- National Wind Watch: Wind Energy News - https://www.wind-watch.org/news -

Wind objections should not be ignored

I would like to expound upon a topic that has largely been ignored in a lot of the discussions concerning wind turbines.

We are fighting against the philosophical idea that wind turbine economic development is of more importance than the individuals that are burdened with their presence. Therefore, these turbine projects exists because of this philosophy held by those who produce them and the leaders responsible for local oversight.

As I discussed in my editorial article a couple weeks ago, there are those “NOT-good neighbors” that would desire to make a buck without considering the ones that are affected by their actions. And, at the same time, justify it by claiming it’s “within their rights,” or more subtly, “it meets enough of the current zoning codes.” In the same way, when local leaders pursue an action at the expense of the individuals they are supposed to be serving, it is a betrayal that breaks the trust of all those they claim to serve and protect.

At the last public meeting, approximately 60-plus residence of Hamilton County showed up to participate. Not a single resident spoke in favor of the wind turbines.

Because of this, every Hamilton County resident should question the care they will receive if these objections are ignored, for when an issue like this happens, the disturbing question that rises to the subconscious forefront will be, “What will happen to me when I am in a similar spot?”

This problem really boils down to leadership understanding the importance of principle and possessing the character to make right judgements regardless of personal connections. In the education of our society there has been a strong push to adopt the philosophy of “all is good, if it’s for the benefit of the whole.” Sounds really “progressive” in most of the situational examples in which it is applied. However, when applied to real life, it is not so good to the ones who end up being a forced sacrifice so that others can benefit. Those that would ignore the harm done to others “for the benefit of our community economic prosperity” cannot advertise themselves as a “Good Neighbor.” To the reader I would ask, “What kind of neighbor do you really want to watch over you?”

Pat Harvey,

Aurora