{"id":11238,"date":"2010-11-19T19:43:05","date_gmt":"2010-11-20T00:43:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/static\/?p=11238"},"modified":"2012-02-03T07:49:39","modified_gmt":"2012-02-03T12:49:39","slug":"editorial-how-to-fight-the-wind-turbine-project-you-just-learned-about-yesterday","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/2010\/editorial-how-to-fight-the-wind-turbine-project-you-just-learned-about-yesterday\/","title":{"rendered":"Editorial: “How to fight the wind turbine project you just learned about yesterday”"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u2014Eric Bibler, WTS.com guest editor<\/p>\n

\u00b7<\/span>
\nThe other day I was contacted by a woman from Bourne, Massachusetts, who wrote to say that she and her neighbors feel ambushed by a wind turbine project \u2013 or, at least, that, as is typical, they were late in understanding the implications of the proposed project there (six 500 foot wind turbines) and that they are scrambling to head it off.<\/p>\n

I thought that this list of relatively simple \u201cthings to do\u201d might be helpful to people in Brewster, Wareham, Plymouth–all in Massachusetts–and anywhere else projects are currently proposed.<\/p>\n

The operative theme here is that you live in a community and that a community is a collective enterprise. You\u2019ve gathered yourselves together and established an intricate town government to manage your affairs. Why? Because you have all committed to the idea that you have a shared interest in achieving certain goals and providing certain services \u2013 health and safety, education, transportation, EMS and fire, police, regulation of hazards, building codes, environment, historic preservation, land conservation, parks, and so forth \u2013 all of which contribute to the quality of life<\/span> in the community and all of which are fundamental to your decision to make your homes there.<\/p>\n

Sure, you have laws and statutes on the books, and these are necessary instruments to enable individuals, and the town, to formulate and execute necessary plans. But two extremely important principles underlying our system of laws are the following: a) laws exist to protect the fundamental rights of interests that are weak and divided \u2013 typically individuals \u2013 from abuse by the rich and the powerful; and 2) laws exist to protect the fundamental rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority \u2013 which is to say that some issues should not<\/span> be subject to a referendum because doing so would impinge on individual rights.<\/p>\n

An example of this might be that a town has no right to seize your property \u2013 or render it useless by erecting a 500 foot wind turbine on the boundary \u2013 just because it is convenient and just because 51% of the population (or even 91%) votes in favor of such an action at a Town Meeting.<\/p>\n

These are fundamental principles and they are enshrined in our laws. For example, the government can\u2019t silence me just because I don\u2019t agree with them and say so. Similarly, if you look at the Special Permit language in your town \u2013 and this is the means by which the towns have typically decided to approach the approval process for wind turbines \u2013 you will find that it states quite clearly that any applicant for a Special Permit must satisfy certain criteria in order for the permit to be granted<\/span>. If those criteria are NOT satisfied, then the Special Permit should be denied.<\/p>\n

Why do these criteria exist and what do they provide?<\/p>\n

The permitting criteria exist to protect the community \u2013 chiefly, to protect members of the community that own property abutting the property under development, but more broadly, the entire community. But since the adverse impacts<\/span> of industrial wind turbines are not confined to the developer\u2019s property<\/span>, but, in fact, are broadcast<\/span> over a wide area, I think that you can argue very forcefully and persuasively to your Planning Board (and to everyone else in town) that the concept of \u201can abutter\u201d MUST be extended to every property owner, and every member of the community, who experiences these adverse effects. Absolutely.<\/p>\n

Let me give you three examples:<\/p>\n

1) \u201cFlicker Effect\u201d \u2013 Intense \u201cStrobe Effect\u201d when the sun is at low angles to the wind turbine blades.<\/p>\n

Every wind turbine project does a feasibility study and part of that feasibility study is something called a \u201cFlicker Study.\u201d [Note: do NOT ever refer to this as the \u201cflicker effect\u201d \u2013 the wind industry jargon<\/em> for this highly disturbing<\/span> phenomenon \u2013 because, in fact, it is a very, intense strobe effect that drives people to distraction. To give you some idea, please understand that people end up sealing off windows and taping off doorways, or jamming towels underneath them, in a desperate attempt to alleviate the suffering from this intrusion]. A \u201cFlicker Study\u201d is a fairly straightforward calculation of the precise times (and cumulative annual time) that the effect will occur during a given period, typically a year (assuming sunny skies). The study also provides an indication of the geographical extent of the effect; i.e. how much area around the wind turbine will it cover. And the study typically provides a MAP of that pattern.<\/p>\n

Brandish this map and insist that it be taken seriously. Why did they go to the trouble of producing it if it is meaningless? Ask why all of the property owners within the \u201cFlicker Pattern\u201d should be subjected to this highly disturbing effect.<\/p>\n

The developers will say that one need only pull the blinds for a few brief moments during the day and they will point out that it may only effect a given location for a \u201cmere\u201d 70 hours a year \u2013 so it\u2019s really no big deal. But how do you feel about that \u2013 when those 70 hours are divided into 20 minute intervals that may typically occur while you are having dinner, cocktails, working in your garden after work or playing catch with your 12 year old son to help him improve his arm for Little League \u2013 every goddam day of the summer? Is that \u201cnothing\u201d? Can the developer really pass the straight face test with the Planning Board \u2013 and can the Planning Board really agree with him \u2013 when he insists that this does not constitute a \u201cNuisance\u201d under the Special Permit provisions? Really?<\/p>\n

The developer will say that they will \u201cmitigate\u201d this effect but turning off the blades during this period of time. But that is easier said than done. Let\u2019s see the agreement. Make him commit to a firm schedule: \u201cNO operation of the wind turbine during the hours of\u2026during any period of time that produces a \u2018flicker effect.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

2) Wind Turbine Noise<\/p>\n

We are providing a great deal of information to the various town authorities on the issue of wind turbine noise and many of you have doubtless done the same. The evidence is overwhelming that wind turbine noise has adverse consequences \u2013 and by \u201cnoise\u201d I mean the noise that you can hear and the noise that you cannot hear (infrasound) and which is NOT covered by any state statutes \u2013 and that the \u201cnoise\u201d affects people over a very broad area. We know from clinical research and from anecdotal accounts of first hand experience from around the world that people are very deeply disturbed by noise from wind turbines within a perimeter of a mile \u2013 and sometimes, depending upon local geography and\/or daily weather conditions, within a much wider perimeter.<\/p>\n

Does the Planning Board agree that sleep deprivation, anxiety, depression, fullness or ringing in the ears, and other commonly reported symptoms might reasonably be considered a \u201cNuisance\u201d? Ask them! If not, why not? What is a nuisance? Does someone have to drop a tree on my house? Or can it be something as simple as the fact that they have made it impossible for me to sleep, work, eat or function, made me extremely ill and ruined my quality of life? Would that be enough to constitute a \u201cNuisance\u201d?<\/p>\n

3) Precipitous Decline in Property Value<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve sent two real estate studies to CCC \/ Bourne \/ Brewster \u2013 one by Mike McCann and a similar one by Appraisal One Group in Wisconsin. The McCann study is available on the Wind Turbine Syndrome Website. Read it!<\/p>\n

In the preamble to his report, Mr. McCann has made a very clear-eyed assessment of this problem and has stated that allowing such development is tantamount to a \u201ccondemnation\u201d or a \u201ctaking of property\u201d from nearby property owners. I absolutely agree. But who cares what I think? What I DO know, however, is that the whole reason for the Special Permit process is that these developments are deemed, by nature of their mammoth size, to be so consequential as to require special consideration, on a project by project basis, by the full Planning Board. That should tell you something. Don\u2019t let the proponents trivialize the impacts of their projects. They wouldn\u2019t have to petition the entire Planning Board through the \u201cSpecial Permit\u201d process if these projects were trivial<\/span>!<\/p>\n

Here are some more questions for the Planning Board:<\/p>\n

o If the wind turbines aren\u2019t a nuisance, why do people sometimes abandon<\/span> their homes after the machines are installed?<\/p>\n

o If the wind turbines aren\u2019t a nuisance, why do studies show that property values often decline precipitously \u2013 from 30% to 100% — after they are installed? Why do some people report that real estate agents will not even bother to show their homes after the machines are installed \u2013 because it\u2019s a waste of time?<\/p>\n

o If wind turbines aren\u2019t a nuisance \u2013 and pose no threat to property values \u2013 shouldn\u2019t the developer be asked to indemnify homeowners against any declines in their property value?<\/p>\n

o If wind turbines produce so many adverse consequences \u2013 sufficient to make some people abandon their homes in some cases \u2013 and exert such dramatic downward pressure on property values, doesn\u2019t this raise the specter of lawsuits against the town and\/or the developer? Is the town willing to accept this risk? Does the \u201cdeveloper\u201d \u2013 typically a shell corporation (an \u201cLLC,\u201d or limited liability company) have the resources to pay claims<\/em> against any successful individual or class action lawsuits \u2013 or is it just a paper company?<\/p>\n

o If the developer \/ operator were forced to pay a large claim \u2013 or a series of claims \u2013 against it, would it have sufficient resources to remain viable? If not, what would happen to the wind turbines<\/em>?<\/p>\n

4) Effect upon the Community \u2013 What\u2019s in It for Us?!!!!<\/p>\n

The community (typically) has enacted very stringent zoning restrictions prohibiting the construction of billboards and other structures above a certain height because: a) they constitute a commercial activity that benefits no one but the owner; and b) because they are out of scale and out of character with their surroundings; c) they are considered unsightly and incongruous, threatening to the historic character and the sense of community; d) they devalue surrounding property.<\/p>\n

Why do not all of the same concerns \u2013 and more \u2013 apply to wind turbines?<\/p>\n

o They are 400 or 500 feet tall \u2013 many times<\/em> the height of the tallest billboard<\/p>\n

o They make noise \u2013 over 100 decibels at the hub, equivalent to a jet or a helicopter<\/p>\n

o They move \u2013 with blades spinning at up to 180 mph<\/p>\n

o They create intense strobe effects over a wide area<\/p>\n

o They are required to have flashing FAA beacons on the top<\/p>\n

o They operate 24 hours a day<\/p>\n

o They inevitably kill birds and bats (although the exact number and species may be in dispute)<\/p>\n

o They represent a hazard from fire and accident which cannot be controlled \u2013 because the town is not equipped to fight a fire at the nacelle at a height of 330 feet (or even 262 feet)<\/p>\n

o They represent a potential contamination of aquifers and water supplies<\/p>\n

o They benefit the commercial operator but provide no community benefit<\/p>\n

Why should the Planning Board allow a Special Permit to an industrial wind turbine \u2013 or to a series of them \u2013 when they are, in fact, private commercial operations that provide no tangible benefit and present profound adverse consequences that are much more serious than the negative aspects of a billboard \u2013 which the town would never approve?<\/p>\n

The adverse consequences of industrial wind turbines are clear and undisputed<\/em> \u2013 even if the magnitude<\/em> of the impacts is the subject of debate. But what, if any, are the tangible benefits to the community, in exchange for allowing the developer an opportunity for profit and in exchange for enduring these consequences?<\/p>\n

If the Planning Board is going to endorse such a dramatic exception<\/em> to the Town\u2019s overriding philosophy of protecting communal interests from unwarranted intrusion, what reasons can it offer for granting such a breathtaking exception? Is it enough simply to blurt out such vague and\/or misleading phrases as \u201cclean, renewable energy\u201d, \u201creduce our carbon footprint,\u201d \u201cend our addiction to foreign oil\u201d or \u201cachieve energy independence\u201d?<\/p>\n

If the developer states that he will reduce green house gas emissions, it is not enough for him merely to claim that he will do so? Shouldn\u2019t he be required to demonstrate how<\/strong><\/em> he will do so? And shouldn\u2019t he be required to show us the basis for his calculations \u2013 so that we may evaluate the validity of his claim<\/span>?<\/p>\n

5. The Burden of Proof Rests with the Applicant (the Developer) \u2013 And Don\u2019t You Forget It!<\/p>\n

If there is a wind turbine proposal in your town, then your town very likely has a newly minted zoning bylaw which allows a staggering \u201cmaximum permissible height\u201d for industrial wind turbines that will dwarf any other structure on the horizon. You can\u2019t park a trailer in front of your house, but you can now erect a 500 foot wind turbine on your property, subject to approval from the Planning Board.<\/p>\n

This zoning bylaw was likely advocated by lawyers for some developer with a twinkle in his eye and a plan; it was passed by your local zoning and planning boards on a wintry Tuesday evening while you were trying to regroup from a hard day at work doing whatever you do. Somehow, it never occurred to you that you needed to vigilant enough to attend ALL of the meetings of your local Zoning Board to prevent such insanity. Shame on you. What were you thinking?<\/p>\n

The zoning bylaw very likely provides that any \u201cUtility Scale Wind Generation Facilities\u201d \u2013 which is to say, industrial wind energy plants in your residential neighborhood that tower 500 feet above with blades weighing several tons apiece spinning at 180 mph \u2013 require the grant of a \u201cSpecial Permit\u201d by the full Planning Board.<\/p>\n

The Special Permit obligates<\/em> the developer (who insists that he is doing it all for the sake of the community — and not for the historically unprecedented gusher of state and federal grants, depreciation deductions, renewable energy credits, investment tax credits, revenue subsidies, and the like, which generate such a handsome return) to satisfy certain specified criteria in order to receive his permit.<\/p>\n

You become alarmed \u2013 and rightly so. You raise a few questions and concerns \u2013 and suddenly all hell breaks loose. You do a little more research. Now you are REALLY alarmed.<\/p>\n

So what does the developer do and say?<\/p>\n

He tells you that you can\u2019t prove<\/span><\/em> any of it; that your research is not \u201cpeer reviewed\u201d; that his acoustic study and the state statutes show that you must be making up those stories about the hundreds of people who suffer and abandon their homes because, as his tables of data and his \u201cpredictive model\u201d clearly<\/em> show, you are getting all worked up over nothing; yes, they are 500 feet tall, but some people find them beautiful; yes, they kill birds and bats, but so does the sliding glass door on your patio, so what\u2019s the big deal; yes, they make noise, but it\u2019s \u201cno louder than a refrigerator, you\u2019ll get used to it; yes, it does produce a tiny bit of \u201cflicker\u201d but this shouldn\u2019t affect you for more than 25 minutes a day; you\u2019ll get used to that too; that\u2019s what window shades are for; there is no evidence of adverse impact on property values \u2013 see, the Dept. of Energy tells us so; there is no evidence of adverse health consequences: look, I have a study here that was paid for by wind energy lobbyists that proves it. Besides, you\u2019re just a NIMBY who cares only about the fact that your quality of life is about to be unalterably destroyed. One wonders how you can be so obtuse as to miss the larger picture.<\/p>\n

We all have to make sacrifices to reduce our energy footprint and end our addiction to foreign oil. Let\u2019s make a deal: I\u2019ll build the wind turbines \u2013 with your money (through outright grants, investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation, infrastructure support) \u2013 and I\u2019ll do my part to reduce our carbon footprint. You agree to make all of the sacrifices and pay me an outlandish return \u2013 with your money (through additional subsidies and user surcharges) \u2013 and you agree not to make any trouble over the visual pollution, the noise, the environmental impact, the disastrous consequences for your quality of life and the value of your home and nest egg \u2013 and we\u2019ll go forward together, hand in hand, and do this thing together. How does that sound to you?<\/p>\n

That\u2019s pretty much the deal that he\u2019s offering. Who could refuse those terms? Well, practically everyone once they realize what\u2019s really going on! Now you can understand why the developers have told Governor Patrick (and the ever loyal, ever dutiful Executive Director of the Cape Cod Commission) that they desperately<\/span><\/em> need a bill like the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act (WESRA) \u2013 because the developers, having been repeatedly rebuffed, need to be able to put themselves in the position of \u201cmaking you a deal that you can\u2019t refuse\u201d \u2013 like Marlon Brando in \u201cThe Godfather.\u201d<\/p>\n

But we lost track of a VERY important point here in the midst of all of the developer\u2019s dismissals of your concerns. IT IS NOT UP TO YOU TO PROVE DEFINITIVE HARM FROM THESE PROJECTS. THE BURDEN RESTS WITH THE DEVELOPER TO PROVE<\/em><\/span> THAT:<\/p>\n

A) THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT HARM<\/span> TO ABUTTERS AND COMMUNITY; AND<\/p>\n

B) THE BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY WILL OUTWEIGH THE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES<\/span> TO THE COMMUNITY.<\/p>\n

Theoretically, in order to get a Special Permit, the applicant must demonstrate<\/span> \u2013 definitively \u2013 to the satisfaction of the majority of the Planning Board and to the entire community \u2013 that his application will satisfy these criteria.<\/p>\n

You are a citizen. You belong to a community. You have organized yourself around a government that passes local laws like bylaws and whose structure includes a Planning Board. The Planning Board is an instrument of government whose sole purpose is to weigh various proposals and to evaluate their impact upon the community at large<\/span>. Use them. Remind them of their responsibilities. Express your concerns. Document them. Write to them. Call them.<\/p>\n

Tell them that you believe that there is SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF SIGNIFICANT HARM from these projects and you INSIST that the Planning Board \u2013 your Planning Board — require the developer to PROVE to their satisfaction \u2013 to everyone\u2019s satisfaction \u2013 that the applicants project will not produce significant harm.<\/p>\n

Tell them that you insist that the applicant PROVE that his project will not produce significant harm, or disruption to quality of life, or adverse health consequences for ANYONE \u2013 no disruptive flicker, no disruptive noise, no decline in property value, no degradation of the environment \u2013 because the developer does not have the right \u2013 nor should the community, through the operation of the Planning Board grant him the right \u2013 to impose these adverse impacts upon ANY individuals or the community.<\/p>\n

Tell them that you insist that the applicant PROVE to the satisfaction of the Planning Board that \u201cthe benefits to the community outweigh the adverse consequences\u201d \u2013 as the Special Permit language provides.<\/p>\n

If they say \u2013 as the Cape Cod Commission has baldly stated \u2013 that if we don\u2019t allow such an outrage, we\u2019ll never be able to build and industrial wind turbines on Cape Cod, because of the density of the population \u2013 tell them: \u201cSo be it! In that case, maybe we weren\u2019t meant to have wind turbines on Cape Cod after all!\u201d<\/p>\n

Your Planning Board exists for the express purpose of protecting you and your community. It does not belong to the developer. It belongs to you. Insist that they do their job and tell them if they are going to allow construction of such consequential structures \u2013 which will inevitable divide the community into bitter factions as an extra bonus, as the industrial wind turbines inevitably do \u2013 then they better have a damn good reason.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll leave you with one last thought. I was fortunate to have an opportunity to see the new documentary movie WINDFALL at the NYC DOC film festival last week about the resistance of citizens in Meredith, NY to a developer\u2019s efforts to divide and conquer the community by stealth and to install a series of huge wind energy plants there. The citizens faced an uphill battle. THEIR Planning Board did extensive research for a year and recommended against the project. Their Selectmen \u2013 who were financially conflicted \u2013 rejected the Planning Board\u2019s recommendation \u2013 without foundation \u2013 and decided to move forward with the necessary laws and approvals to allow it! So the citizens decided to run their own slate of candidates to replace the existing selectmen.<\/p>\n

As one of the wind turbine opponents said, they had been told for months that they were an illegitimate \u201cvocal minority\u201d of mostly \u201crecent arrivals\u201d to the area (\u201cdownstaters,\u201d in New York parlance) \u2013 and they feared that it was true. Until they began campaigning, that is. What they found when they started going through the phone book and systemically contacting residents was that the sentiment regarding the wind turbines was overwhelmingly<\/span><\/em> opposed to them. They won by a landslide and they threw the bums out.<\/p>\n

They prevented the destruction of their cherished countryside and they ended the threat; but they did so at great cost. The community remains bitterly divided, with many friendships shattered, over a proposal that never should have seen the light of day \u2013 because it was fundamentally antithetical to the values of the community and it was fueled by the desire of a handful of people to appropriate resources that properly belong to the community, collectively, for their own private gain.<\/p>\n

Please don\u2019t allow this happen in Bourne; or Brewster; or Wareham; or Plymouth; or anywhere. Start calling your Planning Board and your neighbors. Tell them that you are extremely concerned about where this is all heading and about its potential impact on the community. I think you, too, will be surprised by the reception you receive.
\n\u00b7<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Eric Bibler is a writer living in Connecticut. (Yes, the glasses are real.)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u2014Eric Bibler, WTS.com guest editor \u00b7 The other day I was contacted by a woman from Bourne, Massachusetts, who wrote to say that she and her neighbors feel ambushed by a wind turbine project \u2013 or, at least, that, as is typical, they were late in understanding the implications of the proposed project there (six 500 foot wind turbines) and that they are scrambling to head it off. I thought that this list of relatively simple \u201cthings to do\u201d might be helpful to people in Brewster, Wareham, Plymouth–all in Massachusetts–and anywhere else projects are currently proposed. The operative theme here is that you live in a community and that a community is a collective enterprise. You\u2019ve gathered yourselves together and established an intricate town government to manage your affairs. Why? Because you have all committed to the idea that you have a shared interest in achieving certain goals and providing certain services \u2013 health and safety, education, transportation, EMS and fire, police, regulation of hazards, building codes, environment, historic preservation, land conservation, parks, and so forth \u2013 all of which contribute to the quality of life in the community and all of which are fundamental to your decision to make your homes there.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[171,16],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11238"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11238"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11238\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}