LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME

[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]



Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

County should oppose wind farm 

Credit:  January 29, 2015 | www.pantagraph.com ~~

Invenergy filed an application in August, with hopes of obtaining a special use permit from Livingston County, allowing it to the convert 58,000 acres of prime farmland into an industrial area. They have affectionately named the proposed rezoning of southeastern Livingston County the Pleasant Ridge Wind Energy Project. However, there have been developments regarding potential wind farms in our county since they applied.

The county has opened the existing wind ordinance for review and subsequent update. The agriculture and zoning committee is managing this process. With input from county residents, they will create an ordinance that protects property rights, health/safety and the economic viability of Livingston County.

On Jan. 15, the Livingston County Board voted to impose a six-month moratorium on new wind farm applications; no companies can apply from now until June. This step goes hand-in-hand with opening an ordinance for review. You can’t allow companies to apply under an ordinance that is deficient.

Invenergy’s application was filed under the old ordinance. Yes, the same ordinance that is now under review for deficiencies. However, a special use permit is still just that, special, not a done deal by any means. I believe that the County Board has an obligation to the residents and must vote no when the time comes. You cannot in good conscience construct a massive project under an ordinance that has now been deemed in need of review.

A vote of no seems like a no-brainer to me.

Megan Dassow

Chatsworth

Source:  January 29, 2015 | www.pantagraph.com

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
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share


News Watch Home

Get the Facts
CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.

 Follow:

Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky