[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wolfe Islanders lose vs. MPAC  

Credit:  County Weekly News • Thursday, April 12, 2012 • myvirtualpaper.com/doc/Picton-County-News ~~

Ed and Gail Kenney are calling it a setback, not a defeat.

The Wolfe Island couple learned that the potentially precedent-setting challenge to their home property assessment – based on the proximity to wind turbines – was unsuccessful.

“We’re quite emotional about this;’ said Gail Kenney. “We feel that common sense has not prevailed in this issue. The ordinary person should be able to go to a tribunal without being opposed by these major law firms.’

The provincial Assessment Review Board heard the Kenneys’ case over the course of five days from last May to October.

The couple was fighting a Municipal Property Assessment Corporation of their waterfront home that increased it from $200,000 in 2008 to $357,000 in 2010 – after the turbines were installed on Wolfe Island.

They say the turbines have de-valued their property by bringing in “industrial” noise and lighting, as well as having created health concerns.

The two-person panel from the review board disagreed.

Though assessment reviews are generally low key and informal affairs, the Kenneys found themselves presenting evidence against two lawyers – one from MPAC and another hired by their municipality, the Township of Frontenac Islands.

Gail Kenney said they often felt “overwhelmed” during the five days of hearings.

“We really felt we were in over our heads,” she said. “We had the feeling that the (wind turbine) industry was at the table and that was through the legal representation for the township.”

She said that when people live in a rural setting like Wolfe Island, then have “the second-largest wind farm in Canada” built beside them, “common sense would dictate that’s going to affect the property value. ”

At the outset of the hearings, MPAC lawyer Shawn Douglas insisted they should not be considered a test case for other properties near wind turbine projects.

The Kenneys said this week that another homeowner on Wolfe Island is challenging his assessment based on proximity to the turbines.

His hearing has been cancelled twice, they said, because MPAC told him they waiting for the outcome of their hearing.

“And this isn’t a test case?” Gail Kenney asked.

The Kenneys say that if they had won a lower assessment, it would have opened the door for hundreds or thousands of similar challenges and considerable losses of tax revenues to municipalities.

“Most of these reassessments are settled over the table,” said Ed Kenney. “It’s bad enough what it cost the taxpayers of Wolfe Island.”

Among the conclusions in the 41-page review board decision was the finding that property values had not dropped on the island because of the presence of the 86 turbines now owned by TransAlta of Calgary.

“The board finds there is no evidence to allow the board to conclude that since the construction of the wind farm properties on what Mr. Kenney defines as the west side of the island has sold for less than properties on the east side,” it reads.

John Andrew, a commercial real estate specialist in the School of Urban and Regional Planning at Queen’s University, said he isn’t surprised by the ruling.

“This all turns on one key point,” he said. “What are the criteria MPAC can use when determining assessment? Houses are all pretty comparable. All the things the Kenneys were talking about were external factors.”

Andrew said the review board would be creating a “slippery slope” by acknowledging that wind turbines devalue property value, much the same as having an airport or highway nearby.

Kenney hopes the ruling doesn’t discourage others from taking up the challenge.

They are consulting with a lawyer to determine what they should do next. An option is a Supreme
Court appeal, a time-consuming and costly venture for private individuals.

Source:  County Weekly News • Thursday, April 12, 2012 • myvirtualpaper.com/doc/Picton-County-News

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

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


News Watch Home

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.