National Review Online published the article Let's Be Gone with the Wind today.
An excerpt:
"National President Obama likes to talk about making sure “the biggest corporations pay their fair share.” Treasury secretary Tim Geithner calls for tax reform to close loopholes and subsidies. Budget hawks say federal spending must be curbed. Congress and federal environmental regulators claim they are doing everything they can to save endangered species. By doing nothing and waiting for December 31 to pass, all of those folks could strike a blow in support of each of these policies. All they have to do is let the federal production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy expire on schedule this coming Monday."
Wind Victims Ontario:
For a depressing yet very informative read, check out the site Wind Victims Ontario. It has personal testimonies from people who live near turbines in Canada. It also has case studies, health research articles, videos, expert testimony, and more resources.
On a personal note, I drove into Gratiot County a few times over the holidays, where there are wind turbines as far as the eye can see. They've even built more since I was there last time. Knowing what I know about them, it's chilling to see them. Money wasting, an inefficient way of producing energy, wildlife killers, hazardous to human health, disrupting communities, and today ... not even one of them moving.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Wall Street Journal article on wind subsidies
The Wall Street Journal published an informational article, The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies:
Federal subsidies for new wind-power generation will end on Dec. 31 unless they are renewed by Congress. For the sake of our economy and the smooth operation of the energy market, Congress should let the subsidies lapse. They waste taxpayer money, subvert the allocation of capital, and generate a social cost many times the price tag of the subsides themselves.
Since 1992, the federal government has expended almost $24 billion to encourage investment in wind power through direct spending, tax breaks, R&D, loan guarantees and other federal support of electric power. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a one-year extension of existing federal subsidies for wind power would cost taxpayers almost $12 billion.
The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high—$52.48 per one million watt hours generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, the subsidies for generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear power are $3.10, from hydropower 84 cents, from coal 64 cents, and from natural gas 63 cents.
In addition, wind power benefits from federal mandates requiring the use of renewable energy by federal agencies along with preferential treatment by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Many states provide additional tax breaks, subsidies and mandates for wind power. The total value of these additional subsidies has never been calculated.
But the cost to taxpayers is only part of the problem. Subsidized, wind-generated electricity is displacing other, much cheaper sources of power. The subsidies are so high that wind-power producers can pay utilities to take the electricity they produce and still make a profit. Such "negative pricing" has occurred for some time in the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest and in Texas—and, according to the Energy Information Administration, it will likely grow.
In West Texas, where wind power is a larger percentage of total electricity production than in any other part of the country, negative energy-price distortions have occurred 8% or more of the time for the last five years. Donna Nelson, the chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission, warned in September that the market distortion caused by negative prices "makes it difficult for other generation types to recover their cost and discourages investment in new generation."
The net result is that federal subsidies are triggering an inefficient and costly transformation of grid resources from low-cost megawatts to high-cost "maybe" watts—electricity generated only when the wind blows.
When electricity demand peaked in Chicago on July 6, 2012, wind energy, which comprised 2,700 megawatts of capacity, was able to supply only four megawatts of electricity, a stunning 99.8% failure rate. In Europe, one day this February wind power produced almost a third of Germany's electricity—but four days later it produced none (it was a still day).
To read the rest of the article, go here: The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies.
Federal subsidies for new wind-power generation will end on Dec. 31 unless they are renewed by Congress. For the sake of our economy and the smooth operation of the energy market, Congress should let the subsidies lapse. They waste taxpayer money, subvert the allocation of capital, and generate a social cost many times the price tag of the subsides themselves.
Since 1992, the federal government has expended almost $24 billion to encourage investment in wind power through direct spending, tax breaks, R&D, loan guarantees and other federal support of electric power. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a one-year extension of existing federal subsidies for wind power would cost taxpayers almost $12 billion.
The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high—$52.48 per one million watt hours generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, the subsidies for generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear power are $3.10, from hydropower 84 cents, from coal 64 cents, and from natural gas 63 cents.
In addition, wind power benefits from federal mandates requiring the use of renewable energy by federal agencies along with preferential treatment by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Many states provide additional tax breaks, subsidies and mandates for wind power. The total value of these additional subsidies has never been calculated.
But the cost to taxpayers is only part of the problem. Subsidized, wind-generated electricity is displacing other, much cheaper sources of power. The subsidies are so high that wind-power producers can pay utilities to take the electricity they produce and still make a profit. Such "negative pricing" has occurred for some time in the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest and in Texas—and, according to the Energy Information Administration, it will likely grow.
In West Texas, where wind power is a larger percentage of total electricity production than in any other part of the country, negative energy-price distortions have occurred 8% or more of the time for the last five years. Donna Nelson, the chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission, warned in September that the market distortion caused by negative prices "makes it difficult for other generation types to recover their cost and discourages investment in new generation."
The net result is that federal subsidies are triggering an inefficient and costly transformation of grid resources from low-cost megawatts to high-cost "maybe" watts—electricity generated only when the wind blows.
When electricity demand peaked in Chicago on July 6, 2012, wind energy, which comprised 2,700 megawatts of capacity, was able to supply only four megawatts of electricity, a stunning 99.8% failure rate. In Europe, one day this February wind power produced almost a third of Germany's electricity—but four days later it produced none (it was a still day).
To read the rest of the article, go here: The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Two articles in the Lansing State Journal
Today's Lansing State Journal has an update on the wind turbine issue in Clinton County:
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
ST. JOHNS — In a few days, another year will end without approval or rejection of a Chicago company’s proposal to erect 40 towering, utility-grade turbines to convert the winds of Clinton County to power for households, farms, industry and business.
And while 2013 is likely to see a decision on the $123 million project that dates to 2008, approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners still would not initiate construction.
Years of litigation might be a more accurate forecast.
“We’ve put forward a project that meets the requirements of the (county’s) zoning ordinance,” Tim Brown, managing member of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms LLC, said in a telephone interview from his Chicago office. “We hope the county’s ready to make a decision. It’s been quite some time.”
Planning Commission action was expected Dec. 13. Brown and about 150 other people, mostly landowners opposed to the project, gathered at the Clinton County Courthouse to hear whether Forest Hill’s application for a special-land-use permit would be endorsed or denied.
They departed quickly after only three of seven planning commission members showed up and the meeting was canceled.
The next meeting is scheduled for Jan. 10.
If approved, the permit request would advance to the Board of Commissioners, probably in February.
Brown said he does not have a problem with the county’s “very deliberate” review process.
Ordinances passed by the Dallas, Essex and Bengal township boards requiring towers to be shorter than the 427-foot-tall structures planned by Forest Hill and allowed by county zoning are of greater concern.
The township ordinances limit the height to 400 feet in Bengal, and 380 feet in Dallas and Essex. The townships also have stricter rules for noise and require greater setbacks than the county.
To read the rest of the article go here:
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
They also published an article on the issue yesterday:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
"ST. JOHNS — Ken Wieber, 49, grew up on the mixed-use dairy and cash-crop farm he operates on 540 acres in Clinton County, a few miles north and west of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms proposed wind-turbine project.
An active leader of the opposition, Wieber said he focused on the health, safety and property rights of residents living near the proposed project after the county “failed miserably” to do so in the recent revision of its zoning ordinance.
Wieber said the project’s opponents compromised on the zoning ordinance because “we realize we can’t stop these things (wind-turbine developments).”
“We understood early on that if we propose something that is entirely restrictive and unrealistic then we’re not going to get anywhere,” he said. “We have to allow wiggle room. We have to have a compromise in there somewhere.”
One of the biggest compromises, he said, was a zoning provision that allows neighboring landowners to waive the setback requirements that otherwise would prohibit erection of a tower on land leased to Forest Hill Energy.
If Forest Hill then had “to go out and get more waivers from the neighboring people and if that costs them more money, so be it,” Wieber said.
Apart from noise, tower heights and setbacks from property lines, Wieber questions the fundamental economics of industrial-grade wind-turbine farms.
“They always talk about this as ‘harvesting the wind’ or one more crop that they can harvest. The only thing being harvested here is the federal incentives. That’s what’s being harvested and that’s being done by Forest Hill Energy,” he said.
“Do we really want as a county or state or nation to base our future economy on an industry that provides an expensive, intermittent and inefficient product and is entirely depending on government subsidies for its existence?”
In floor remarks delivered to his U.S. Senate colleagues on Dec. 14, Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, echoed Wieber by criticizing the federal government and “the brazenness of those who have been receiving this giveaway money.”
To read the rest of the article go here:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
ST. JOHNS — In a few days, another year will end without approval or rejection of a Chicago company’s proposal to erect 40 towering, utility-grade turbines to convert the winds of Clinton County to power for households, farms, industry and business.
And while 2013 is likely to see a decision on the $123 million project that dates to 2008, approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners still would not initiate construction.
Years of litigation might be a more accurate forecast.
“We’ve put forward a project that meets the requirements of the (county’s) zoning ordinance,” Tim Brown, managing member of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms LLC, said in a telephone interview from his Chicago office. “We hope the county’s ready to make a decision. It’s been quite some time.”
Planning Commission action was expected Dec. 13. Brown and about 150 other people, mostly landowners opposed to the project, gathered at the Clinton County Courthouse to hear whether Forest Hill’s application for a special-land-use permit would be endorsed or denied.
They departed quickly after only three of seven planning commission members showed up and the meeting was canceled.
The next meeting is scheduled for Jan. 10.
If approved, the permit request would advance to the Board of Commissioners, probably in February.
Brown said he does not have a problem with the county’s “very deliberate” review process.
Ordinances passed by the Dallas, Essex and Bengal township boards requiring towers to be shorter than the 427-foot-tall structures planned by Forest Hill and allowed by county zoning are of greater concern.
The township ordinances limit the height to 400 feet in Bengal, and 380 feet in Dallas and Essex. The townships also have stricter rules for noise and require greater setbacks than the county.
To read the rest of the article go here:
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
They also published an article on the issue yesterday:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
"ST. JOHNS — Ken Wieber, 49, grew up on the mixed-use dairy and cash-crop farm he operates on 540 acres in Clinton County, a few miles north and west of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms proposed wind-turbine project.
An active leader of the opposition, Wieber said he focused on the health, safety and property rights of residents living near the proposed project after the county “failed miserably” to do so in the recent revision of its zoning ordinance.
Wieber said the project’s opponents compromised on the zoning ordinance because “we realize we can’t stop these things (wind-turbine developments).”
“We understood early on that if we propose something that is entirely restrictive and unrealistic then we’re not going to get anywhere,” he said. “We have to allow wiggle room. We have to have a compromise in there somewhere.”
One of the biggest compromises, he said, was a zoning provision that allows neighboring landowners to waive the setback requirements that otherwise would prohibit erection of a tower on land leased to Forest Hill Energy.
If Forest Hill then had “to go out and get more waivers from the neighboring people and if that costs them more money, so be it,” Wieber said.
Apart from noise, tower heights and setbacks from property lines, Wieber questions the fundamental economics of industrial-grade wind-turbine farms.
“They always talk about this as ‘harvesting the wind’ or one more crop that they can harvest. The only thing being harvested here is the federal incentives. That’s what’s being harvested and that’s being done by Forest Hill Energy,” he said.
“Do we really want as a county or state or nation to base our future economy on an industry that provides an expensive, intermittent and inefficient product and is entirely depending on government subsidies for its existence?”
In floor remarks delivered to his U.S. Senate colleagues on Dec. 14, Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, echoed Wieber by criticizing the federal government and “the brazenness of those who have been receiving this giveaway money.”
To read the rest of the article go here:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Request for a five-year moratorium
This letter will be hand delivered to the Clinton County Planning Commission on December 26, 2012.
Dear Planning Commission:
I write regarding the Special Land Use/Final Site Plan submitted by Forest Hill Energy (PC-32-
12).
This issue has become highly contentious here in Clinton County, draining to both the residents
and to members of the Planning Commission. As of today, nothing good will come of approving
the permit; the county most likely is concerned about a law suit if it denies the permit. The
problem is: too much of the information about industrial wind turbine technology and its
effects on people is speculative.
I am requesting that the Planning Commission pass a five year moratorium on industrial wind
turbines in Clinton County for the following reasons:
1. The Planning Commission is authorized to act on behalf of its residents: specifically, for the
health, safety, and welfare of Clinton County residents. The most important issue the Planning
Commission can look at us: Are these industrial wind turbines safe for the residents? Do or can
these industrial wind turbines harm or affect the health of the residents? Do these industrial
wind turbines promote the welfare of Clinton County residents?
2. The answer to the first question as to whether or not the industrial wind turbines are safe is
not clear: in the manuals published by the manufacturers of these wind turbines the workers
themselves are not permitted to be as close to functioning wind turbines as our properties will
be. The bottom line to this is: a worker may not get as close to an operating wind turbine as
I can get while still standing on my property. Is this what the county intends? Approving this
special use permit would not promote the safety of residents in the 3 township area presently
affected.
3. The answer to the second question as to whether or not industrial wind turbines are healthy
is even more worrisome, and even speculative. Numerous studies have been performed across
the country which are shedding light on health affects and noise pollution. These have been
published not only through universities, but also in newspapers, and by wind energy companies
themselves. There are acoustical engineers on both sides of this: there are engineers who
argue that the frequencies are safe; others who argue that they are unsafe. Toss into this
melee of information the fact that industrial wind turbines are manufactured by more than
one company and the results are even more speculative. If wind turbines did not affect at least
some people’s health, there would not have been any studies. It is the fact that they did affect
the health of at least some members of the population that has created the need for further
study. Again, approving the special use permit at this stage of the game might adversely affect,
and might not promote the health of residents.
3. The answer to the third question as to whether or not the industrial wind turbines promote
the welfare of residents is easy. The welfare (definition of welfare: the condition of faring
well; exemption from pain or discomfort; prosperity) of those residents who will live adjacent
to wind turbines, as you have heard from them time and time again, will be adversely affected.
They have brought a wealth of data regarding property values, shadow flicker, and personal
preference/discomfort. Approving the special use permit right now will absolutely negatively
affect the welfare of those residents. You have heard this on a regular basis from 200, if not
more, of those residents.
4. On the other side of the coin, there is a handful (only 27) residents who have spoken in
favor of these industrial wind turbines. Looking at the site plan proposed by Forest Hill and
comparing it with the records held by the equalization department, one can easily see that
these 27 residents have all signed a contract with Forest Hill Energy to place industrial wind
turbines on his/her property. Those 27 people will argue that their welfare will be enhanced.
5. On that same sign of the coin the Planning Commission might be lured by the promised
tax dollars to the county. Yes, the Federal subsidies for these industrial wind turbines might
continue and this form of energy which is highly subsidized might provide economic relief
for Clinton County. These highly subsidized companies would, with Federal dollars they
receive, pay personal property taxes to the county. In other words, my personal Federal tax
dollars might be used to subsidize the wind turbine placed right behind my house, degrading
my comfort in my home and on my property, potentially affecting my health, lowering my
property value, while my Clinton County neighbors receive these (my) Federal tax dollars which
were siphoned through Forest Hill Energy. However, once these subsidies are gone, these
companies will most likely be out of business and there will be no income to the county.
The decision you make now affects all of us for the next 30 years. It would seem to me that
you are put in an untenable position, and I appreciate this. With so much information being
speculative, with the only apparent supporters being the Federally subsidized company and the
27 residents who will benefit economically, I would like the Planning Commission, if it feels it is
not in a legal position to deny the special use permit, to put a five year moratorium on all wind
energy projects in the county. Huron County did the same on November 14, 2012. The five year moratorium would give time for more information to be verified and not as speculative.
The five year moratorium will hold at a status quo the health and safety of the residents, and it
will certainly positively affect the welfare of those residents whose properties are adjacent to
the proposed wind turbines.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Dallam Ayoub
P.S. I typically cite all of the studies I have used, but this letter would have been far too
lengthy. The information is readily available to all, both in scholarly publications as well as in
newspapers. Most, if not all of it, has already been provided to you.
Dear Planning Commission:
I write regarding the Special Land Use/Final Site Plan submitted by Forest Hill Energy (PC-32-
12).
This issue has become highly contentious here in Clinton County, draining to both the residents
and to members of the Planning Commission. As of today, nothing good will come of approving
the permit; the county most likely is concerned about a law suit if it denies the permit. The
problem is: too much of the information about industrial wind turbine technology and its
effects on people is speculative.
I am requesting that the Planning Commission pass a five year moratorium on industrial wind
turbines in Clinton County for the following reasons:
1. The Planning Commission is authorized to act on behalf of its residents: specifically, for the
health, safety, and welfare of Clinton County residents. The most important issue the Planning
Commission can look at us: Are these industrial wind turbines safe for the residents? Do or can
these industrial wind turbines harm or affect the health of the residents? Do these industrial
wind turbines promote the welfare of Clinton County residents?
2. The answer to the first question as to whether or not the industrial wind turbines are safe is
not clear: in the manuals published by the manufacturers of these wind turbines the workers
themselves are not permitted to be as close to functioning wind turbines as our properties will
be. The bottom line to this is: a worker may not get as close to an operating wind turbine as
I can get while still standing on my property. Is this what the county intends? Approving this
special use permit would not promote the safety of residents in the 3 township area presently
affected.
3. The answer to the second question as to whether or not industrial wind turbines are healthy
is even more worrisome, and even speculative. Numerous studies have been performed across
the country which are shedding light on health affects and noise pollution. These have been
published not only through universities, but also in newspapers, and by wind energy companies
themselves. There are acoustical engineers on both sides of this: there are engineers who
argue that the frequencies are safe; others who argue that they are unsafe. Toss into this
melee of information the fact that industrial wind turbines are manufactured by more than
one company and the results are even more speculative. If wind turbines did not affect at least
some people’s health, there would not have been any studies. It is the fact that they did affect
the health of at least some members of the population that has created the need for further
study. Again, approving the special use permit at this stage of the game might adversely affect,
and might not promote the health of residents.
3. The answer to the third question as to whether or not the industrial wind turbines promote
the welfare of residents is easy. The welfare (definition of welfare: the condition of faring
well; exemption from pain or discomfort; prosperity) of those residents who will live adjacent
to wind turbines, as you have heard from them time and time again, will be adversely affected.
They have brought a wealth of data regarding property values, shadow flicker, and personal
preference/discomfort. Approving the special use permit right now will absolutely negatively
affect the welfare of those residents. You have heard this on a regular basis from 200, if not
more, of those residents.
4. On the other side of the coin, there is a handful (only 27) residents who have spoken in
favor of these industrial wind turbines. Looking at the site plan proposed by Forest Hill and
comparing it with the records held by the equalization department, one can easily see that
these 27 residents have all signed a contract with Forest Hill Energy to place industrial wind
turbines on his/her property. Those 27 people will argue that their welfare will be enhanced.
5. On that same sign of the coin the Planning Commission might be lured by the promised
tax dollars to the county. Yes, the Federal subsidies for these industrial wind turbines might
continue and this form of energy which is highly subsidized might provide economic relief
for Clinton County. These highly subsidized companies would, with Federal dollars they
receive, pay personal property taxes to the county. In other words, my personal Federal tax
dollars might be used to subsidize the wind turbine placed right behind my house, degrading
my comfort in my home and on my property, potentially affecting my health, lowering my
property value, while my Clinton County neighbors receive these (my) Federal tax dollars which
were siphoned through Forest Hill Energy. However, once these subsidies are gone, these
companies will most likely be out of business and there will be no income to the county.
The decision you make now affects all of us for the next 30 years. It would seem to me that
you are put in an untenable position, and I appreciate this. With so much information being
speculative, with the only apparent supporters being the Federally subsidized company and the
27 residents who will benefit economically, I would like the Planning Commission, if it feels it is
not in a legal position to deny the special use permit, to put a five year moratorium on all wind
energy projects in the county. Huron County did the same on November 14, 2012. The five year moratorium would give time for more information to be verified and not as speculative.
The five year moratorium will hold at a status quo the health and safety of the residents, and it
will certainly positively affect the welfare of those residents whose properties are adjacent to
the proposed wind turbines.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Dallam Ayoub
P.S. I typically cite all of the studies I have used, but this letter would have been far too
lengthy. The information is readily available to all, both in scholarly publications as well as in
newspapers. Most, if not all of it, has already been provided to you.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Failure to comply
The Clinton County Planning Commission received six documents on December 11.
These documents support the request that the Clinton County Planning Commission deny the Special Use Permit Application submitted by Forest Hill Energy Fowler Farms because it fails to comply with the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance.
Feel free to share this information, as it will be discussed at the January 10 meeting.
Some excerpts - see the link below to read all the details:
A. REPORT FROM RICK JAMES OF E-COUSTIC SOLUTIONS DEMONSTRATES FHEFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CLINTON COUNTY’S 45 dBA SOUND LIMIT.
In support of this request, please find attached December 10, 2012, correspondence from Rick James of E-Coustic Solutions. As Mr. James points out, several defects mandate that FHEFF’s Application be denied, such as:
FHEFF’s failure to comply with Sections 1341(A)(4) and (B)(3)(a) are fatal and its Application must be denied.
B. REPORT FROM K & S DEMONSTRATES FHEFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CLINTON COUNTY’S 45 dBA SOUND LIMIT.
C. OTHER “CONDITIONS” FOR CONSIDERATION.
In the event that the Clinton County Planning Commission chooses to disregard the considered opinions of both Mr. James and its own consultants, K & S, FHEFF’s Application, there are two other “conditions” that should be placed upon FHEFF’s Application before it receives final approval: (1) a study of low frequency noise emitted by wind turbines and (2) a valid interconnection agreement.
D. CONCLUSION
Article 13 of the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”) addresses “Special Land Uses.” Section 1301(B)(4) states, in pertinent part,
[i]t shall be incumbent upon the applicant to furnish adequate evidence in support of the proposed Special Land Use complying with the provisions of this Ordinance. It shall be the obligation of the
applicant to furnish evidence, or proof, of present and future compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (Emphasis added.)
In other words, the burden of proof is on FHEFF to demonstrate compliance with all provisions in the Ordinance.
FHEFF has simply failed to meet the requirements for approval of its Application. FHEFF has acknowledged that it failed to comply with ANSI when conducting its background sound study, in violation of Section 1341(A)(4). Furthermore, FHEFF cannot demonstrate compliance with the “shall not exceed” 45 dBA sound limit set forth Section 1341(B)(3)(a).1 FHEFF has been given ample opportunity to produce information confirming compliance with Clinton County’s Zoning Ordinance, but has failed to meet its burden. As such, the time has come for the Clinton County Planning
Commission to deny FHEFF’s Application.
Respectfully submitted,
Joshua J. Nolan
NOLAN LAW, LLC
Please click here to read the six documents.
These documents support the request that the Clinton County Planning Commission deny the Special Use Permit Application submitted by Forest Hill Energy Fowler Farms because it fails to comply with the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance.
Feel free to share this information, as it will be discussed at the January 10 meeting.
Some excerpts - see the link below to read all the details:
A. REPORT FROM RICK JAMES OF E-COUSTIC SOLUTIONS DEMONSTRATES FHEFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CLINTON COUNTY’S 45 dBA SOUND LIMIT.
In support of this request, please find attached December 10, 2012, correspondence from Rick James of E-Coustic Solutions. As Mr. James points out, several defects mandate that FHEFF’s Application be denied, such as:
- Failure to comply with the “shall not exceed” 45 dBA sound limit set forth in Section 1341(B)(3)(a) of the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance;
- Failure to comply with ANSI standards in conducting background sound study, as required by Section 1341(A)(4) of the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance;
- Inappropriate application of average sound in order to artificially inflate background sound values.
FHEFF’s failure to comply with Sections 1341(A)(4) and (B)(3)(a) are fatal and its Application must be denied.
B. REPORT FROM K & S DEMONSTRATES FHEFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CLINTON COUNTY’S 45 dBA SOUND LIMIT.
C. OTHER “CONDITIONS” FOR CONSIDERATION.
In the event that the Clinton County Planning Commission chooses to disregard the considered opinions of both Mr. James and its own consultants, K & S, FHEFF’s Application, there are two other “conditions” that should be placed upon FHEFF’s Application before it receives final approval: (1) a study of low frequency noise emitted by wind turbines and (2) a valid interconnection agreement.
D. CONCLUSION
Article 13 of the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”) addresses “Special Land Uses.” Section 1301(B)(4) states, in pertinent part,
[i]t shall be incumbent upon the applicant to furnish adequate evidence in support of the proposed Special Land Use complying with the provisions of this Ordinance. It shall be the obligation of the
applicant to furnish evidence, or proof, of present and future compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (Emphasis added.)
In other words, the burden of proof is on FHEFF to demonstrate compliance with all provisions in the Ordinance.
FHEFF has simply failed to meet the requirements for approval of its Application. FHEFF has acknowledged that it failed to comply with ANSI when conducting its background sound study, in violation of Section 1341(A)(4). Furthermore, FHEFF cannot demonstrate compliance with the “shall not exceed” 45 dBA sound limit set forth Section 1341(B)(3)(a).1 FHEFF has been given ample opportunity to produce information confirming compliance with Clinton County’s Zoning Ordinance, but has failed to meet its burden. As such, the time has come for the Clinton County Planning
Commission to deny FHEFF’s Application.
Respectfully submitted,
Joshua J. Nolan
NOLAN LAW, LLC
Please click here to read the six documents.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Meeting postponed
After everyone assembled for the meeting at 7:00 p.m. tonight, Larry Simon announced that some of the board members were going to be unable to attend. He said that one was doing business in Lansing, one had called in sick, and some had other issues. Kelly Chadwick, Patti Jandernoa, and Larry Simon were present.
As a result, after waiting until 7:05 p.m. to see if anyone else made it, they cancelled the meeting.
The new meeting time is Thursday, January 10 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board of Commissioners Room, Suite 1300, Courthouse, 100 E. State Street, St Johns.
Thank you to everyone who attended. Merry Christmas, and we'll see you in January.
As a result, after waiting until 7:05 p.m. to see if anyone else made it, they cancelled the meeting.
The new meeting time is Thursday, January 10 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board of Commissioners Room, Suite 1300, Courthouse, 100 E. State Street, St Johns.
Thank you to everyone who attended. Merry Christmas, and we'll see you in January.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Letter to the planning commission
To: Clinton County Planning Commission
From: Jim and Kathleen Larsen (Essex Township)
Date: December 11, 2012
Clinton County is arguably the best county in Michigan, based on several criteria: It has one of the
state’s highest median household incomes; according to the 2010 census it is one of the fastest growing counties in Michigan; it is number one in milk production; and 90% of its farmland is classified as prime growing soil. Building a wind farm in the midst of this rich, productive farmland would be sheer folly and present an unacceptable risk to some of the top producing dairy farms in the county.
There are only two arguments in favor of installing these turbines: 1.) Economic gain; 2.) Sympathy for the clean, renewable energy movement, and we argue that neither if these arguments is valid.
1. The economic reasons would be to receive increased tax revenue and perhaps to produce
more jobs. There has already been much discussion about the likely offsets to this new
revenue in the form of reduced intake from property taxes due to the expected devaluation
of property in the area of the wind turbines. In addition to this possibility, there is the fact
that the entire project is dependent upon government subsidies. Since the building of the
turbines in Gratiot County began, the law in Michigan has changed to lower the amount of
taxes collected on the state’s wind turbines. Currently there are five counties in Michigan,
including Gratiot, that have banded together to consolidate legal costs in order to contest
this new law. One has to wonder if these counties would have built these wind farms, had
they known the tax revenues they expected to get, were subject to change.
With the vagaries of the political landscape, the subsidies themselves could dry up. This in fact did happen in California, where 14,000 rusting wind turbines that were built in the 1970’s and 1980’s, have been abandoned due to loss of government subsidies and outdated mandates, and in part,
to outdated technology. The abandoned Altamont Wind Farm in California is in one the best
places on the planet for generating wind, and yet when subsidies ended, it was not feasible to
continue this source of energy.
The U.S. Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory classifies wind power
into 7 different categories, with number one being superb wind power, and number seven
being poor. Clinton Country ranks number six in the “ marginal” category.
The Mackinaw Center for Public policy notes that in Europe where there are many aggressive
renewable energy mandates that have been in effect longer than in the United States,
that recent headlines have referred to these mandates as destroying their economy. The
Mackinaw Center also notes that in Minnesota, according to the Minnesota Rural Electric
Association, the forced use of renewable energy cost rural electric ratepayers more than $70
million last year.
As for jobs, Michigan County Lines reports that the Gratiot County turbines are manufactured
overseas and out of state. Transportation and assembly would produce only short term non-
sustainable jobs.
2. As for the green energy aspect, you are already well aware that there is an environmental
cost to wind turbines that includes the loss of birds, bats and wild life, and this has been well
documented. The effects on the health of human beings and farm animals is often discussed,
as pertaining to the effects of noise and shadow/ flicker, and there seems to be much
disagreement regarding the scientific data, or lack thereof. There is plenty of evidence to the
effect that these wind turbines affect at least a portion of the animal and human population
in a negative manner. Do we want to take the chance that some of our citizens may become
ill? What if the wind turbines had the effect of lowering the dairy production, as has been
suggested in other wind farm areas?
On Sunday October 28, 2012, the Lansing State Journal’s headlines announced that the Board
of Water and Light is building a new plant that will burn natural gas, which will allow them
to burn 139,000 fewer tons of coal annually. They expect to reduce total greenhouse gas
emission by 20%. According to Bjorn Lomborg of Stale.com, on 9/15/12, carbon dioxide
emissions in the U.S. dropped to the lowest level in 20 years. He says that according to U.S.
Energy Information Agency, from the first five months of 2012, this year’s expected Co2
emissions have declined 14% from their peak in 2007. He says the reason for this, is the switch
to natural gas, which is 10 times more efficient at reducing Co2 emissions than wind turbines.
Could we perhaps be in the waning stages of the wind energy movement? Energy must be
affordable or our economy will plummet. Are wind turbines that cannot compete without
government subsidies the wave of the future? Can we count on a stable political climate
that would guarantee the subsidies for decades into the future? When the wind initiatives
exploded about four years ago, the price of natural gas was much higher. The price has dropped
significantly in recent years, and natural gas actually reduces our Co2 emissions significantly. I’d
hate for the Planning Commission to take steps that might ruin our magnificent and prosperous
county. If wind power were economically efficient, no government subsidy would be needed.
Please don’t bring this blight to our county.
From: Jim and Kathleen Larsen (Essex Township)
Date: December 11, 2012
Clinton County is arguably the best county in Michigan, based on several criteria: It has one of the
state’s highest median household incomes; according to the 2010 census it is one of the fastest growing counties in Michigan; it is number one in milk production; and 90% of its farmland is classified as prime growing soil. Building a wind farm in the midst of this rich, productive farmland would be sheer folly and present an unacceptable risk to some of the top producing dairy farms in the county.
There are only two arguments in favor of installing these turbines: 1.) Economic gain; 2.) Sympathy for the clean, renewable energy movement, and we argue that neither if these arguments is valid.
1. The economic reasons would be to receive increased tax revenue and perhaps to produce
more jobs. There has already been much discussion about the likely offsets to this new
revenue in the form of reduced intake from property taxes due to the expected devaluation
of property in the area of the wind turbines. In addition to this possibility, there is the fact
that the entire project is dependent upon government subsidies. Since the building of the
turbines in Gratiot County began, the law in Michigan has changed to lower the amount of
taxes collected on the state’s wind turbines. Currently there are five counties in Michigan,
including Gratiot, that have banded together to consolidate legal costs in order to contest
this new law. One has to wonder if these counties would have built these wind farms, had
they known the tax revenues they expected to get, were subject to change.
With the vagaries of the political landscape, the subsidies themselves could dry up. This in fact did happen in California, where 14,000 rusting wind turbines that were built in the 1970’s and 1980’s, have been abandoned due to loss of government subsidies and outdated mandates, and in part,
to outdated technology. The abandoned Altamont Wind Farm in California is in one the best
places on the planet for generating wind, and yet when subsidies ended, it was not feasible to
continue this source of energy.
The U.S. Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory classifies wind power
into 7 different categories, with number one being superb wind power, and number seven
being poor. Clinton Country ranks number six in the “ marginal” category.
The Mackinaw Center for Public policy notes that in Europe where there are many aggressive
renewable energy mandates that have been in effect longer than in the United States,
that recent headlines have referred to these mandates as destroying their economy. The
Mackinaw Center also notes that in Minnesota, according to the Minnesota Rural Electric
Association, the forced use of renewable energy cost rural electric ratepayers more than $70
million last year.
As for jobs, Michigan County Lines reports that the Gratiot County turbines are manufactured
overseas and out of state. Transportation and assembly would produce only short term non-
sustainable jobs.
2. As for the green energy aspect, you are already well aware that there is an environmental
cost to wind turbines that includes the loss of birds, bats and wild life, and this has been well
documented. The effects on the health of human beings and farm animals is often discussed,
as pertaining to the effects of noise and shadow/ flicker, and there seems to be much
disagreement regarding the scientific data, or lack thereof. There is plenty of evidence to the
effect that these wind turbines affect at least a portion of the animal and human population
in a negative manner. Do we want to take the chance that some of our citizens may become
ill? What if the wind turbines had the effect of lowering the dairy production, as has been
suggested in other wind farm areas?
On Sunday October 28, 2012, the Lansing State Journal’s headlines announced that the Board
of Water and Light is building a new plant that will burn natural gas, which will allow them
to burn 139,000 fewer tons of coal annually. They expect to reduce total greenhouse gas
emission by 20%. According to Bjorn Lomborg of Stale.com, on 9/15/12, carbon dioxide
emissions in the U.S. dropped to the lowest level in 20 years. He says that according to U.S.
Energy Information Agency, from the first five months of 2012, this year’s expected Co2
emissions have declined 14% from their peak in 2007. He says the reason for this, is the switch
to natural gas, which is 10 times more efficient at reducing Co2 emissions than wind turbines.
Could we perhaps be in the waning stages of the wind energy movement? Energy must be
affordable or our economy will plummet. Are wind turbines that cannot compete without
government subsidies the wave of the future? Can we count on a stable political climate
that would guarantee the subsidies for decades into the future? When the wind initiatives
exploded about four years ago, the price of natural gas was much higher. The price has dropped
significantly in recent years, and natural gas actually reduces our Co2 emissions significantly. I’d
hate for the Planning Commission to take steps that might ruin our magnificent and prosperous
county. If wind power were economically efficient, no government subsidy would be needed.
Please don’t bring this blight to our county.
December 13, 7:00 p.m. - Important meeting
The Clinton County Planning Commission & Zoning
Board of Appeals will be discussing the Forest Hill Energy special land use
permit tomorrow night, December 13, at 7:00 p.m.
The meeting will be in the Board of Commissioners Room, Suite 1300, Courthouse, 100 E. State Street, St Johns.
Clinton County residents, please attend. It's important that the board knows our opinions. Thank you for making time for this community issue.
You can see the Planning & Zoning web site here.
You can read the meeting agenda here.
The meeting will be in the Board of Commissioners Room, Suite 1300, Courthouse, 100 E. State Street, St Johns.
Clinton County residents, please attend. It's important that the board knows our opinions. Thank you for making time for this community issue.
You can see the Planning & Zoning web site here.
You can read the meeting agenda here.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Government for the people works only when people are involved - Dec 13
This letter to the editor was submitted for this week's Clinton County News:
Government for the people works only when people are involved in the government.
Citizens of Clinton County, please assist fellow residents to ensure our planning commission
follows its own ordinance, to ensure that a company whose office is in Illinois does not cut
corners or sacrifice residents’ well-being in an attempt to have its special use permit approved.
Forest Hill Energy applied for a special use permit to install industrial wind turbines in
northwest Clinton County. We, the people, have the responsibility and the privilege of making
sure no shortcuts are made that might sacrifice residents’ well-being.
Companies --- many times from outside the state --- try to set up business where they can. It
is up to the people to make sure that these entities are regulated. Today it’s a wind turbine
company; tomorrow it will be something else. Perhaps this “something else” will be in YOUR
section of the county.
At that time residents of the northwestern section will be available to help you. Right now
northwestern residents are asking that ALL Clinton County residents help by attending the
December 13th 7:00 p.m. meeting at the courthouse.
Our section of the county thanks you!
Elizabeth Dallam Ayoub
Bengal Township
Government for the people works only when people are involved in the government.
Citizens of Clinton County, please assist fellow residents to ensure our planning commission
follows its own ordinance, to ensure that a company whose office is in Illinois does not cut
corners or sacrifice residents’ well-being in an attempt to have its special use permit approved.
Forest Hill Energy applied for a special use permit to install industrial wind turbines in
northwest Clinton County. We, the people, have the responsibility and the privilege of making
sure no shortcuts are made that might sacrifice residents’ well-being.
Companies --- many times from outside the state --- try to set up business where they can. It
is up to the people to make sure that these entities are regulated. Today it’s a wind turbine
company; tomorrow it will be something else. Perhaps this “something else” will be in YOUR
section of the county.
At that time residents of the northwestern section will be available to help you. Right now
northwestern residents are asking that ALL Clinton County residents help by attending the
December 13th 7:00 p.m. meeting at the courthouse.
Our section of the county thanks you!
Elizabeth Dallam Ayoub
Bengal Township
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Bengal Township restricts wind turbine projects
The Lansing State Journal's Steven R. Reed has followed up his previous story with today's article: Bengal Township restricts wind turbine projects.
He writes, "Bengal Township has joined the list of local governments imposing stricter wind turbine ordinances than current Clinton County regulations."
You can read the entire article here.
He writes, "Bengal Township has joined the list of local governments imposing stricter wind turbine ordinances than current Clinton County regulations."
You can read the entire article here.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Five yes votes
Tonight, the Bengal Township board passed an ordinance regulating wind turbines with five yes votes!
Thank you so much, Bengal board members, for helping to protect our rural community and way of life. Thanks also to Bengal, Dallas, and Essex township residents for all of their hard work and support.
Mark your calendars ... the Clinton County Planning Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals will be discussing the Forest Hill Energy special land use permit at their December 13, 2012 meeting. The meeting will be in the Board of Commissioners Room, Suite 1300, Courthouse, 100 E. State Street, St Johns.
The township boards have been listening to their constituents. Now it's time to move to the county level. We hope to see you at the meeting.
You can see the Planning & Zoning web site here.
You can read the meeting agenda here.
Thank you so much, Bengal board members, for helping to protect our rural community and way of life. Thanks also to Bengal, Dallas, and Essex township residents for all of their hard work and support.
Mark your calendars ... the Clinton County Planning Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals will be discussing the Forest Hill Energy special land use permit at their December 13, 2012 meeting. The meeting will be in the Board of Commissioners Room, Suite 1300, Courthouse, 100 E. State Street, St Johns.
The township boards have been listening to their constituents. Now it's time to move to the county level. We hope to see you at the meeting.
You can see the Planning & Zoning web site here.
You can read the meeting agenda here.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Meeting tomorrow
The Bengal Township Board's special meeting to discuss wind turbines in our community is tomorrow - Thursday, November 29 at 7:00 pm, at the Bengal Township Hall at 6586 West M-21.
This may be the last chance for the board to approve an ordinance, so please attend if you can.
If you are unable to attend, you can find the board members' contact information below. Thank you.
Deborah Schafer (new member)
7857 West Parks Road
St Johns MI 48879
989-593-2325
dschafer53@hotmail.com
Denice Schultheiss (new member)
2801 S Forest Hill Rd
St Johns MI 48879
517-927-9273
Eric Mohnke
6357 West Parks Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-9479
mohnkee@bengaltownship.org
Marilyn Irrer
4507 South Francis Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-7685
irrerm@bengaltownship.org
Steve Mahoney
4950 West Taft Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-4361
mahoneys@bengaltownship.org
This may be the last chance for the board to approve an ordinance, so please attend if you can.
If you are unable to attend, you can find the board members' contact information below. Thank you.
Deborah Schafer (new member)
7857 West Parks Road
St Johns MI 48879
989-593-2325
dschafer53@hotmail.com
Denice Schultheiss (new member)
2801 S Forest Hill Rd
St Johns MI 48879
517-927-9273
Eric Mohnke
6357 West Parks Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-9479
mohnkee@bengaltownship.org
Marilyn Irrer
4507 South Francis Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-7685
irrerm@bengaltownship.org
Steve Mahoney
4950 West Taft Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-4361
mahoneys@bengaltownship.org
Monday, November 26, 2012
Lansing State Journal article on Clinton County turbines
Today on the front page of the Lansing State Journal is an article by Steven R. Reed:
Turbine tension: Ordinances may decide fate of Clinton Co wind-turbine project
The beginning of the article reads:
For four years, the developers of a $123 million, Clinton County wind-turbine farm have steered the project through opposition from some residents who learned their homes and property could be subject to the noise, ice throws, flickering shadows and financial impacts of 40 whirling towers each standing 427 feet tall.
At various times, Forest Hill Energy LLC has advanced, compromised and stood firm, depending on the reasonableness and financial consequences of the demands made by its leaseholders, local governments and project opponents.
By February, all of the local ordinances and licensing requirements created to address such developments likely will be finalized.
At that point, Forest Hills manager Tim Brown of Chicago and his investors could be forced to decide whether to build a smaller, quieter, safer — and therefore less profitable — project than envisioned.
Or, they might decide to abandon the project, sell it, or up the ante in an expensive court fight with no guarantee of success.
“It is a little surprising to see this project running into controversy when the Clinton County standards are far, far stronger than those in Gratiot County, where a much larger wind project, with taller turbines, is moving forward and seems to have widespread acceptance and no evidence of the kind of health and safety issues that the opponents to our project contend are common,” Brown said.
Or, as some opponents suggest, perhaps Forest Hill Energy’s attempt to build an industrial-grade wind-turbine farm in a more populous and prosperous suburban county predictably was perceived as a threat to the health, quality of life and financial well-being of homeowners living near the project and those in the path of its future expansion.
Project timeline
In summary, the last four years witnessed:
• The announcement of a 29-turbine project in 2008 and its expansion to 40 turbines in 2010.
• The sign-up by Forest Hill Energy of an estimated 27 or 28 landowners willing to host turbines in their fields in exchange for a signing bonus and a share of revenues from the future sale of electricity.
• The organization of grass-roots opposition centered in Dallas, Essex and Bengal townships.
• Creation in 2010 of a Clinton County zoning ordinance and the revision of the ordinance in 2011 to tighten the restrictions.
• Application to the county by Forest Hill Energy for a still-pending, special-use permit to build and operate the wind turbines.
• Passage by the Dallas (September) and Essex (October) township boards of wind-turbine ordinances that are more restrictive than the county’s. Bengal Township has a similarly more-restrictive ordinance under consideration.
Ordinances key
Those for and against the project agree the township ordinances are forcing the issue like nothing else had.
The township ordinances “are not intended to facilitate the development of the wind farms” and “would not work for a project like ours,” said Brown, the developer. “We’re going to have to examine the situation with the townships pretty extensively.”
The townships’ setback provisions and height restrictions would prevent placement of 427-feet-tall turbines in the townships, Brown said.
“They (township boards) know exactly what our heights are … so they’re deliberately picking heights that don’t accommodate what our plan is,” he said.
If Forest Hill’s plans comply with the county’s ordinance but conflict with the townships’ ordinances, which ordinance rules?
“There’s really no doubt about that particular issue. Townships can adopt stricter ordinances,” said Okemos attorney William Fahey, who wrote the “police protective ordinances” adopted by the Dallas and Essex township boards.
The ordinance passed by Clinton County’s Board of Commissioners “says in it three different times that it defers to any stricter ordinances that are adopted,” Fahey said.
Though Clinton County has taken a less-restrictive stance, Forest Hill Energy cannot count on the county as a partner in any court fight with the townships.
“What the townships elected to do is their own business,” Clinton County Administrator Ryan Wood said. “We don’t have a conflict with the townships. If their ordinance is challenged, it won’t be by us.”
To read the rest of the article go here:
Turbine tension: Ordinances may decide fate of Clinton Co wind-turbine project
Turbine tension: Ordinances may decide fate of Clinton Co wind-turbine project
The beginning of the article reads:
For four years, the developers of a $123 million, Clinton County wind-turbine farm have steered the project through opposition from some residents who learned their homes and property could be subject to the noise, ice throws, flickering shadows and financial impacts of 40 whirling towers each standing 427 feet tall.
At various times, Forest Hill Energy LLC has advanced, compromised and stood firm, depending on the reasonableness and financial consequences of the demands made by its leaseholders, local governments and project opponents.
By February, all of the local ordinances and licensing requirements created to address such developments likely will be finalized.
At that point, Forest Hills manager Tim Brown of Chicago and his investors could be forced to decide whether to build a smaller, quieter, safer — and therefore less profitable — project than envisioned.
Or, they might decide to abandon the project, sell it, or up the ante in an expensive court fight with no guarantee of success.
“It is a little surprising to see this project running into controversy when the Clinton County standards are far, far stronger than those in Gratiot County, where a much larger wind project, with taller turbines, is moving forward and seems to have widespread acceptance and no evidence of the kind of health and safety issues that the opponents to our project contend are common,” Brown said.
Or, as some opponents suggest, perhaps Forest Hill Energy’s attempt to build an industrial-grade wind-turbine farm in a more populous and prosperous suburban county predictably was perceived as a threat to the health, quality of life and financial well-being of homeowners living near the project and those in the path of its future expansion.
Project timeline
In summary, the last four years witnessed:
• The announcement of a 29-turbine project in 2008 and its expansion to 40 turbines in 2010.
• The sign-up by Forest Hill Energy of an estimated 27 or 28 landowners willing to host turbines in their fields in exchange for a signing bonus and a share of revenues from the future sale of electricity.
• The organization of grass-roots opposition centered in Dallas, Essex and Bengal townships.
• Creation in 2010 of a Clinton County zoning ordinance and the revision of the ordinance in 2011 to tighten the restrictions.
• Application to the county by Forest Hill Energy for a still-pending, special-use permit to build and operate the wind turbines.
• Passage by the Dallas (September) and Essex (October) township boards of wind-turbine ordinances that are more restrictive than the county’s. Bengal Township has a similarly more-restrictive ordinance under consideration.
Ordinances key
Those for and against the project agree the township ordinances are forcing the issue like nothing else had.
The township ordinances “are not intended to facilitate the development of the wind farms” and “would not work for a project like ours,” said Brown, the developer. “We’re going to have to examine the situation with the townships pretty extensively.”
The townships’ setback provisions and height restrictions would prevent placement of 427-feet-tall turbines in the townships, Brown said.
“They (township boards) know exactly what our heights are … so they’re deliberately picking heights that don’t accommodate what our plan is,” he said.
If Forest Hill’s plans comply with the county’s ordinance but conflict with the townships’ ordinances, which ordinance rules?
“There’s really no doubt about that particular issue. Townships can adopt stricter ordinances,” said Okemos attorney William Fahey, who wrote the “police protective ordinances” adopted by the Dallas and Essex township boards.
The ordinance passed by Clinton County’s Board of Commissioners “says in it three different times that it defers to any stricter ordinances that are adopted,” Fahey said.
Though Clinton County has taken a less-restrictive stance, Forest Hill Energy cannot count on the county as a partner in any court fight with the townships.
“What the townships elected to do is their own business,” Clinton County Administrator Ryan Wood said. “We don’t have a conflict with the townships. If their ordinance is challenged, it won’t be by us.”
To read the rest of the article go here:
Turbine tension: Ordinances may decide fate of Clinton Co wind-turbine project
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Readying for Nov 29 meeting
If you have time this holiday week, please contact the Bengal board members about the Police Protection Ordinance and your views on wind turbines. Thank you.
Deborah Schafer (new member)
7857 West Parks Road
St Johns MI 48879
989-593-2325
dschafer53@hotmail.com
Denice Schultheiss (new member)
2801 S Forest Hill Rd
St Johns MI 48879
517-927-9273
Eric Mohnke
6357 West Parks Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-9479
mohnkee@bengaltownship.org
Marilyn Irrer
4507 South Francis Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-7685
irrerm@bengaltownship.org
Steve Mahoney
4950 West Taft Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-4361
mahoneys@bengaltownship.org
Deborah Schafer (new member)
7857 West Parks Road
St Johns MI 48879
989-593-2325
dschafer53@hotmail.com
Denice Schultheiss (new member)
2801 S Forest Hill Rd
St Johns MI 48879
517-927-9273
Eric Mohnke
6357 West Parks Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-9479
mohnkee@bengaltownship.org
Marilyn Irrer
4507 South Francis Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-7685
irrerm@bengaltownship.org
Steve Mahoney
4950 West Taft Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-4361
mahoneys@bengaltownship.org
Contact Dave Camp
For everyone in the entire county (NOT just Bengal Township) who is concerned about the impending industrial wind turbines proposed for Bengal, Essex and Dallas Townships:
Funding for wind energy projects grandfathers under our federal budget on December 31st. As most of you are aware, Congress is at this present moment hammering out a budget for 2013. Another way to halt this project is to stop the flow of federal dollars.
Our U.S. Representative, Dave Camp, is also chairperson of the House Ways and Means Committee. He does take a count of letters, calls, etc. regarding each issue.
PLEASE CONTACT HIM IMMEDIATELY to request stopping federal funding for wind energy projects anywhere.
(Below you will find a letter you can use as a prototype.)
If you need to write to Representative Camp, his address is on that letter. If you need to call him, his Midland office's phone number is 1-800-342-2455. If you can email, go to https://camp.house.gov/contact/contactform.htm.
If each one of us gets just 10 other people to send an email, this will put a lot of pressure on Rep. Camp. He pulled his advertisement supporting wind farms after a company which supports him wrote him. The ad was pulled the next day!
Should you have any questions, please email Elizabeth Ayoub: elizaylaw@hotmail.com
Working with all of you at the township, county, and federal level---
Elizabeth
---------------
David Camp
U.S. Representative
135 Ashland Street
Midland, MI 48640
Dear Representative Camp:
I write to you in your position as Chairperson of the House Ways and Means Committee. As are a majority of U.S. citizens, I am concerned about our debt and the projects being funded by the U.S. Government.
I request that the federal government NOT fund any wind energy projects anywhere. I urge your committee to make sensible fiscal cuts. Wind energy is not as efficient as other sources of energy.
They are only 30% efficient. In order to survive, these projects must be highly subsidized.
In view of the fact that our nation has an abundance of natural gas, it does not make sense for our nation to fund inefficient sources of energy such as wind or solar.
Thank you for listening to this constituent,
(Name)
(Address)
(email)
Funding for wind energy projects grandfathers under our federal budget on December 31st. As most of you are aware, Congress is at this present moment hammering out a budget for 2013. Another way to halt this project is to stop the flow of federal dollars.
Our U.S. Representative, Dave Camp, is also chairperson of the House Ways and Means Committee. He does take a count of letters, calls, etc. regarding each issue.
PLEASE CONTACT HIM IMMEDIATELY to request stopping federal funding for wind energy projects anywhere.
(Below you will find a letter you can use as a prototype.)
If you need to write to Representative Camp, his address is on that letter. If you need to call him, his Midland office's phone number is 1-800-342-2455. If you can email, go to https://camp.house.gov/contact/contactform.htm.
If each one of us gets just 10 other people to send an email, this will put a lot of pressure on Rep. Camp. He pulled his advertisement supporting wind farms after a company which supports him wrote him. The ad was pulled the next day!
Should you have any questions, please email Elizabeth Ayoub: elizaylaw@hotmail.com
Working with all of you at the township, county, and federal level---
Elizabeth
---------------
David Camp
U.S. Representative
135 Ashland Street
Midland, MI 48640
Dear Representative Camp:
I write to you in your position as Chairperson of the House Ways and Means Committee. As are a majority of U.S. citizens, I am concerned about our debt and the projects being funded by the U.S. Government.
I request that the federal government NOT fund any wind energy projects anywhere. I urge your committee to make sensible fiscal cuts. Wind energy is not as efficient as other sources of energy.
They are only 30% efficient. In order to survive, these projects must be highly subsidized.
In view of the fact that our nation has an abundance of natural gas, it does not make sense for our nation to fund inefficient sources of energy such as wind or solar.
Thank you for listening to this constituent,
(Name)
(Address)
(email)
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Windfall or wind fail?
This letter to the editor was published in today's Clinton County News:
Will the proposed wind farms in Clinton County be a Windfall or Wind Fail? Forest Hill Energy and Fowler Farms are local-sounding names used by a Chicago company. Make no mistake; they have no vested interest in our community once the turbines go up and they receive their government payment.
Research shows that payment agreements are already being broken for turbines built in Gratiot, Huron, Tuscola and Sanilac Counties. Because of the tremendously high cost of litigation, these four counties have been forced to pool taxpayer resources to fight for their promised payments from Detroit Edison. The companies who built the turbines are nowhere to be found in this battle. They have taken their money and walked away.
A headline in the Huron County View reads, “County Frustrated by Wind Issues”. In an excerpt from that article, a county commissioner states, “We moved ahead on these projects on spec, and what we were told in the beginning has not happened”. Let’s not make the same mistakes here in Clinton County. Take advantage of this insight and encourage your elected officials to protect our county from this Wind Fail.
Kathy George
St Johns
Share your letter by sending it to Tom Thelen - tthelen@lsj.com. It's limited to 200 words. You must include your name, address, and phone number.
Will the proposed wind farms in Clinton County be a Windfall or Wind Fail? Forest Hill Energy and Fowler Farms are local-sounding names used by a Chicago company. Make no mistake; they have no vested interest in our community once the turbines go up and they receive their government payment.
Research shows that payment agreements are already being broken for turbines built in Gratiot, Huron, Tuscola and Sanilac Counties. Because of the tremendously high cost of litigation, these four counties have been forced to pool taxpayer resources to fight for their promised payments from Detroit Edison. The companies who built the turbines are nowhere to be found in this battle. They have taken their money and walked away.
A headline in the Huron County View reads, “County Frustrated by Wind Issues”. In an excerpt from that article, a county commissioner states, “We moved ahead on these projects on spec, and what we were told in the beginning has not happened”. Let’s not make the same mistakes here in Clinton County. Take advantage of this insight and encourage your elected officials to protect our county from this Wind Fail.
Kathy George
St Johns
Share your letter by sending it to Tom Thelen - tthelen@lsj.com. It's limited to 200 words. You must include your name, address, and phone number.
Essex Township ordinance
On Oct 17, 2012, Essex Township passed a Police Protection Ordinance regarding wind turbines.
You can read the Essex Township ordinance to regulate wind energy conversion systems in its entirety here:
Essex Township Wind Energy Conversion Systems Ordinance
You can read the Essex Township ordinance to regulate wind energy conversion systems in its entirety here:
Essex Township Wind Energy Conversion Systems Ordinance
Friday, November 16, 2012
Bengal Township special meeting - Nov 29
The Bengal Township Board will have a special meeting to discuss wind turbines on Thursday, November 29 at 7:00 pm.
It will be at the Bengal Township Hall at 6586 West M-21.
Here's another chance to talk to the board and tell them why you want a Police Protection Ordinance. This PPO is a compromise that doesn't disallow turbines. It just makes them quieter and farther away from others' property.
If you have a chance, perhaps you'd like to personally contact Eric Mohnke and Marilyn Irrer (the no votes on the Police Protection Ordinance on Nov 14) before the meeting.
Eric Mohnke
6357 West Parks Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-9479
mohnkee@bengaltownship.org
Marilyn Irrer
4507 South Francis Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-7685
irrerm@bengaltownship.org
There will also be two new board members present at this meeting. Arleita Schafer (989-224-2565 arleitaschafer@gmail.com) and Judith Huhn have completed their terms. The new members are:
Deborah Schafer
7857 West Parks Road
St Johns MI 48879
989-593-2325
dschafer53@hotmail.com
Denice Schultheiss
2801 S Forest Hill Rd
St Johns MI 48879
517-927-9273
Please take the opportunity to have your voice heard. We hope to see you on Nov 29.
It will be at the Bengal Township Hall at 6586 West M-21.
Here's another chance to talk to the board and tell them why you want a Police Protection Ordinance. This PPO is a compromise that doesn't disallow turbines. It just makes them quieter and farther away from others' property.
If you have a chance, perhaps you'd like to personally contact Eric Mohnke and Marilyn Irrer (the no votes on the Police Protection Ordinance on Nov 14) before the meeting.
Eric Mohnke
6357 West Parks Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-9479
mohnkee@bengaltownship.org
Marilyn Irrer
4507 South Francis Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
989-224-7685
irrerm@bengaltownship.org
There will also be two new board members present at this meeting. Arleita Schafer (989-224-2565 arleitaschafer@gmail.com) and Judith Huhn have completed their terms. The new members are:
Deborah Schafer
7857 West Parks Road
St Johns MI 48879
989-593-2325
dschafer53@hotmail.com
Denice Schultheiss
2801 S Forest Hill Rd
St Johns MI 48879
517-927-9273
Please take the opportunity to have your voice heard. We hope to see you on Nov 29.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Bengal Township board ignores constituents
Over 150 people attended the Bengal Township board meeting tonight. They got up to speak against wind turbines, citing a variety of reasons why they wanted to board to adopt a Police Protection Ordinance similar to the one passed by Dallas and Essex Townships.
People spoke passionately about noise, safety, property values, and quality of life. People presented research, governmental studies, and personal testimony. People pointed out how it's a great compromise - it doesn't disallow turbines, it just makes them quieter and farther away from personal property. People spoke for two and a half hours, begging the board to represent them and protect them by passing the ordinance. One man simply asked, "Why wouldn't you?"
After everyone had a chance to speak, Eric Mohnke suggested the the board look over all the information and talk about it at another time. The crowd erupted with 'NO!" Judith Huhn gave a talk that garnered applause from the crowd - saying that Eric was wrong and the board had to finally do something. There was a lot of chatter among the board members about the ordinance as written. Stephen Mahoney offered up his changes to the PPO. Marilyn Irrer asked the board's lawyer what he suggested the board do. He said the ordinance would be legal and could be amended at any time.
In a tricky move, Eric moved that the board approve the PPO. Then when asked to vote he said, "No, on advice of counsel." (Never mind that his counsel hadn't advised that.) Judith Huhn voted yes. Marilyn Irrer voted no, parroting Eric. Stephen Mahoney voted yes. Then, inexplicable to this writer, as she didn't speak the entire meeting, Arleita Schafer voted no. The disbelief, desperation, and frustration in the room was overwhelming.
This township board simply does not listen to its constituents. Please follow by email (on the upper right) to get updates directly in your inbox.
People spoke passionately about noise, safety, property values, and quality of life. People presented research, governmental studies, and personal testimony. People pointed out how it's a great compromise - it doesn't disallow turbines, it just makes them quieter and farther away from personal property. People spoke for two and a half hours, begging the board to represent them and protect them by passing the ordinance. One man simply asked, "Why wouldn't you?"
After everyone had a chance to speak, Eric Mohnke suggested the the board look over all the information and talk about it at another time. The crowd erupted with 'NO!" Judith Huhn gave a talk that garnered applause from the crowd - saying that Eric was wrong and the board had to finally do something. There was a lot of chatter among the board members about the ordinance as written. Stephen Mahoney offered up his changes to the PPO. Marilyn Irrer asked the board's lawyer what he suggested the board do. He said the ordinance would be legal and could be amended at any time.
In a tricky move, Eric moved that the board approve the PPO. Then when asked to vote he said, "No, on advice of counsel." (Never mind that his counsel hadn't advised that.) Judith Huhn voted yes. Marilyn Irrer voted no, parroting Eric. Stephen Mahoney voted yes. Then, inexplicable to this writer, as she didn't speak the entire meeting, Arleita Schafer voted no. The disbelief, desperation, and frustration in the room was overwhelming.
This township board simply does not listen to its constituents. Please follow by email (on the upper right) to get updates directly in your inbox.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Important meeting Nov 14
Please plan to attend:
Bengal Township meeting
Wednesday, Nov 14
7:00 p.m.
Bengal Township Hall - 6586 West M-21
We look forward to seeing you there and hearing your opinion!
Bengal Township meeting
Wednesday, Nov 14
7:00 p.m.
Bengal Township Hall - 6586 West M-21
We look forward to seeing you there and hearing your opinion!
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Do we want Forest Hill Energy as our neighbor?
We published an ad in the Clinton County News this week:
Protecting our community, wildlife, and way of life from wind turbine companies
It reads as this. Feel free to share it, and we hope to hear from you at the Bengal Township meeting on Nov 14 at 7:00 p.m.
Your property value will decrease
In the Clinton County News last week, Forest Hill Energy cited a report by Berkeley Lab stating that property value is not decreased by proximity to wind turbines.
What they don’t say is: The Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory, managed and operated by the University of California for the DOE. This is a clear conflict of interest.
Numerous other studies show that property is devalued. In a 133 turbine project in Ontario, property adjacent to turbines sold between 20 and 40 percent less than those out of sight of turbines.
Safety
Under the Clinton County setbacks, turbines can be 650 feet from your property. However, Vestas (a wind turbine company) has recommended their maintenance workers not even stand within 1300 feet of an operating turbine unless absolutely necessary.
The math is simple - and it means that you and your family are unprotected even when you're on your own land.
Health
The study Forest Hill Energy commonly cites did not conclude that wind turbines were safe near homes – only that more research was needed.
Check credible sources for yourself. There are numerous scientific, peer-reviewed studies that prove the turbines disturb sleep, as well as cause dizziness, increased blood pressure, and depression.
For instance, in a December 2011 peer-reviewed report in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Dr Carl Phillips – one of the U.S.’s most distinguished epidemiologists – concluded that there is ‘overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate’.
Conclusion
Forest Hill Energy has not been forthcoming with the county and its residents from the beginning. Similar actions in Ontario have led to numerous health complaints and over 100 abandoned homes. Health Canada has now begun a two-year study of their wind farms and the link to these complaints.
Our county could be partnered with this company for 30 years. Can we trust them when they start this way? Do we want them as our lifetime neighbors? Contact your Clinton County officials today, while you still have a choice.
Get the facts: clintoncountywindwatch.org and clintoncountywindwatch.blogspot.com
Protecting our community, wildlife, and way of life from wind turbine companies
It reads as this. Feel free to share it, and we hope to hear from you at the Bengal Township meeting on Nov 14 at 7:00 p.m.
Your property value will decrease
In the Clinton County News last week, Forest Hill Energy cited a report by Berkeley Lab stating that property value is not decreased by proximity to wind turbines.
What they don’t say is: The Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory, managed and operated by the University of California for the DOE. This is a clear conflict of interest.
Numerous other studies show that property is devalued. In a 133 turbine project in Ontario, property adjacent to turbines sold between 20 and 40 percent less than those out of sight of turbines.
Safety
Under the Clinton County setbacks, turbines can be 650 feet from your property. However, Vestas (a wind turbine company) has recommended their maintenance workers not even stand within 1300 feet of an operating turbine unless absolutely necessary.
The math is simple - and it means that you and your family are unprotected even when you're on your own land.
Health
The study Forest Hill Energy commonly cites did not conclude that wind turbines were safe near homes – only that more research was needed.
Check credible sources for yourself. There are numerous scientific, peer-reviewed studies that prove the turbines disturb sleep, as well as cause dizziness, increased blood pressure, and depression.
For instance, in a December 2011 peer-reviewed report in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Dr Carl Phillips – one of the U.S.’s most distinguished epidemiologists – concluded that there is ‘overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate’.
Conclusion
Forest Hill Energy has not been forthcoming with the county and its residents from the beginning. Similar actions in Ontario have led to numerous health complaints and over 100 abandoned homes. Health Canada has now begun a two-year study of their wind farms and the link to these complaints.
Our county could be partnered with this company for 30 years. Can we trust them when they start this way? Do we want them as our lifetime neighbors? Contact your Clinton County officials today, while you still have a choice.
Get the facts: clintoncountywindwatch.org and clintoncountywindwatch.blogspot.com
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Our community is about to be changed forever ... by a company we know nothing about
An excerpt of this letter to the editor was submitted to the Clinton County News for publication:
The community we all love is about to be changed forever. Our landscape will be dotted with 40 monstrous wind turbines. Once they get their foot in the door, I have no doubt that those 40 turbines will soon become 80 and 120 and more. Some people will move, some people’s health will be negatively affected, everyone’s property values will take a nosedive, animals will suffer, and we
will have to look at gigantic metal monsters everywhere we turn. No one will move here or build here. Our electricity rates are going to soar. I have no animosity toward anyone, but there will be bad feelings among some neighbors and friendships of many years will be affected. All for what? For so-called green energy and, according to Forest Hill Energy’s website, 6 jobs per year in maintenance. If wind turbines could produce cost-effective energy that made economic sense, the free market would already be producing such energy and someone would be making a profit from it.
We have all learned new terms in the past couple of years and in recent months such as shadow flicker, dBAs and dBCs. We have heard over and over the concerns of the people who would have to live with these turbines. What has not been mentioned too much is this: Exactly why are we willing to sell out our community to a business who will not even tell us who they are?
I asked at a recent Essex Township meeting, “Who is Forest Hill Energy? Who owns it and where are the headquarters?” This is the answer I got: They are owned by “proprietors” and their headquarters are in Chicago. Why such an evasive answer? Many of us here are proud farmers who can trace our farm ownership back for four or five generations. We would never hesitate to say who “owns” our farm. I will bet that I could go to Chicago and I’m not going to see some big building with Forest Hill Energy on the front. They did not even have a website I could find until last week. I found an address listed for them on S. Forest Hill Rd. When I drove by it, it was someone’s house. There is no Forest
Hill Energy sign. We all know that it is just a small energy company formed for the purpose of getting huge government grants to get the wind farm off the ground.
Who really owns it? Is it GE? Is it a Chinese, Greek, or Swedish company? It could be any of those, and it could be all of those at different times over the years. I don’t like the cloak of secrecy and mystery. In my opinion, a business is up front about who they are and where they are and who calls the shots. We are being asked to make a huge sacrifice for a secretive government-funded company
who might just fold up their tent as soon as the turbines are built and morph into some other company or just fade into the distance. When the huge government subsidies dry up, who is going to tend to the turbines?
The Essex and Dallas Township boards took what action they could and passed an ordinance with stricter regulations on the height, decibel level and allowable distance from residences. We are all grateful for their decision. I pray that Bengal Township will join them.
We the people will have no vote on this issue. The final decision rests with the Clinton County Board of Commissioners. I hope they will take into consideration the legitimate concerns of the affected citizens before they make a decision that will change our community forever.
Cherie Anderson
The community we all love is about to be changed forever. Our landscape will be dotted with 40 monstrous wind turbines. Once they get their foot in the door, I have no doubt that those 40 turbines will soon become 80 and 120 and more. Some people will move, some people’s health will be negatively affected, everyone’s property values will take a nosedive, animals will suffer, and we
will have to look at gigantic metal monsters everywhere we turn. No one will move here or build here. Our electricity rates are going to soar. I have no animosity toward anyone, but there will be bad feelings among some neighbors and friendships of many years will be affected. All for what? For so-called green energy and, according to Forest Hill Energy’s website, 6 jobs per year in maintenance. If wind turbines could produce cost-effective energy that made economic sense, the free market would already be producing such energy and someone would be making a profit from it.
We have all learned new terms in the past couple of years and in recent months such as shadow flicker, dBAs and dBCs. We have heard over and over the concerns of the people who would have to live with these turbines. What has not been mentioned too much is this: Exactly why are we willing to sell out our community to a business who will not even tell us who they are?
I asked at a recent Essex Township meeting, “Who is Forest Hill Energy? Who owns it and where are the headquarters?” This is the answer I got: They are owned by “proprietors” and their headquarters are in Chicago. Why such an evasive answer? Many of us here are proud farmers who can trace our farm ownership back for four or five generations. We would never hesitate to say who “owns” our farm. I will bet that I could go to Chicago and I’m not going to see some big building with Forest Hill Energy on the front. They did not even have a website I could find until last week. I found an address listed for them on S. Forest Hill Rd. When I drove by it, it was someone’s house. There is no Forest
Hill Energy sign. We all know that it is just a small energy company formed for the purpose of getting huge government grants to get the wind farm off the ground.
Who really owns it? Is it GE? Is it a Chinese, Greek, or Swedish company? It could be any of those, and it could be all of those at different times over the years. I don’t like the cloak of secrecy and mystery. In my opinion, a business is up front about who they are and where they are and who calls the shots. We are being asked to make a huge sacrifice for a secretive government-funded company
who might just fold up their tent as soon as the turbines are built and morph into some other company or just fade into the distance. When the huge government subsidies dry up, who is going to tend to the turbines?
The Essex and Dallas Township boards took what action they could and passed an ordinance with stricter regulations on the height, decibel level and allowable distance from residences. We are all grateful for their decision. I pray that Bengal Township will join them.
We the people will have no vote on this issue. The final decision rests with the Clinton County Board of Commissioners. I hope they will take into consideration the legitimate concerns of the affected citizens before they make a decision that will change our community forever.
Cherie Anderson
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
New study - property value decreases near turbines
This was submitted as a letter to the editor for this week's Clinton County News. The study referenced can be found at: NEW Canadian Wind Turbine Property Value Study
Forest Hill Energy’s So-Called “Facts”
Forest Hill Energy stated that NO mitigation would be needed with regards to the 30 hours of shadow
flicker that will be cast in your home, however in their application to the county, they stated, "mitigation could include strategically placed tree plantings, window coverings, or window awnings."
In addition, the Shadow Flicker study was conducted by Forest Hill Energy and not an independent, unbiased third party.
With regards to Property Values, I located a recent unbiased study which was conducted in 2012 in
Canada by Ben Lansink, AACI, P.App, MRICS of Lansink Appraisals and Consulting which states, “Market evidence suggests that ‘dwelling properties’ will be harmed or injured by the construction, use, and maintenance of wind turbines situated in the vicinity. Real or perceived nuisances resulting from wind turbines produces buyer resistance that results in price diminution.” This study concluded that on average, home values decreased 35.69%. Visit clintoncountywindwatch.blogspot.com for the full report.
This project has been promoted at 64 MW however, per Forest Hill Energy, the turbines run at
approximately 30% of capacity due to wind availability, so in reality this is a 19 MW project, which is significantly LESS than Forest Hill Energy has been claiming.
Lori Pung
Forest Hill Energy’s So-Called “Facts”
Forest Hill Energy stated that NO mitigation would be needed with regards to the 30 hours of shadow
flicker that will be cast in your home, however in their application to the county, they stated, "mitigation could include strategically placed tree plantings, window coverings, or window awnings."
In addition, the Shadow Flicker study was conducted by Forest Hill Energy and not an independent, unbiased third party.
With regards to Property Values, I located a recent unbiased study which was conducted in 2012 in
Canada by Ben Lansink, AACI, P.App, MRICS of Lansink Appraisals and Consulting which states, “Market evidence suggests that ‘dwelling properties’ will be harmed or injured by the construction, use, and maintenance of wind turbines situated in the vicinity. Real or perceived nuisances resulting from wind turbines produces buyer resistance that results in price diminution.” This study concluded that on average, home values decreased 35.69%. Visit clintoncountywindwatch.blogspot.com for the full report.
This project has been promoted at 64 MW however, per Forest Hill Energy, the turbines run at
approximately 30% of capacity due to wind availability, so in reality this is a 19 MW project, which is significantly LESS than Forest Hill Energy has been claiming.
Lori Pung
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Wind farm noise does harm sleep and health, say scientists
From The Telegraph on Nov 3: Wind farm noise does harm sleep and health, say scientists
"Wind farm noise causes “clear and significant” damage to people’s sleep and mental health, according to the first full peer-reviewed scientific study of the problem.
American and British researchers compared two groups of residents in the US state of Maine. One group lived within a mile of a wind farm and the second group did not.
Both sets of people were demographically and socially similar, but the researchers found major differences in the quality of sleep the two groups enjoyed.
The findings provide the clearest evidence yet to support long-standing complaints from people living near turbines that the sound from their rotating blades disrupts sleep patterns and causes stress-related conditions."
Read the entire article here: Wind farm noise does harm sleep and health, say scientists
"Wind farm noise causes “clear and significant” damage to people’s sleep and mental health, according to the first full peer-reviewed scientific study of the problem.
American and British researchers compared two groups of residents in the US state of Maine. One group lived within a mile of a wind farm and the second group did not.
Both sets of people were demographically and socially similar, but the researchers found major differences in the quality of sleep the two groups enjoyed.
The findings provide the clearest evidence yet to support long-standing complaints from people living near turbines that the sound from their rotating blades disrupts sleep patterns and causes stress-related conditions."
Read the entire article here: Wind farm noise does harm sleep and health, say scientists
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Other counties with turbines in legal dispute
The Huron County papers have been reporting on the legal disputes about turbines in five counties.
Here's an excerpt from the Huron Daily Tribune's article County hopes for compromise on turbine taxes:
"The dispute’s roots go back to the fall of 2011 when the state tax commission lowered the taxable value of wind turbines. Wind turbines went from a 100 percent assessment in year one, with a scheduled depreciation to 30 percent value in 15 years, to an 80 percent initial assessment, with a depreciation to 30 percent value in six years.
However, local assessors and boards of review can go by the old depreciation schedule if they feel it more accurately describes the true cash value of turbines.
When that happened in Gratiot County’s Wheeler Township, DTE decided to file an appeal with the Michigan Tax Tribunal.
Huron officials, along with officials from other turbine-heavy counties, such as Sanilac, Mason and Tuscola, saw the potential for the same thing to happen to them. They decided to form the collaborative with Gratiot County, in an effort to support their cause and share legal costs."
You can read more from the Huron County View:
County frustrated by wind issues
County hears more about turbine tax issues
Here's an excerpt from the Huron Daily Tribune's article County hopes for compromise on turbine taxes:
"The dispute’s roots go back to the fall of 2011 when the state tax commission lowered the taxable value of wind turbines. Wind turbines went from a 100 percent assessment in year one, with a scheduled depreciation to 30 percent value in 15 years, to an 80 percent initial assessment, with a depreciation to 30 percent value in six years.
However, local assessors and boards of review can go by the old depreciation schedule if they feel it more accurately describes the true cash value of turbines.
When that happened in Gratiot County’s Wheeler Township, DTE decided to file an appeal with the Michigan Tax Tribunal.
Huron officials, along with officials from other turbine-heavy counties, such as Sanilac, Mason and Tuscola, saw the potential for the same thing to happen to them. They decided to form the collaborative with Gratiot County, in an effort to support their cause and share legal costs."
You can read more from the Huron County View:
County frustrated by wind issues
County hears more about turbine tax issues
Reject the wind turbine application
This letter to the editor was printed in the Clinton County News this week. Share your letter by sending it to Tom Thelen - tthelen@lsj.com. It's limited to 200 words. You must include your name, address, and phone number.
In Clinton County, the application to install 40 industrial wind turbines, although legal, should be rejected because of the justifiable concerns and fears of hundreds of nearby residents. The county boards seem hesitant to implement restrictions which better protect citizens' health and property and animals' lives, but their hesitancy may come from biased information.
First, the promise of several million dollars and thousands of jobs coming to our state is misleading. Other counties in Michigan with operating wind turbines, such as Gratiot, Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola are in litigation in an attempt to collect their promised dollars.
Secondly, in one study, “Green Jobs” were calculated as job years. In other words, one person working one job for 30 years is counted as 30 jobs!
Thirdly, other sources of energy must stay online as backup, so windmills are not "green."
These turbines may affect dairy cattle and are killing eagles, migratory birds, and bats. They are making people physically sick and reducing property values.
New technologies like thorium-powered nuclear and discoveries of methane gas hydrates, found off every continental shelf in the world, are the future of energy.
Dr. Robert and Penny Malesky
St Johns
In Clinton County, the application to install 40 industrial wind turbines, although legal, should be rejected because of the justifiable concerns and fears of hundreds of nearby residents. The county boards seem hesitant to implement restrictions which better protect citizens' health and property and animals' lives, but their hesitancy may come from biased information.
First, the promise of several million dollars and thousands of jobs coming to our state is misleading. Other counties in Michigan with operating wind turbines, such as Gratiot, Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola are in litigation in an attempt to collect their promised dollars.
Secondly, in one study, “Green Jobs” were calculated as job years. In other words, one person working one job for 30 years is counted as 30 jobs!
Thirdly, other sources of energy must stay online as backup, so windmills are not "green."
These turbines may affect dairy cattle and are killing eagles, migratory birds, and bats. They are making people physically sick and reducing property values.
New technologies like thorium-powered nuclear and discoveries of methane gas hydrates, found off every continental shelf in the world, are the future of energy.
Dr. Robert and Penny Malesky
St Johns
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Map of wind turbine sites
This map of the wind turbine sites in Forest Hill Energy's application shows exactly where the turbines will be located in our neighborhood.
Just click this link: Map of Wind Turbine Sites
Just click this link: Map of Wind Turbine Sites
Come and speak at the Nov 14 meeting
This is an open letter to residents of Bengal Township. Please share it with your neighbors.
Dear Bengal Township Residents:
The Proposed Wind Ordinance will be discussed at the Bengal Township Meeting on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
It's CRITICAL that we have a lot of residents at this meeting and it's even MORE CRITICAL that everyone stand up and say something. It can be as detailed as you wish - or as simple as stating that you want the Bengal Township Board to adopt the Proposed Wind Ordinance like Dallas and Essex Townships did. It's that simple. We cannot have the same 10 people getting up month after month. They are sick of seeing us and need to see that there are many more residents concerned about this issue than just us. This meeting is CRUCIAL in getting the Board to pass the ordinance.
The next County Planning & Zoning meeting is set for December and they could approve Forest Hill Energy's application. Please plan on attending this meeting and standing up and demanding that this ordinance be adopted.
If you absolutely cannot attend the meeting on November 14th, but still want your voice to be heard, there is a page that you can sign stating that you are in favor of Bengal Township Adopting a Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance. Let me know if you are interested in signing this and someone will stop by your home and get your signature.
Remember, it's BEST if you can go to the meeting in person and speak, but if you can't, it's fine . . . just be sure to sign the sheet indicating that you are in favor of our township adopting its own ordinance.
Feel free to send this e-mail on to Bengal Township Residents who want to protect their health, homes and property values.
Thanks,
Lori Pung
pungpitcrew@casair.net
Dear Bengal Township Residents:
The Proposed Wind Ordinance will be discussed at the Bengal Township Meeting on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
It's CRITICAL that we have a lot of residents at this meeting and it's even MORE CRITICAL that everyone stand up and say something. It can be as detailed as you wish - or as simple as stating that you want the Bengal Township Board to adopt the Proposed Wind Ordinance like Dallas and Essex Townships did. It's that simple. We cannot have the same 10 people getting up month after month. They are sick of seeing us and need to see that there are many more residents concerned about this issue than just us. This meeting is CRUCIAL in getting the Board to pass the ordinance.
The next County Planning & Zoning meeting is set for December and they could approve Forest Hill Energy's application. Please plan on attending this meeting and standing up and demanding that this ordinance be adopted.
If you absolutely cannot attend the meeting on November 14th, but still want your voice to be heard, there is a page that you can sign stating that you are in favor of Bengal Township Adopting a Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance. Let me know if you are interested in signing this and someone will stop by your home and get your signature.
Remember, it's BEST if you can go to the meeting in person and speak, but if you can't, it's fine . . . just be sure to sign the sheet indicating that you are in favor of our township adopting its own ordinance.
Feel free to send this e-mail on to Bengal Township Residents who want to protect their health, homes and property values.
Thanks,
Lori Pung
pungpitcrew@casair.net
Friday, October 26, 2012
Upcoming election
Elizabeth Ayoub asked us to post this letter to let people know she's running as a write-in candidate on Nov 6:
Dear fellow Bengal Township residents,
Elected officials are public servants entrusted to represent their constituents.
As a write-in candidate for Bengal Township Supervisor at the November general election, I promise you that, if elected, I will represent you. I promise you that I will use all of my resources and talents for the good of my people - my neighbors for the past 17 years.
I am a licensed Michigan attorney and a Pennsylvania certified teacher. I have over 30 years combined experience working in private industry and school systems.
If my reputation does not precede me and you need to learn more about me, please call me at 224-2608.
Remember that Elizabeth aYOUb will work for YOU. Remember: add the A and B to YOU to write in my name. (A + YOU + B)
Thank you, neighbors.
Elizabeth Ayoub
Dear fellow Bengal Township residents,
Elected officials are public servants entrusted to represent their constituents.
As a write-in candidate for Bengal Township Supervisor at the November general election, I promise you that, if elected, I will represent you. I promise you that I will use all of my resources and talents for the good of my people - my neighbors for the past 17 years.
I am a licensed Michigan attorney and a Pennsylvania certified teacher. I have over 30 years combined experience working in private industry and school systems.
If my reputation does not precede me and you need to learn more about me, please call me at 224-2608.
Remember that Elizabeth aYOUb will work for YOU. Remember: add the A and B to YOU to write in my name. (A + YOU + B)
Thank you, neighbors.
Elizabeth Ayoub
Special meeting cancelled by Bengal Township board
The Bengal Township board posted this notice:
CANCELLATION NOTICE
Due to the extremely unusual circumstances during the Special meeting on 10-23-12, the
proposed alternate meeting date of 10-29-12 is cancelled.
The sad and tragic passing of our attorney, J. Richard Robinson, the evening of 10-23-12 was a
disturbing event for everyone present to witness.
In order to address any agenda items with appropriate consideration and deliberateness,
our next meeting will be our regularly scheduled November Township meeting 11-14-12.
Sincerely,
Bengal Township Board
CANCELLATION NOTICE
Due to the extremely unusual circumstances during the Special meeting on 10-23-12, the
proposed alternate meeting date of 10-29-12 is cancelled.
The sad and tragic passing of our attorney, J. Richard Robinson, the evening of 10-23-12 was a
disturbing event for everyone present to witness.
In order to address any agenda items with appropriate consideration and deliberateness,
our next meeting will be our regularly scheduled November Township meeting 11-14-12.
Sincerely,
Bengal Township Board
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Paying more for electric, property devaluation, tax revenue loss
Gina Karasek submitted this letter to the editor for the Clinton County News:
Currently there is a proposal to put a wind farm in Clinton County. 27 landowners have leased their land to receive monthly payments of thousands of dollars over 20 years. The rest of the county will suffer huge economic loss.
Here are some facts. The wind company will use our federal tax dollars as subsidies to build the wind farm. The local electric companies are forced to purchase the wind company electric which costs more than twice what it takes for the electric company to produce electric itself!
We do not get 'free' electric from having this ugly wind farm in our community or for them using our tax dollars. Instead we get to pay more than double what we already pay for our electric!
The wind company walks away with ALL the profit, while our property values fall approximately 40% from being within 5 miles of a wind farm (because unless you're getting paid to have these things, NO ONE wants to live near them!).
Therefore, the county will suffer tax revenue losses from property devaluation. Gratiot and 4 other counties are now mounting legal action due to financial devastation from their wind farms.
Gina Karasek
Currently there is a proposal to put a wind farm in Clinton County. 27 landowners have leased their land to receive monthly payments of thousands of dollars over 20 years. The rest of the county will suffer huge economic loss.
Here are some facts. The wind company will use our federal tax dollars as subsidies to build the wind farm. The local electric companies are forced to purchase the wind company electric which costs more than twice what it takes for the electric company to produce electric itself!
We do not get 'free' electric from having this ugly wind farm in our community or for them using our tax dollars. Instead we get to pay more than double what we already pay for our electric!
The wind company walks away with ALL the profit, while our property values fall approximately 40% from being within 5 miles of a wind farm (because unless you're getting paid to have these things, NO ONE wants to live near them!).
Therefore, the county will suffer tax revenue losses from property devaluation. Gratiot and 4 other counties are now mounting legal action due to financial devastation from their wind farms.
Gina Karasek
Our condolences
We just learned that Mr. Robinson, the attorney present at the meeting last night, passed away. We offer our sincerest condolences to his family, his friends, and his clients.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
NEW time for Bengal Special Meeting - Oct 29, 7:00 p.m.
Soon after the meeting began in Bengal tonight, the board's attorney suffered a medical emergency and was taken by ambulance to the hospital. As a result, the special meeting regarding wind turbines has been rescheduled for Oct 29 at 7:00 p.m. at Bengal Township Hall, 6586 West M-21.
Please attend. If you are unable, please email your remarks to arleitaschafer@gmail.com and indicate she should share it with the rest of the board.
It may be useful to do this even if you do go and speak so the board members have a written record to consult.
Thank you. There were over 100 people there - great turnout! Let's have it happen again.
Please attend. If you are unable, please email your remarks to arleitaschafer@gmail.com and indicate she should share it with the rest of the board.
It may be useful to do this even if you do go and speak so the board members have a written record to consult.
Thank you. There were over 100 people there - great turnout! Let's have it happen again.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Attention: Special Bengal Township Meeting - Oct 23
We are distributing this notice in our neighborhoods. Please pass along the news!
Topic of Discussion: PROPOSED WIND TURBINE ORDINANCE
Tuesday, October 23, 2012 @ 7: 00 PM
Bengal Township Hall – 6586 West M-21
·
An application by Forest Hill Energy to install 40 Utility Scale
Wind Turbines in Bengal, Dallas & Essex Townships has been submitted to
Clinton County and is currently under review by the Clinton County Planning and
Zoning Board. The application states
that 25 Wind Turbines will be located in Bengal Township, 9 in Dallas Township
and 6 in Essex Township and are 426 feet tall.
·
Both Dallas and Essex Townships have adopted their own Licensing
Ordinance which requires the applicant to meet the Clinton County Wind
Ordinance standards as well as the standards set forth at the township level
with regards to, but not limited to noise levels, turbine setbacks and shadow
flicker.
·
The Township Licensing Ordinances adopted by Dallas and Essex
Townships protects the non-participating
landowner by requiring the setback distance be measured at a landowner’s
PROPERTY LINE, not at the landowner’s residence as the County Wind Ordinance
calls for. In addition, the Township
Licensing Ordinance states that a Wind Turbine cannot cast ANY shadow flicker
on your property. However the Clinton County Ordinance states that you may
endure up to 30 hours of shadow flicker
per year on your residence.
·
Forest Hill Energy is admitting that annually, more than 30 hours
of shadow flicker will be cast upon your home by including the following
statement in their application, “In the unlikely event that shadow flicker is found to cause a
nuisance, mitigation could include strategically placed tree plantings, window
coverings, or window awnings.”
·
Because the output of wind is highly variable and rarely
correlates with demand, meaning wind is not readily available during hot summer
months and cold winter days when demand is the greatest, other sources of
energy cannot be taken off line. The wind turbine industry is unable to show
ANY evidence that wind power being on the power grid reduces the use of other
fuels.
·
Properties located near wind turbines decrease in value and living
near a wind turbine is not desirable. You may not be able to sell your home for
what it’s worth, or perhaps, not at all.
·
Noise and shadow flicker can cause serious medical problems. Some
residents living near wind farms have abandoned their homes because, not only
can they not sell their property, but they themselves can no longer live there
due to adverse health impacts caused by wind turbines.
·
The energy produced from these wind turbines will not provide
energy directly to your home. In
addition, the applicant has stated that the turbines are 30% efficient; meaning
the proposed 64 MW project only has a capacity of 19 MW.
·
According to data provided from the US Energy Information Agency
from the first five months of 2012 this year’s expected CO2 emissions have
declined by more than 800 million tons, or 14% from their peak in 2007. The
reason is the unprecedented switch to natural gas, which emits 45% less carbon
per energy unit when compared to coal; not
because of wind turbines or solar panels.
·
The Michigan Tax Tribunal changed the depreciation rate for wind
turbines, dramatically reducing the money municipalities will earn from wind
farms. Because municipalities have so much to lose, the counties of Huron, Sanilac,
Gratiot and Tuscola are considering an inter-local agreement to share the cost of
legal fees to fight DTE in an effort to receive their promised tax revenue.
Huron County View, Front
Page, 2012-9-13; Mackinac Center for Public Policy (Michigan Capitol
Confidential); Slate.com “Why Are Carbon Dioxide Emissions Down So Much in the
US?, by:Bjorn Lomborg, posted Sept. 15, 2012; National Wind Watch (www.wind-watch.org); www.youtube.com: Wind
Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise: Wind Turbine Ice Throw; South Point Wind Farm
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Good news for Essex Township
At tonight's special meeting, the Essex Township Board adopted Ordinance No. 14, which regulates wind energy conservation systems in the township.
The ordinance addresses many of the concerns of Essex Township community members. Just a few points:
- Maximum height of a turbine 380 feet with blade in vertical position
- Noise cannot exceed 45 decibels during the day and 40 at night
- No turbine can cause any strobe effect or shadow flicker without written approval by the board
- Turbines cannot produce vibrations or wind currents humanly perceptible beyond the property boundaries of the leased lot
- Applicant must fund an environmental impact study
- Turbines must be located 1600 feet from property line
Everyone applauded after the board passed the ordinance. Then everyone applauded the board. Great job, Essex Township board and Essex Township community!
Let's all give our support to Bengal Township on Tuesday, Oct 23, 7:00 p.m. See you there!
The ordinance addresses many of the concerns of Essex Township community members. Just a few points:
- Maximum height of a turbine 380 feet with blade in vertical position
- Noise cannot exceed 45 decibels during the day and 40 at night
- No turbine can cause any strobe effect or shadow flicker without written approval by the board
- Turbines cannot produce vibrations or wind currents humanly perceptible beyond the property boundaries of the leased lot
- Applicant must fund an environmental impact study
- Turbines must be located 1600 feet from property line
Everyone applauded after the board passed the ordinance. Then everyone applauded the board. Great job, Essex Township board and Essex Township community!
Let's all give our support to Bengal Township on Tuesday, Oct 23, 7:00 p.m. See you there!
Bengal Township Special Meeting is Oct 23
The Bengal Township meeting about wind turbines will be on Tuesday, Oct 23 at 7:00 p.m.
It will be held at Township Hall at 6586 West M-21.
No matter where you live, please attend to support Bengal Township members. Spread the word!
To receive updates by email, please fill in your address in the 'FOLLOW BY EMAIL' section on the right.
It will be held at Township Hall at 6586 West M-21.
No matter where you live, please attend to support Bengal Township members. Spread the word!
To receive updates by email, please fill in your address in the 'FOLLOW BY EMAIL' section on the right.
Long-term health of dairy cattle, diminished home value
Glen and Jill Feldpaush sent this letter to the Clinton County Planning Commission, the Essex Township Board, and the Bengal Township Board:
October 10, 2012
Clinton County Planning Commission
Chairperson: Shannon Schlegel, Vice-Chair: Mark Simon, Secretary: Kelly Chadwick
Members: Earl Barks, Robert Kudwa, Adam Stacey (B.O.C. Representative), Patti Jandernoa
100 East State Street, Suite 1300
St. Johns, MI 48879
Dear Chairperson Schlegel and Chairmen of the Board,
We are writing to you to voice our concerns regarding the application for special land use and site plan approval submitted by Forest Hill Energy/Fowler Farms, LLC to construct wind turbines in Dallas, Essex and Bengal Township.
Clinton County is the number one dairy county in the State of Michigan. Agriculture, in particular, dairy farming is one of the largest (if not, the largest) industry in Clinton County. We are 3rd generation dairy farmers here in Clinton County, with our son joining us as a partner to make the 4th generation. We have 2 dairy locations, one in Bengal and one in Essex Township.
We fear the reproductive health and well being of our dairy cattle. The long-term health of our cattle could be affected by the placing of wind turbines on the land near them. There has not been any long-term studies done to say that this will NOT affect the ability for the cows to continue to produce milk at the high level in which we strive for.
We employ 60 full-time employees and 20 part-time employees. Most of these men and women are home owners here in the region. They are contributing members to our county as well. We also fear that the value of their homes and the homes of all our neighbors in the community will be greatly diminished, if not completely unsellable if the wind turbines come into our area. As property values decrease, the county will receive less income from property taxes.
Our own family members will be discouraged from buying a home and settling in our community. Why would anyone want to move into our area if they had to look at, hear, and feel a wind turbine from a neighboring piece of property. Once the land use permit is approved there is nothing to stop them from adding phase 2 and phase 3. No one's property will be immune to the chance of a wind turbine going up across the road from their home or in the field behind their house.
Ladies and gentlemen of the board, we urge you to consider denying this permit altogether. The placement of wind turbines in our county will only benefit the land owners on which they sit and a small amount of taxes promised over 20 years. This does not justify the health risks and other negative economic impacts it will have on our property and potentially our farm animals.
Thank you for considering our concerns.
Sincerely,
Glen and Jill Feldpausch
Rich-Ro Dairy, LLC
3565 North Forest Hill Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
October 10, 2012
Clinton County Planning Commission
Chairperson: Shannon Schlegel, Vice-Chair: Mark Simon, Secretary: Kelly Chadwick
Members: Earl Barks, Robert Kudwa, Adam Stacey (B.O.C. Representative), Patti Jandernoa
100 East State Street, Suite 1300
St. Johns, MI 48879
Dear Chairperson Schlegel and Chairmen of the Board,
We are writing to you to voice our concerns regarding the application for special land use and site plan approval submitted by Forest Hill Energy/Fowler Farms, LLC to construct wind turbines in Dallas, Essex and Bengal Township.
Clinton County is the number one dairy county in the State of Michigan. Agriculture, in particular, dairy farming is one of the largest (if not, the largest) industry in Clinton County. We are 3rd generation dairy farmers here in Clinton County, with our son joining us as a partner to make the 4th generation. We have 2 dairy locations, one in Bengal and one in Essex Township.
We fear the reproductive health and well being of our dairy cattle. The long-term health of our cattle could be affected by the placing of wind turbines on the land near them. There has not been any long-term studies done to say that this will NOT affect the ability for the cows to continue to produce milk at the high level in which we strive for.
We employ 60 full-time employees and 20 part-time employees. Most of these men and women are home owners here in the region. They are contributing members to our county as well. We also fear that the value of their homes and the homes of all our neighbors in the community will be greatly diminished, if not completely unsellable if the wind turbines come into our area. As property values decrease, the county will receive less income from property taxes.
Our own family members will be discouraged from buying a home and settling in our community. Why would anyone want to move into our area if they had to look at, hear, and feel a wind turbine from a neighboring piece of property. Once the land use permit is approved there is nothing to stop them from adding phase 2 and phase 3. No one's property will be immune to the chance of a wind turbine going up across the road from their home or in the field behind their house.
Ladies and gentlemen of the board, we urge you to consider denying this permit altogether. The placement of wind turbines in our county will only benefit the land owners on which they sit and a small amount of taxes promised over 20 years. This does not justify the health risks and other negative economic impacts it will have on our property and potentially our farm animals.
Thank you for considering our concerns.
Sincerely,
Glen and Jill Feldpausch
Rich-Ro Dairy, LLC
3565 North Forest Hill Road
St. Johns, MI 48879
Property Valuation Guaranty for non-participating land owners
Chris Conner has submitted this to the Clinton County News for the letter to the editor section:
Our local government officials have very important decisions before them. We pray they act wisely and equitably for all stakeholders.
Sadly, many communities have succumbed to utility scale wind development projects, and lost themselves in the process. This is a divisive issue, for understandable reasons.
The common pattern of wind developers is to target communities where a divide and conquer strategy can succeed. Promising lucrative incentives to solicit land owners to participate is not in of itself a bad practice, but what if the neighbors suffer material economic losses as a result?
Independent property appraisers have testified to an average 20-45% reduction in residential values located within three miles of wind projects. The wind developers say otherwise. They want to expand and may be coming to a neighborhood near you.
There is an easy and just remedy to this concern. Our elected officials can require a Property Valuation Guaranty (PGV) for non-participating land owners within a 3-mile radius of the project. This has been done elsewhere.
Please log on to www.clintoncountywindwatch.org/ and www.clintoncountywindwatch.blogspot.com/ to learn more. Your biggest investment and way of life may be at risk.
Chris Conner
Our local government officials have very important decisions before them. We pray they act wisely and equitably for all stakeholders.
Sadly, many communities have succumbed to utility scale wind development projects, and lost themselves in the process. This is a divisive issue, for understandable reasons.
The common pattern of wind developers is to target communities where a divide and conquer strategy can succeed. Promising lucrative incentives to solicit land owners to participate is not in of itself a bad practice, but what if the neighbors suffer material economic losses as a result?
Independent property appraisers have testified to an average 20-45% reduction in residential values located within three miles of wind projects. The wind developers say otherwise. They want to expand and may be coming to a neighborhood near you.
There is an easy and just remedy to this concern. Our elected officials can require a Property Valuation Guaranty (PGV) for non-participating land owners within a 3-mile radius of the project. This has been done elsewhere.
Please log on to www.clintoncountywindwatch.org/ and www.clintoncountywindwatch.blogspot.com/ to learn more. Your biggest investment and way of life may be at risk.
Chris Conner
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Essex Township Special Meeting October 17
Notice:
The Essex Township Board will hold a special meeting on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 7:30 pm at the Maple Rapids Community Center, 209 W Union St., Maple Rapids, MI 48853.
The purpose of this meeting is to review and possibly vote to adopt a Police Power Ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare in the location, construction and operation of Wind Energy Conversion Systems in Essex Township.
Rex Ferguson
Essex Township Trustee
The Essex Township Board will hold a special meeting on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 7:30 pm at the Maple Rapids Community Center, 209 W Union St., Maple Rapids, MI 48853.
The purpose of this meeting is to review and possibly vote to adopt a Police Power Ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare in the location, construction and operation of Wind Energy Conversion Systems in Essex Township.
Rex Ferguson
Essex Township Trustee
Monday, October 15, 2012
Your site for news
Hello, Clinton County.
If you're visiting from our partner site - Clinton County Wind Watch.org, welcome. Please see that site for excellent background resources and information.
When the Clinton County News published the October 14 article 'Hearing on proposed wind farm draws 100', it may have been the first time you knew that a company wanted to build turbines in the area. However, some people in the community have been fighting the issue for years ... it's just now that the rest of us found out.
As you may already know, people in our community oppose the construction of turbines for a variety of reasons - to name a few: noise, dramatically lowered property values, negative wildlife and livestock effects, human health issues, aesthetic values, and economic reasons.
-- No matter your reason, check this site for updates on township and county meeting schedules. Come and speak! Let our elected officials hear your voices!
-- Write to your elected officials. We'll be posting letters from Clinton County Wind Watch writers that we're sending as well, so you can read them here.
--Write a letter to the editor. Let more people read your opinion.
-- Share this site and our partner site with others. There is power in numbers. Let's mobilize.
What can we do? Well, we can do nothing and have turbines in our backyards. Or, we can do something and fight as hard as we can ... and we might succeed. It's worth a shot, isn't it?
NEXT MEETING
Bengal Township is scheduling a special meeting on the proposed ordinance. When the time is announced, we'll post it here. Let's go and show our support.
NEXT LETTER
Any letter helps. Just let people know what you think.
Clinton County News letters to the editor - 200 words, name, address, phone number.
Tom Thelen - tthelen@lsj.com
Clinton County Planning Commission - Wendy Ward - WardW@clinton-county.org
Clinton County Board of Commissioners - District 1, Dave Pohl - dwpohl@yahoo.com
District 4, Jack Enderle - jackend@frontier.com
Check back soon or even better - Follow by Email on the right. You do get an email asking you to approve the subscription, so be sure to check your junk email in case it goes in there.
Thank you, Clinton County!
If you're visiting from our partner site - Clinton County Wind Watch.org, welcome. Please see that site for excellent background resources and information.
When the Clinton County News published the October 14 article 'Hearing on proposed wind farm draws 100', it may have been the first time you knew that a company wanted to build turbines in the area. However, some people in the community have been fighting the issue for years ... it's just now that the rest of us found out.
As you may already know, people in our community oppose the construction of turbines for a variety of reasons - to name a few: noise, dramatically lowered property values, negative wildlife and livestock effects, human health issues, aesthetic values, and economic reasons.
-- No matter your reason, check this site for updates on township and county meeting schedules. Come and speak! Let our elected officials hear your voices!
-- Write to your elected officials. We'll be posting letters from Clinton County Wind Watch writers that we're sending as well, so you can read them here.
--Write a letter to the editor. Let more people read your opinion.
-- Share this site and our partner site with others. There is power in numbers. Let's mobilize.
What can we do? Well, we can do nothing and have turbines in our backyards. Or, we can do something and fight as hard as we can ... and we might succeed. It's worth a shot, isn't it?
NEXT MEETING
Bengal Township is scheduling a special meeting on the proposed ordinance. When the time is announced, we'll post it here. Let's go and show our support.
NEXT LETTER
Any letter helps. Just let people know what you think.
Clinton County News letters to the editor - 200 words, name, address, phone number.
Tom Thelen - tthelen@lsj.com
Clinton County Planning Commission - Wendy Ward - WardW@clinton-county.org
Clinton County Board of Commissioners - District 1, Dave Pohl - dwpohl@yahoo.com
District 4, Jack Enderle - jackend@frontier.com
Check back soon or even better - Follow by Email on the right. You do get an email asking you to approve the subscription, so be sure to check your junk email in case it goes in there.
Thank you, Clinton County!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)