The next endangered beauty of nature? Fight against turbines has been ongoing
Credit: Dorothy Holland | Observer | Jan 28, 2018 | www.observertoday.com ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
The Arkwright Town Board has insulted the population of Arkwright by claiming, as reported in the Dunkirk Observer Jan. 9, nobody was there to protest the wind turbines 14 years ago. Yet Roger Cardot is quoted in the same article that Forestville School was used for meetings since the numbers attending meetings were so high.
Well attended meetings were the norm and were captured on video at the Town Hall and due to large attendance the Forestville High School. How arrogant and insulting to feign no knowledge of previous protests to the Wind Project when the information is clearly available in the town of Arkwright’s meeting minutes and the documents produced and presented by attorney Arthur Giacalone paid for by private citizens who were disrespected during meetings and told that if they don’t like it they could move, also captured on video.
When presented with claims there are multiple conflicts of interest the board demanded proof! The proof is located right on the EDP Renewable Wind Turbine website under “Permitting and Regulations.” I believe the burden of proof is on the Town Board to furnish all votes taken on the Wind Project and prove that those parties and their relatives with conflicts of interest did in fact recuse themselves from voting as stated by Chris Cannon that same Observer article. Did Cardot also recuse himself from votes concerning the wind turbines?
In this same article, Supervisor Nick Norton has claimed two public surveys were performed, but I cannot find one person in Arkwright who was contacted. Our elected officials need to produce these surveys for public review and establish the methodology for these surveys if they in fact were actually done. The perception of impropriety is very great and out Board needs to be a bit more transparent since they have been less than forthcoming with facts and truth.
My final point is the economics being touted by the Town Board. The economics are one sided and spoonfed from the wind industry. They just don’t make sense because they ignore the adverse economic impact and settled for a paltry yearly fee of $250,000 per year.
The town of Eagle “settled” for an amount that allowed the citizens to pay no taxes for at least 10 years. A win-win. Interestingly, on Oct. 13, the town of Eagle found that due to state legislation Noble Energy’s profits will fall and the town’s payment will decrease since it is based on profits – profits that are artificially inflated by public subsidies that can change on the whim of a politician’s vote.
Wind energy fares poorly on all metrics since it is not chosen for true cost to taxpayers, reliability or proximity to end users. A net financial analysis should be done that includes the pros and cons to the community which the board serves. Reduced agricultural yields, decreased tourism, reduced property values, adverse health effects, adverse hydrgeological effects, harmful effects on wildlife and livestock and lastly, the negative financial implications leaseholders sustain due to the leases they sign and property rights they give up not the least is mineral rights and future energy development that may take the form of fracking.
Why are landowners who have signed leases forbidden to speak on the matter. Why is their freedom of speech denied because they are participants? Do the math. Arkwright has been suckered. Cassadaga, Sinclairville and Charlotte should look deeper, listen and read.
Dorothy Holland is a Cassadaga resident.
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