As I listen to the ongoing wind turbine debate, I don’t feel the problem is with the concerns of the adjacent landowners but rather the problem is with the wind developers and the wind lease holders. The developers recruit lease holders all based on the power and appeal of money. People talk about the environmental benefits that renewable wind power provides, but at the end of the day, it is all about the money. If the lease holders are so concerned about the environment, take away the financial benefits of the turbines and see how many landowners still sign up for the program.
Two of our county commissioners and a few of the township trustees who are located in the wind farm footprints also are only interested in the money and are ignoring the negative effects that will be forced on their constituents. Are the economic benefits worth the cost that is to be paid? I think not!
If the leaseholders want the turbines so much now and for the benefit of future generations, then locate the turbines near their own homes as opposed to imposing on the lives and properties of their neighbors. Because the leaseholders are compensated, have them deal directly with the negative side effects such as noise, shadow flicker, infrasound rather than inflicting these side effects on their non-compensated neighbors.
Why should adjacent landowners be approached to sign the so called “good neighbor” contracts? In this context, “good neighbor” is an oxymoron. Why is it that you, as the adjacent landowner, are being asked to sacrifice your property rights and quality of life and then be asked to be a “good neighbor” while the leaseholder financially benefits and screws up your life? If I’m to be the so-called good neighbor, what term should I use to describe the leaseholder who is putting me in this position?
Unfortunately, I did sign a good neighbor contract to support the wishes of a family member, which is something I now regret.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding