In response to “Richfield right to reject moratorium,” first of all, let me say that equating a moratorium on 500-foot wind turbines next to your home to large soft drinks is almost funny if it were not so dangerous. We citizens who are against the turbines have as much right to our way of life as people who are for them.
As of now, all we are asking is for a moratorium. I breed thoroughbred horses. There have been studies both pro and con about the turbines’ effect on farm animals. I have a relative who is autistic. There have been studies, again both pro and con, about the effects of the rotating blades on people with autism. Am I supposed to not have visits from her for fear of something happening to her while here? If we have a moratorium, these and many other issues can be dealt with.
Why is it that the pro-turbine people do not want to have any discussion on the effects of the turbines, and they want them as long as they are not near their homes? In almost every locality where they have been erected, they have had major problems and lawsuits filed against the companies and against town board members.
I would venture to guess that in all of the United States, not one board member lives anywhere near the site of these turbines, but many miles away, leaving the citizens near the sites to fend for themselves. If turbines are such a blessing to the nation, then why not have a moratorium? The same town board members will most likely still be in office.
Town boards must be open-minded and listen to all sides, not just townspeople who will only drive by these turbines.
Louis and Lucy Salaun
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding