! We’ll have a nuclear power station built right here in town.
The fact of the matter is clear; once they start putting these turbines up, and because they won’t do what the developers are saying they will, they won’t come down they will simply put up more to make up the difference.
Yes wind! And the developers say that THOSE people that oppose the wind projects can’t see the forest because of the trees. Well once again they’re wrong. We love the forest and trees and everything Natural about our environment and are fighting to keep money hungry people from replacing those trees with 4-500’ Industrial Turbines.
Alternative power, Safe Clean Power, doesn’t necessarily mean wind power. Why not just slow down a little and check out some other less intrusive options. I believe this energy crisis will bring out some good, more efficient ways, possibly solar power, but not if we have already committed ourselves to the First thing that has come along-wind!
Karl Palmiter
Wagner Gully Rd.
Cohocton, NY 14826
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)