All County, All the Time Since 2010 MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Monday, November 23rd, 2020

PEC WIND WATCH

Click here for link to all “WIND TURBINE” news on countylive.ca

Windmills in PEC?
POLL RESULTS HERE

LOCAL RESOURCES

APPEC

Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County – committed to energy conservation and the development of responsible alternative forms of energy that preserve the unique historical, cultural, agricultural and rural character of the County and the natural beauty of its landscape.

CCSAGE

The County Coalition for Safe and Appropriate Green Energy (CCSAGE) – citizens’ groups and business owners in PEC to ensure that Ontario’s Green Energy Act does not harm County residents, the natural environment or the local economy. Click here for more information.

THE COUNTY SUSTAINABILITY GROUP

The County Sustainability Group is involved in examining the specific challenges we will inevitably face because of global warming, climate change, peak oil, and resource constraints. If we act creatively, we have an opportunity to identify changes that can lead to a healthier, more sustainable lifestyle and a healthier environment—one with cleaner air, abundant water, fertile land, renewable energy , and a vibrant, caring community.

GILEAD POWER

Gilead Power – Our mission is to identify and develop clean energy projects with respect for our environment, concern for our neighbours and responsibility to our shareholders.

PEC FIELD NATURALISTS

The Prince Edward County Field Naturalists – We support renewable energy. But we also believe that wind turbines should never be built where they’re likely to cause significant harm to migrating birds and bats, and endangered species. That’s also the policy of Ontario Nature, a charitable organization which represents over 30,000 members and supporters, and 140 member groups across Ontario. – Click here for more information

POINT-TO-POINT

Point to Point PEC – an organization of concerned local citizens working to protect Prince Edward County’s South Shore, specifically to protect the land between Point Petre to Prince Edward Point (a.k.a Long Point and Point Traverse), the waters beyond out to Main Duck Island.

SOUTH SHORE CONSERVANCY

The Prince Edward County South Shore Conservancy (SSC) – strives to ensure that only appropriate development occurs in the area so that its natural state sustains indefinitely the habitat and species found there.



.
.
.
.
.
Click on the pie chart for last hour’s power demand, price and fuel mix for all of Ontario.
 

 

 

Filed Under: Local Services

About the Author:

RSSComments (42)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. David Norman says:

    @ Ray, a delicious irony; There is now an abundance of radioactive Thorium sitting in the tailing ponds of Rare Earth processing plants for the production of Neodymium and Dysprosium for the permanent magnets used in Industrial Wind Turbines.

  2. Ray Hobson says:

    I like the colour scheme and motif. Wind farm developers/carpetbaggers choose names and images which give us a false sense of well being. However, there is a storm brewing so we must not sit on the sidelines.

    At one time I was ambivalent about wind farm development and researching the issue is complicated as facts are difficult to separate from opinion. However I have observed that many municipalities of the world that previously entered into industrial wind turbine development are now saying STOP.

    Ontario should also say STOP. We tried and found the policy to be very wrong on so many fronts.
    • The Province of Ontario is basically broke and cannot afford to subsidize these marginal benefit projects (per Drummond, etc)
    • High Hydro One rates drive jobs away it does not attract employers
    • The majority of citizens in PEC are against Industrial Wind Turbine development
    • The last Provincial election shows clearly that rural Ontario rejects the Liberal minority policies as per the Green Energy Act, FIT, etc
    • Expert testimony regarding the negative effects on nature and the environment is being ignored by the developer/carpetbagger with the support of our Liberal/NDP Government
    • Health effects are not fully understood, it is fact that people have testified to adverse effects and the negative testimonies are growing in number worldwide
    • Property values are severely devalued in South Marysburgh and other parts of Ontario where industrial turbines are installed or planned
    • Projects with a mechanical life of less than 20 years will not solve our North American Energy problems.
    • As an Engineer, I support a Thorium future for the long term. India and China (with Bill Gates $$ support) appear to agree. For the short term, small local hydro generating dams (per Belleville) should be installed ASAP

  3. Chris Keen says:

    @Joan – you are right. Any homeowner who will be a “noise receptor”, or even in sight of these IWTs, if they are built should have an appraisal. But … the appraiser should value your property as though the IWTs have NOT been built or contemplated.

    God forbid that they are ever built, but if so, a second appraisal would then be needed to show the expected 40+ percent decline in the value of the property.

    The difference would then be the basis of a lawsuit against the landowners who allowed construction of the IWTs, and the companies that built them as well as MPAC for tax relief.

    I,too, have been told virtually every property in South Marysburgh is unsalable by a realtor acquaintance.

    Thank you, Dear Leader McGuinty.

  4. Joan says:

    I live out on County Road 13, I have had my house up for sale for over a year. Last week my agent told me my house is unsellable, The house is good shape very nice location, but the Wind Mills are going up in my back year. Anyone that lives in this area should have there house apraisel, as you may be surprised what you house is really worth

  5. Marie says:

    Occupy Milford…use internet access to display google earth images on laptops if anyone wants to see how bad it will be. It will be bad. treat yourself to viewing this images. Just ask me if you need help with this. Why Milford? Because we are the most affected. Lots of tourist traffic summer weekends in and around Hick’s store. Unfortunately I will be out of town the may 2-4 weekend, so will not be able to spearhead this weekend, but would be available for shifts other weekends. People, especially younger people need this to get a little ugly. And it is ugly. Sorry, but that’s the only way protesting really works as I see. Kudos to all for their efforts this far, but we need to hit tourists in order to make any kind of impact outside of the county. Do I want to see protesters in Milford? Absolutely not, that’s why it’s ugly, and that’s why it might be a little effective. Is the Library or Post Office public land. Are we allowed to be there to have a peaceful protest? Regarding the LCBO, pretty sure we probably wouldn’t be allowed to be there, but good things to check into…

  6. Loretta says:

    @Ray Hobson Province Wide Information Picket at Tourism areas – Victoria Day Weekend

    Easy place to I can think of to picket in any tourist or urban areas are the liquor and beer stores – everyone goes to buy beer/wine or drives by one on their way to the get groceries.

    The County has three bridges and a ferry – set up information pickets on those 4 locations and you get everyone coming into the County whether they are here for a few hours (wineries?) or staying overnight.

  7. Ray Hobson says:

    Looks like some citizens are taking the fight to another level!

    From Toronto Star April 20th, 2012
    Who can stop the wind? These residents are trying
    STAYNER—The little hut not far from the end of Kevin Elwood’s airstrip looks more like a hobbit house than anything: almost a play house, a mere 16 by 20 feet.

    But since it comes complete with electricity, running water and a septic system it qualifies as a dwelling.

    And it’s part of a game of tic-tac-toe between a wind developer and a group of local residents who want nothing to do with wind turbines.

    The residents have been sprinkling mini-houses like Elwood’s in the path of proposed turbines – knowing that provincial rules forbid turbines from being erected within 550 metres of a dwelling.

    It has cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, permit fees and building materials.

    “It has taken a lot of money and a lot of time,” says Elwood’s neighbour Chuck Magwood, who has 400 acres nearby, with a similar mini-house, one of seven in total that are either built, permitted, or under construction.

    “But we haven’t even started to do what it takes to win.”

    Another neighbour, Michael Dickinson, growls: “They’re trying to ram it down the wrong people’s throats.”

    So far, they say they’ve raised $750,000 from about 100 donors to fund the battle.

    Elwood, Magwood and other opponents like to paint themselves as Davids battling a Goliath wind developer – in this case WPD Canada, a unit of an energy company operating in 21 countries around the world.

    But theirs isn’t the only side.

    Six of the eight turbines in the proposed development will be on property leased from John Beattie, a neighbouring farmer.

    Beattlie is as determined to win – and as convinced of the rightness of his position – as are his opponents.

    He points to the current drought gripping Ontario as a symptom of climate change sweeping the planet.

    He wants to do his part in promoting green energy, and reducing the use of fossil fuels.

    “Last night I babysat three of my grandchildren,” Beattie said in an interview. “They’re six months, two years and five years. What am I leaving them? What’s the legacy?

    “I will do whatever I can to help save the planet for my children and grandchildren. I am proud to be part of a green energy project. And if more green energy projects come along, I will jump into them with both feet.”

    That doesn’t wash with Elwood, Magwood and Dickinson, who argue they want to preserve the rolling landscape of Clearview Township, where the ground starts to slope up toward the Niagara Escarpment.

    Elwood, who runs a tree farm and nursery employing 22 workers, says he’s already seen business slow, as those who are drawn to the area to build scenic dream homes wonder whether they want to share the landscape with whirling white turbine blades by day, and flashing red lights by night.

    “This is beautiful country – and this is where they pick to put the turbines,” says Elwood. “I don’t know anywhere there’s more beautiful rolling hills.”

    Elwood is also a commercial pilot, flying his own aircraft from his farm, and piloting two Beaver aircraft out of nearby Collingwood airport.

    Flying is another bone of contention: Elwood says the turbines intrude on normal take-off and landing paths, both on his own strip and in Collingwood. (The manager of the Collingwood airport has branded the decision to locate the turbines in the airport as “loony.”)

    Forcing pilots to use non-standard approaches, he says, increases risks.

    Kevin Surette, spokesman for the developer, WPD, says the company hired an aviation consultant who says the turbines are safe.

    With his thriving nursery and flying businesses, Elwood perhaps doesn’t fill the bill as a barefoot David facing a hulking Goliath.

    Nor do his supporters. While Magwood’s parents first bought land in Clearview in 1952, and he has owned his present land since 1993, Magwood is best remembered in Toronto as the man in charge of building the SkyDome, now the Rogers Centre.

    Dickinson once owned a couple of radio stations in Vancouver.

    But they are steadfast in their opposition to the turbines.

    “There’s no place I can be on my 400 acres where I won’t be looking at one of those things,” said Magwood.

    “I don’t like what they look like. I don’t like the political game plan. And the economic model is a joke.”

    “My intent to preserve the values of this area is profound and rigid.”

    Surette acknowledges the company has shifted the location of its turbines, but insists it’s not because of the development’s critics, or their new buildings.

    “When this was all developing, additional lands became available to us, and we thought: Well, let’s use these additional lands and place our turbines there,” says Surette. “We did in fact move some turbines but it was not to accommodate the ancillary structures.”

    (The opponents insist they did force WPD’s hand, because the company missed a filing deadline.)

    WPD will hold a public meeting toward the end of the summer to detail its plans, as part of the process to obtain a feed-in tariff agreement with the province, Surette said.

    But the bad blood remains. A group of landowners in the area are suing WPD and the farm business owned by John Beattie and his family, for damaging their property values.

    Beattie is unrepentant.

    “There is a group of people,” he said. “They are not what we call locals. They’re people who’ve come into the community for their secondary or tertiary homes. My family’s been in this are for generations. We’re living our lives and this dovetails perfectly with a farm business.”

    Like his adversaries, Beattie vows not to back down.

    “We’d never change our minds,” he says.

    “Morally it’s the right thing to do.”

  8. Ray Hobson says:

    Province Wide Information Picket at Tourism areas – Victoria Day Weekend Posted on 04/07/2012

    Start Planning for May 21, 2012!
    Groups from all over Ontario will target visitors of major tourist areas in a province-wide information picket. Where do the urbanites flock to in your area on the long weekend? Please join other groups in this effort. More information will be posted as it becomes available.

    http://ontario-wind-resistance.org

    The above post is calling for us to get organized Province wide.
    This event could be an outlet for those of us who wish to more visibly active.

  9. Chris Keen says:

    When I originally read this interview, I felt that it revealed clearly that McGuinty has absolutely no interest in any dialogue, on any level, with those who oppose him. Their protest simply induces headaches in the poor man. What a contemptible thing to say!

    If he knows of “all sorts of communities that want them” I don’t understand why he needs to spend more money setting up a points system. Unfortunately, Jason Miller did not ask the obvious question – “which communities?” – a regrettable omission.

  10. Ray Hobson says:

    Interesting development in UK. It seems that many of their politicians are much more responsive. Lets hope they proceed.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9205837/Ministers-preparing-to-veto-windfarms.html

  11. Ray Hobson says:

    JASON MILLER | QMI AGENCY
    BELLEVILLE, ON – Ontario’s premier is introducing a points system to identify rural communities who welcome renewable energy installations like wind turbines.

    The new program will be key to circumventing the angst of factions in areas like Prince Edward County, where the municipal government has vehemently opposed the implementation of wind turbines in their community, Premier Dalton McGuinty said during an interview Friday.

    Communities who express a favourable demand for renewable energy will be awarded the bulk of contracts under the new points system, that would place communities without majority support like the county at the “back of the line.”

    “I’ve got all kinds of communities that want them,” he said. “I don’t need the headaches that are associated with them going into communities that don’t want them.”

    During the interview, McGuinty also made it clear he will not sacrifice health care or full-day kindergarten for horse racing.

    “I’d prefer to invest in the hospital (and)… expansion of full-day kindergarten here,” he said. “We’re no longer going to provide subsidies for that industry (racetracks). We have to find $16 billion dollars here.”

    The above is a taken from the Belleville Intell during Dolt’s interview April 13th.

    I understand that this points system only applies to new projects so the last resort to stop turbines would need to be an election. The Budget vote is April 24th but the NDP continues to try to “sell” their support.

    The current level of Provincial debt is completely unsustainable. We must take a big picture approach to get the Turbines stopped. The cost of another election is a small price in the long term.

    Unfortunately I am unable to think of a plan whereby we can put pressure on the NDP.

    Are there any principled Liberals willing to do the right thing?

  12. David Norman says:

    Gary, the exchange both you and I have had with John in this commentary, and similar exchanges in other commentary about the presence of Industrial Wind Turbines in PEC, highlights the conundrum I experience whenever I attempt to address this issue. I research each and every statement of supposed fact, pro or con. I do not mean to be disparaging, simply pragmatic, but I do not readily accept the assertions of either you or John (pro or con)… nor should you accept mine. My emotion in this respect falls on the con side of the continuum but my intellect always calls this into question. That we are reduced to garnering “truth”, looking for transparency in the suppositions and interpretations of each other, the potential victims or victors, reduces our efforts to pathetic pleas for reason and justice, even vested interest, in a relatively complex, at times chaotic, cultural system. Everything we have introduced can be considered at best, little more than “educated” guesses, intuition, since no one of us can possibly discover and understand the motives of all others concerned. I perceive that Government and Corporate interests do not truly understand the implications of this Industrial Wind Turbine impetus, however, they find validity in those aspects of it that continue to work in their favor… that coincide with and support their respective ideologies. There is no certainty of reason to be had here, no altruism, no respect, no trust and most certainly there will be no triumph one way or another. We will all only be left with the inevitable consequences of our actions.

  13. Gary Mooney says:

    John, I have reviewed our records and stand by the comments I made about DND’s acceptance / rejection of proposed turbine locations.

  14. John Thompson says:

    Gary, DND concerns during the early draft stage for SkyPower seemed to amount to “do the draft layout and we will look at it.” The project work came essentialy to a halt after the Lehman collapse and was subsequently taken over by CPV. They dropped it because DND concerns were then communicated for the whole project area. At no time did DND actually accept a number to my knowledge.

  15. Gary Mooney says:

    John, you seem to have information about DND that nobody else has. We know that DND has current concerns about limited areaa in the vicinity of Trenton and Mountain View airports, but we have little in the way of specifics. We do know that parts of Ameliasburgh, Sophiasburgh and Noth Marysburgh are ruled out for wind turbines at this time.

    By the way, you’ll recall that DND accepted a significant number of turbines (was it 11 out of 43?) in the now-cancelled Skypower wind project in Sophiasburgh / Hallowell.

    We know that research is underway to make turbine blades “stealthy” (undetectable by radar) and to upgrade radar software to cancel out turbine images. So today’s restrictions are not tomorrow’s. It wouldn’t surprise me if, in a few years, the Skypower plan is resurrected.

    When you estimate that there is room for only 38 to 60 turbines (the former number being Gilead + WPD) and only in South Marysburgh and Athol, you imply that the 2000+ residents of those two wards really don’t matter. We disagree. And you’re silent on the serious harm that will be caused to birds in the South Shore IBA.

    We’re not going to sit around for two years and then check to see what has happened around us. We’re going to do our best to ensure that what needs protection from wind turbines gets protection from wind turbines.

  16. Doris Lane says:

    The only people these wind developers will tramp all over are the little people ,they will not take on the DND after all they are part of the government-or closely connected
    Sometimes I don’t understand what are supposed democracy is all about–are we really democractic ordo we just hope we are???

  17. David Norman says:

    John, the only thing that would be constrained in this regard are the profit margins. Unlike what these developers experience with powerless communities where they are assured that the review/approval process is fixed in their favor, the review process against the DND would actually cost them significant funds with the only guarantee being a fair pragmatic decision. As we’ve seen they can not tolerate fairness.

  18. John Thompson says:

    Perhaps rather than using the word “restricted”, I should have used the word “constrained” as DND has indicated that their concerns in all areas except Athol and SM would result in their formal objection to projects. Wind developers will not try to proceed in those cases as it would be futile. This has happened in Sophiasburgh and N Marysburgh.

  19. David Norman says:

    John… on what basis do you make the statement about “unrestricted air space” being confined to SM and Athol. This is untrue and you have no documentation to support this. There is restricted air space surrounding the air base, and restricted corridors, however, this leaves many areas of the County open to Industrial Wind Turbine development. The real issue, was not about Industrial Wind Turbine development per se, but the legal ramifications of Provincial Liberal governments Green Energy Act to challenge Federal jurisdiction. This would have amounted to a constitutional challenge which McGuinty could ill afford, particularly with a majority Conservative Federal government. Restrictions were never indicated, only objections, which incidentally would also have created an undue expense to the “review” process… an expense the Industrial Wind Turbine developers would have had to bare.

  20. Chris Keen says:

    @John Thompson. Only 38 -> 60 turbines? Not 200? What a relief for the hundreds of thousands of birds and the few remaining bats trying to migrate through here in the spring and fall. The Blandings Turtles and the Whip-or-wills will be grateful too. What a relief for the people who will be made ill by the IWTS or driven mad by the flicker through their windows. And certainly this is a huge relief to the 100s of landowners whose property values will decline drastically, if they can be sold at all. And of course the landscape will be so much prettier than Wolfe Island because there will be fewer IWTS.

  21. John Thompson says:

    Gary,it’s been known for quite a while now that SM and Athol are the only areas with unrestricted air space so there would be no possibility of 200 turbines going up. My guess is 38-60 is the maximum buildout of this form of sustainbale energy so lets check back in a couple of years and see.

  22. Gary Mooney says:

    Here’s what you can expect from WPD / White Pines (29 turbines in Phase 1). Within 2 km of a wind turbine, the rule of thumb is that property values decline by 20% to 40% but, in the worst cases, properties will not be sellable at any price.

    Because WPD is closely identified with South Marysburgh, it will be difficult to sell ANY property within the ward. In any case, the selling time will be MUCH longer, often more than a year.

    If the County gets a couple of hundred turbines, property values County-wide will decline by about 10% due to loss of “quality of place”.

  23. Doris Lane says:

    Chris MPAC will never let a case regarding turbines go through. As you say it would be a precedent setting case and yes the government has a say in these things,they appoint the tribunial that hears these cases.
    When we lived in Cressy we started a group called CREEK and we started an action against MPAC which was made up of around 20 properties and it involved all sort of deputations and mpac hired one of the best Belleville lawyers who ended up producing a 6 inch binder etc. we finally dropped the appeal as the threat of court costs was loming and we knew we could not win. One property held in to the end and was not granted
    his appeal.. Check who is on the mpac board.
    Of course the municipalities do not want the assessments lowered–reduces their tax base.
    The turbine situation is a no win situation–the property owners hands are tied
    Talking to a realestate agent at the Town Hall and she said she cannt sell a property on Wolfe Island

  24. Chris Keen says:

    As far as MPAC’s very narrow interpretation is concerned, as long as two three bedroom bungalows with two baths on the same size property in the same area (for example) are assessed at roughly the same value – there is no appeal.

    As far as MPAC is concerned, “external” issues do not affect property assessments because they don’t just impact one property. Therefore the above assessment example remains valid – so no appeal.

    It is interesting that the Council on Wolfe Island spent thousands having properties assessed and Transalta spent tens of thousands on lawyers to fight this appeal and that the hearing went on for days. Yet this was not a precedent-setting hearing? Hmmm.

    Of course we will never know, but it is curious that it took the two-person panel months to make a decision, when most cases are decided in a matter of hours. Political interference anyone?

    Unfortunately, the net effect of this is that no one in Ontario, who sees their property value decline because of proximity to a wind turbine, can use that issue to appeal their property tax through the inexpensive MPAC appeal process. (Unless, of course, someone funds a very expensive legal appeal of this MPAC decision.)

    Those who find they cannot sell their houses for what it was valued at pre-turbine, (if they are constructed here), will have to sue the turbine company and the landowners for compensation.

    For MPAC to take such a narrow interpretation of what determines a property’s value flies in the face of logic. The CBC article cited above contains a link to a related article discussing dozens of cases in S.W. Ontario where properties are unsellable, abandoned, sold at a loss, sold to the turbine company to settle a suit etc…

    And, closer to home, I understand that no house at the west end of Wolfe Island has sold in several years. Coincidence? I think not.

  25. Doris Lane says:

    Just to weigh in on the property values issue. Of course IWTs will effect property values,not only near the turbines but all over the County. I was talking to a lady one day who has moved here in the last couple of years and she said she did not know about the turbine situation and although it will probably never be close to her property she said she would have chosen a community that was not involved in this very negative situation.
    Turbines will ruin the whole county. It will become a place where people will not want to come
    And the whole thing is not about green energy it is about GREED
    I have also been told that some famous people are buying up land in the county to lease to turbine companies, of course they will be absentee landowners–maybe that is not true but time will tell

  26. Eric says:

    Interesting.. “Ontario couple loses wind turbines property tax case”… http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/04/07/tor-wind-turbines-case.html

  27. David Norman says:

    I urge you all to watch and comment on this trailer from the documentary “Windfall” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeFR-VoWme4. And here is Roger Ebert`s review; http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2012/02/02/roger-ebert-reviews-windfall/#more-40290.

  28. Gary Mooney says:

    I don’t stand to benefit or lose financially from wind turbines in the County unless ALL property values in the County are reduced due to large-scale industrialization.

    What motivates me is the thought of the majority of people in South Marysburgh being located too close to WPD/Gilead turbines (i.e. within 2 km) and some of them suffering from sleep deprivation or annoyance leading to stress leading to ..

    At an absolute minimum, people have to feel safe and comfortable in their own home. If they don’t have this, you don’t have anything.

  29. sab says:

    Unfortunately, I believe that those most vocal about the proposed turbines (for or against) are more interested in either the money they will make or the money the MAY loose

  30. David Norman says:

    @ Lee
    You stated, “The truly sad part of this debate is that those who are in favor of turbines are in a position to financially gain from them or know someone who will.”
    If this is in fact the case I would like to see some details. Although I too have jumped to unsupported conclusions and have similar suspicions, I do not truly know this to be the case… perhaps with the exception of those associated with the local OFA members who stand to benefit from land lease agreements. I have been a vocal critic of some members of the CSG, but at the same time chose to believe in the sincerity of their stated cause of sustainability. I recognize and support the basic tenants of the CSG cause, but simply disagree on the particular IWT solution they expound. Both sides, pro and con are subject to manipulation for political purpose.

  31. Lee says:

    The truly sad part of this debate is that those who are in favor of turbines are in a position to financially gain from them or know someone who will. Take away the financial incentive and see how many would be in favor of it. Ask those in favor to donate their land to the installments and take note of what happens. It’s all about money, not green energy.
    Remember the sludge debate? Why would anyone agree to have it dumped on their land? Money, that’s why.

  32. Brock McKay says:

    Gary,

    Don’t you know that none of that matters? CSG says the majority of County residents are in favour of turbines which means it must be so!

  33. Gary Mooney says:

    Beth, it’s that most people in the County are against wind turbines. As evidence, 7 of 9 Councillors who were in favour of wind turbines were not reelected in the 2010 municipal election. Also, Todd Smith (PC), who opposed wind turbines in the provincial election campaign last fall, beat out sitting MPP and cabinet minister Leona Dombrowsky (Liberal), with strong support from County voters. A couple of years ago, about 1000 County residents signed a local petition against wind turbines. Hundreds of people have come out to public meetings and rallies opposing wind turbines. A large majority of letters to the editor on the topic of wind turbines are opposed. More than $250,000 was raised locally from hundreds of donors in support of the Ian Hanna legal challenge of wind turbines. All of the members / supporters of local groups APPEC, CCSAGE, South Shore Conservancy, Point to Point PEC Foundation and some members of PEC Field Naturalists are opposed to wind turbines for one reason or another. Thirteen of 16 Councillors have voted in opposition to wind turbines on one or more occasions.

    On the other side of the coin, I see almost no evidence of local support for wind turbines. The leasing landowners for sure plus family and friends, 3 Councillors, the County Sustainability Group, the occasional letter writer and that’s pretty much it. No petitions, public meetings, rallies — nothing.

  34. Beth says:

    Gary: Is it that most people in the County are against wind turbines or most people that you speak with are against wind turbines?

  35. Chris says:

    So interesting …. if you look carefully between the old fence lines there are many furrows about 10m apart still visible. Look carefully at the square formed by Helmer and Petticoat. How come there are no farm houses? Were they all up on CR 13?

    And, what the heck is that horseshoe-like thing just south of Babylon (between Helmer and Ostrander), and that L-shaped “alien landing strip” to the right of it?????

  36. Dayton Johnson says:

    Terry: Those furrows at Pt. Traverse were probably left from the plowing/recovery of the target bombing done there in the early 50s. My Dad and uncle used a modified single furrow plow and a 10-20 Deering tractor to plow up these bombs for the lead and brass salvage business. Property then was privately owned by a Mrs. McConnell Local farmers and fishermen all participated for extra income.Easy pickings because of the the shallow ground. I found one myself about 10 years ago.
    PS. Elsie of “Poverty Acres” is my cousin.

  37. They are indeed old fence lines and property borders, most, if not all, comprising split rail fences. I have flown over that area many times and the fences are straight as an arrow. The limestone bedrock is very close to the surface down that way but, incredibly, pioneers eked out a living on that soil, right to the Point proper where even some of the dead furrows still remain. Then, came the red cedar invasion. One farm, once owned by John Edward Sprague, for many years, was affectionally called “Poverty Acres”.

  38. Jack Dall says:

    Chris having walked a lot of the south shore area and looking at my property on Google. I am almost certain that they are old fence lines

  39. Chris says:

    I am intrigued by the properties down where the wind park is proposed. I was down there this past Saturday (that’s my pic above) and walked around for a bit. Interesting to hear from an adjacent landowner.
    If you look carefully on Goggle Maps in the Satellite mode, you can clearly see ‘lines’ running NW/SE, especially above Helmer Rd. The lines carry on across the road and down into the subject area.
    What are they? Old fence lines from farms long ago? The more you zoom in, the more interesting it becomes. Some are really close together – almost like furrows.They’re all quite straight and symmetrical.
    Impossible to discover this by walking around, especially in winter.

  40. Gary Mooney says:

    Jack, this is the dilemma faced by folks who own property near wind turbines. The rule of thumb being quoted for properties located within 2 km of wind turbines is a 20% to 40% loss.

    But it’s true that, in a few cases, property owners have been unable to sell at any non-trivial price. In these cases, it must be that nobody is willing to risk their health by purchasing a home close to a wind turbine.

    After being threatened by lawsuits, Canadian Hydro Developers (now Transalta) purchased four properties from howeowners near their operating wind project at Melancthon and subsequently resold them at an average 34% loss.

    Here’s a link to a CBC story on property values:http://tinyurl.com/3qm4c6u .

    But take heart! There are no wind turbines in the County yet. Most County residents don’t want turbines here, and some are working very hard to keep them out or at least 2 km away from any house.

    A couple of things that you can do:
    * Join APPEC to be kept up to date with what’s going on.
    * Get legal advice on what your options may be.

    There are at least two active lawsuits in Ontario launched against wind energy developers by property owners who believe that their properties have been devalued. In one case, the leasing landower has been named in the suit as well.

    There is also rumour of a lawsuit being considered by a recent purchaser of a County property who was not informed by either the vendor or the vendor’s agent of the possibility of wind turbines.

    Toronto-based Eric Gillespie is the lawyer who is most involved in acting for Ontario groups and families who are challenging the government, developers and landowners re adverse effects of wind turbine projects on health and property values.

    Remember: It’s not over ’til it’s over. And it’s not over.

  41. Jack Dall says:

    I currently own 24 acres of property adjacent to proposed turbine site on the south shore. I have been told that this proposal has devalued my property by approximatley 100,000 dollars. After a one to one with the Mayor of Wolfe Island. I don,t think it is a 100,000 , according to the Mayor I simply will not be able to sell it, period. Who is going to pay for my losses??

  42. Dayton Johnson says:

    A pretty convincing argument both here and the recent position taken by the OFA.
    How many landowners would offer up their acreage if they were not getting paid for it….as in “doing their part” for the good of green. uh,energy of course!

OPP reports
lottery winners
FIRE
SCHOOL
Elizabeth Crombie Christine Henden
Tony Scott Sharon Armitage

HOME     LOCAL     MARKETPLACE     COMMUNITY     CONTACT US
© Copyright Prince Edward County News countylive.ca 2020 • All rights reserved.