Alerts Home

  • March 2022
  • August 2021
  • May 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • August 2020
  • ALL

    Add NWW Alerts to your site (click here)

    Sign up for daily updates

    Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

    Donate $10

    Donate $5

    News Watch

    Selected Documents

    All Documents

    Research Links

    Press Releases


    Publications & Products

    Photos & Graphics


    Allied Groups

    Source:  Western Catskill Preservation Alliance

    Invenergy, Towns Pressing Forward to Review “Fantasy” Wind Turbine Application  

    Source:  Western Catskill Preservation Alliance | Impacts, New York, Press releases

    “24 of the 33 turbines cannot be constructed as proposed”

    Despite overwhelming opposition to the Industrial Wind Turbines Project, Invenergy, the Towns of Roxbury and Stamford and now Delaware County continue to frighten and annoy property owners by aggressively pressing forward with a very costly and time consuming application process. The Western Catskill Preservation Alliance (WCPA) has spoken with many of the land owner listed in Invenergy’s application (Tables 1b, 2 and 4) and has learned that the majority are opposed to the project and do not plan to sign leases or grant setback waivers. “Invenergy has listed people’s names and address information that have absolutely no interest in this project.” says Ron Karam, President of the WCPA, “When I speak with land owners who have been targeted by Invenergy to have turbines or access roads they feel intimidated and somewhat helpless. Many ask how Invenergy is allowed to publish their personal information without their permission.”

    According to the WCPA, of the 33 turbines proposed by Invenergy, 24 cannot be constructed due to lack of land owner support, leaving only 9 turbines that may be viable. The WCPA believes that even with the 9 turbines, there are major obstacles that will be difficult for the towns and Invenergy to overcome including access road and connection issues.

    “Most of the landowners we spoke with were under the impression that many of their neighbors were supporting the project and felt that they were the only ones opposing the turbines.” Karam says, “Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a classic heavy handed negotiating tactic used to mislead landowners by withholding the real facts and applying false pressure into signing lease agreements.”

    “The truth of the matter is that this project lacks landowner support yet the Town’s of Roxbury and Stamford and Delaware County are charging forward with the review process.” Karam adds, “Without a credible and viable application, there is no good reason for our elected and appointed officials to spend any time on this application. It would be different if Invenergy was submitting a proposal with 70-80% support but that is simply not the case and with less than 30% support they have no basis for moving forward.”

    The results of the WCPA survey and analysis:

    1. Of the proposed 33 turbines, 24 cannot be built in the locations proposed by Invenergy.
    2. The 33 turbines are located on properties owned by 17 different landowners.
    3. There are a total of 10 turbines located in the Town of Stamford: turbines 1 through 8, 32 and 33.
    4. Of the 10 turbines in Stamford, none can be built.
    5. There are a total of 16 turbines located in the Town of Roxbury: turbines 10, 13 through 22, 26, 27, 29, 30, and 31
    6. Of the 16 turbines in Roxbury, 9 cannot be built, 2 are too close to call and only 5 do not appear to violate any setback requirements
    7. There are 7 turbines located on or close to the town line between Roxbury and Stamford: turbines 9, 11, 12, 23, 24, 25 and 28.
    8. Of the 7 turbines on the common town line, 5 cannot be built, 1 is too close to call and only 1 does not appear to violate any setback requirements.
    9. The following 24 turbines cannot be built due to the fact that Invenergy either placed turbines on private properties where the land owners do not support the project or they located turbines in places that are in clear violation of setback requirements: Turbines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, and 33.
    10. Turbines 12, 13, 14 are too close to call in terms of setback violations.
    11. Turbines 15, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 do not appear to violate any set backs.

    The WCPA is requesting that the Towns of Roxbury and Stamford reject Invenergy’s application on the basis that it’s not a credible plan. The WCPA claims that much of the work the towns and the engineering firms are doing to review the current application will have to be re-done if and when a credible plan can be submitted. Karam says, “The Towns and the engineering firms they hired should not waste the time and effort on an application that has no merit. They should ask Invenergy to resubmit a credible plan that has least 75% landowner support.”

    Anyone interested in learning more about the WCPA’s analysis they can send an email to To review Invenergy’s application and landowner tables you can visit

    September 17, 2007

    Wind Watch relies entirely
    on User Funding
    Donate $5 PayPal Donate


    Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

    Wind Watch on Facebook


    © National Wind Watch, Inc.
    Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
    "Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.