April 11, 2013
Letters, Maine

Frankfort votes No (a response to Ruth Allen)

The Republican Journal | April 11, 2013 | waldo.villagesoup.comThe Republican Journal | April 11, 2013 | waldo.villagesoup.com

I think the comment made by Ruth Allen, one of the plaintiffs in the current lawsuit [against the town of Frankfort over wind turbines] is on target in one respect. Ms. Allen states that “no one” should be told what they can do with their land. The key words here being “no” and “one.” By trying to push through wind farms on Mt. Waldo the [plaintiffs] in this suit are telling those of us who live near the mountain what “they” can do with their land, which is accept huge losses in their property values, and they can forget about using their property for anything involving human habitation. No one in their right mind would build a home in close proximity to a wind farm.

It starts off saying: “Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property,” and continues by stating, “Usury and any other form of exploitation of man by man is prohibited by law.”

Use of land for wind farms prohibits “enjoyment” and exploits nearby residents!

Over two years ago Eolian was likely invited into the town by a few landowners who had the opportunity to make money by leasing their land to them. The biggest attraction to Frankfort was not location, or Mount Waldo. The biggest attraction for the wind company was its vulnerability. Eolian came to town and preached the gospel according to them. But fortunately there were some in town who investigated Eolian’s claims and brought the results of their research to light. Conclusion; Wind turbines destroy lives and serenity when situated in close proximity to residences!

At that time close proximity was described as within a 1-1/2-mile radius, but more recent studies being conducted in Europe indicate that disruptions caused by wind turbines may be experienced as far away as three to six miles, depending on conditions.

So what’s the problem after three votes? It’s simply about money! Few bring up the “green” aspects of wind turbines or cheap electricity, because those claims have already been debunked. The nightmares endured by those living next to wind turbines, however, have been well established. People who were once proponents and naively invited wind farms into their towns are now suffering the consequences of their decisions.

No one blames the landowners for acting on an opportunity to make money from their land; however, when that opportunity negatively impacts the lives of an entire town they should be willing to reconsider.

So yes, Ruth, you’re correct! As a landowner you have a right to protect the value of your property, but so do those who stand to lose the most! The plaintiffs can ignore the facts or just pretend they aren’t available, but the facts are there. And to ignore them in favor of collecting a few pieces of silver says, “We care nothing about those whose lives will be negatively impacted by our actions.”