County News
Gathering momentum
CCSAGE chair Garth Manning addresses the gathering at the Regent Theatre last Thrusday evening.
Opponents to industrial wind fill Regent Theatre
Eric Gillespie told the packed theatre in Picton on Thursday the appeal of the nine-turbine industrial wind turbine project at Ostrander Point was going well. This was welcome news to the hundreds of folks eager to stop the threatened industrialization of this rugged South Marysburgh shoreline. The event was sponsored by Concerned Citizens for Safe and Appropriate Green Energy (CCSAGE).
Gillespie is the lawyer appealing the Ministry of Enviroment’s approval of Gilead Power Corporation’s plans to erect nine industrial wind turbines— each reaching nearly 500 feet into the sky—on Crown Land at Ostrander Point. He is representing both the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists’ (PECFN) appeal and the Association to Protect Prince Edward County’s (APPEC) appeal of the project.
He says the panel hearing has qualified each of his nine expert witnesses. Meanwhile the MOE and Gilead are struggling to qualify their witnesses as experts. He noted that the Gilead’s bat expert wasn’t qualified by the panel after they heard his credentials. Then, Gillespie reported, a Ministry of Natural Resources official acknowledged he might be in the wrong place, telling the hearing: “I guess I am not qualified as an expert in anything.”
Gillespie also outlined the significance of a ruling this week in Clearview Township and how it might affect other legal remedies
Cheryl Anderson of PECFN echoed naturalist and writer Terry Sprague’s observations that Ostrander Point is one of the few remaining undeveloped shorelines on Lake Ontario.
Anderson highlighted also the absurdity of Gilead Power’s claim they would recreate the alvar habitat they are displacing with the bases of these massive structures—a geological formation eons in the making.
Gary Mooney of CCSAGE presented the larger regional picture,showing how developers have carved up much of eastern Lake Ontario with designs to plant thousands of turbines.
One of the most disturbing and alarming images was that of the proposed turbine location map on neighbouring Amherst Island. If approved, this project will surely ravage this small island from end to end. There will be scarcely a square inch that won’t be darkened by the shadow of an industrial wind turbine.
Garth Manning, chair of CCSAGE, said property values in the County will suffer from the installation of machines that soar as high as the Peace Tower in Ottawa or the Royal York in Toronto.
He noted too that jurisdictions around the world including Denmark and Australia recognized the impact on property values and had begun compensating property owners.
“What is at stake here is the loss of hard-won equity at best, the loss of saleability of your home at worst,” declared Manning.
Gallery owner Carlyn Moulton pointed to poorer prospects for the local economy with the arrival of industrial wind turbines in the County. She noted a study that shows that, in general, tourists won’t come back to a place once it has been infested with industrial wind turbines.
She also underlined the fundamental flaw of the current 550-metre setback prescribed by the Green Energy Act. She believes the setback should be at least two kilometres, but her big worry is that the setback is measured from a nearby home—and not the property line.
This means a turbine can be erected just 80 feet from your property, but the setback reaches another 380 feet, thus erasing your ability to build on a large swath of your own property. Rather than a shield to protect neighbours, the setbacks act as swords that diminish the rights of neighbours to use their property as they wish.
Moulton wasn’t done. She savaged the legal test set by the MOE in order to successfully appeal its approval of the Ostrander Point. Specifically, Gillespie and the PECFN appellants must demonstrate the project will cause “serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.”
“Just because a place might recover, isn’t an argument for destroying it,” said Moulton.
The greatest round of applause was saved for North Marsyburgh Councillor Robert Quaiff for his role in council’s declaration, earlier in the week, that the County is not a willing host of wind turbines. The municipality joins 15 other jurisdictions in stating its objections to the provincial government in this way.
Pity that the anti-wind disinformation message was allowed to dominate this report. A hint of balance would have been evidence of journalism, as opposed to mere note-taking.
I happen to agree that Ostrander Point is likely a poor site for wind turbines. Between the Blandings Turtles and the alvar, siting must be extremely careful and mitigation of impacts just may not be possible. It doesn’t look like a good choice of site to me.
http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/ostrander-point-wind-farm-objections-appear-reasonable/
However, that very specific site’s concerns do not apply to the rest of Prince Edward County, an area I know reasonably well through vacations, bicycle trips, wind surfing trips, relatives and locavore trips over the past couple of decades.
The concerns written up as fact above just don’t hold water when international experiences are assessed. Here are a few leavening pieces of reality:
Wind farms don’t harm human health, anti-wind campaigners do. 17 major reviews world wide of all of the available research by credible, independent groups have cleared wind farms of health impacts. Meanwhile, studies in the UK, Australia and New Zealand point the finger at anti-wind lobbyists spreading health fears and jacking up stress. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/wind-farms-dont-make-people-sick-so-why-the-complaints/
Wind farms don’t harm property values: five major studies in the US and UK of 46,000 property transactions confirm this. As with health complaints, anti-wind campaigners whipping up fears are responsible for minor lulls before wind farms become operational, with properties often accruing value faster near operational wind farms. This makes sense: more jobs and more tax-revenue funded services make wind farm regions more attractive to people. http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/property-values-evidence-is-that-if-wind-farms-do-impact-them-its-positively/
The Ontario setback in 359/09 is just fine and is very conservative in ensuring that no health impacts can occur. The World Health Organization sets 50 dB of regular and prolonged night time noise that cannot be mitigated via closed windows and white noise generators as the level at which sleep loss becomes a concern. 40 dB, the level that 359/09 regulations make the norm 99% of the time for 99% of properties, is the cautionary level.
http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/how-close-is-too-close-meteors-vs-wind-farms/
Bunk…pure bunk. Obviously you don’t live there! People in Mississauga etc. don’t want gas plants in their backyard. Perhaps people who live in PEC, Amherst Island, Wolfe Island etc etc. don’t want IWT in their backyard. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Glad you agree that Ostrander Point is not a suitable site for turbines but your comments on property devaluation are completely off course . NO ONE will pay MORE to live next to a huge turbine, regardless of what these studies attempt to claim.
Also the setbacks are highly inadequate ,having talked to many people displaced by turbines ,I have no doubt that some day turbines will turn out to be the “asbestos” of the 21st century.
You sound like the typical person who does not live anywhere close to turbines and probably benefit from them financially.
You should visit Rural Ontario and see for yourself the turmoil and destruction your “green dream” is causing.