| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Sacrificed to wind special interests
Credit: Berkshire Eagle | 11/10/2013 | www.berkshireeagle.com ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
I am one of the taxpayers in Peru who dreads the idea of wind turbines. I worry about flicker effect and I fear for the value of my property. Even pro-wind presenters confirmed that flicker effect occurs and you can’t predict when. It can cause seizures and migraines in some people and until it hits, you won’t know. They suggest dark shades for my windows. Really? What about being able to enjoy my yard during these surprise attacks? No answer.
The majority of people voted in favor of the moratorium. We missed the two-thirds plus 1 vote needed to pass by only 18 votes. I’m stunned. I’m heartsick over statements presented preceding the vote from residents who support this project. One resident stated we could always move if we didn’t like the turbines or they made us ill. His comments were heartless and unreasonable. Maybe he doesn’t have a son buried in Peru, like we do. My husband’s family members have been residents of Peru for almost 60 years.
Why should our family, after being taxpayers for so long, have to possibly walk away or sell for under market value? Another citizen stated that sacrificing the few for the good of the many pertained here. What? A society is judged by how it protects its weakest members. We don’t sacrifice people anymore, right? What’s it worth if one person suffers?
A letter was sent out claiming the moratorium proponents were hysterical bullies and they were tearing the town apart with this appeal for more time. Time to strengthen our bylaw before the turbines were installed and couldn’t be dealt with. The moratorium would never have sacrificed anyone’s health or property value.
The tax rate this year for Peru is over $17 per thousand. Unbelievable? It has been years since any surplus revenues went into relieving the heavy tax burden for homeowners in Peru. The Selectmen have never committed publicly to decreasing the tax rate with revenue from this project, something that might eventually benefit residents. So why are they wholeheartedly promoting this unpopular proposal?
Wind power companies have consistently not made good on their seductive promises of riches for the towns that host these turbines. Though the majority of votes were pro-moratorium, we do not have the time we need now. The Selectmen of Peru must start listening to the majority of their taxpayers. Who is receiving benefits from promoting this project? I’d like to know exactly who has a check coming or a promise of employment from the developers of this wind project, as I might be sacrificed for it.
LAUREN BOLIO
Peru
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 educational 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 |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=58565 ]
