So what lit this fire in you to “swim against the current?”

One answer would be property values and property rights, but it is more than that. That valuable natural views would be subverted by huge, differentially moving turbine blades; that many vulnerable species of wildlife would be put at risk, as well as much sensitive habitat; that the quality of life for people who must live near them would be reduced, sometimes to the detriment of their health; that nearby property values would plummet; that few jobs and relatively little local revenues would be created–all to placate an industry that produces no meaningful product or service–is simply outrageous. …

These things throw blade fragments, can throw heavy sheets of ice, catch on fire, topple over, emit noise (both audible and subsonic) and cast incessant moving shadows. They kill birds and bats by the thousands, call for clear cutting of forested areas both for construction and to sweeten the wind, and generally scar any semblance of natural skyscape and ambiance for their rural neighbors for several miles in any direction. Enronesque property value studies there may be, but I challenge people to visit the larger wind projects in the east and come away saying you’d want to live in there. In exchange for this we get energy when it is windy enough, but not too windy, and with no regard for whether bonus energy is needed then or not. …

Download “Save Western Ohio Q and A”

Download “Report of the Champagne County Wind Turbine Study Group”

Download “Testimony before the Ohio House Public Energy Committee, January 23, 2008″

The amendment proposal was constructed in March 2007 by attorney Terry Stolly and citizen Tom Stacy both of Zanesfield, Ohio, and is based on Otsego County, Mich., and Cherry Valley, N.Y., ordinances already in place with special considerations specific to the specific Western Ohio landscape and demographics.

Download “Amendment of Jefferson Township Zoning Resolution”