All County, All the Time Since 2010 MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Thursday, March 28th, 2024

South Marysburgh votes ‘no’ to wind turbines

Votes cast  Saturday indicate residents do not want wind turbines installed in South Marysburgh.

The South Marysburgh Mirror hosted a vote on the question: “Do you want industrial wind turbines installed in South Marysburgh like the ones proposed by wpd Canada and Gilead Power for their projects near Milford and on the south shore?”

Results of 542 ballots cast: 489 ‘No’; 51 ‘Yes’ 2 spoiled ballots. Based on a population of 868 in South Marysburgh, the voter turnout is 62.4 per cent.

The vote at the Milford Town Hall was restricted to full and part-time residents and property owners in South Marysburgh, with proof a eligibility required. Voting was in person or by proxy.

“This is how democracy is supposed to work,” Prince Edward-Hastings MPP Todd Smith said. “The debate over wind turbines has torn at the social fabric of the County for most of the last decade. The citizens of South Marysburgh decided to hold a vote and settle an important question.”

Smith said the Green Energy Act, which stripped municipalities of most of their planning and zoning authority for these projects, has left local residents and municipal councils with little say in where wind turbines can be located.

“In an April 13 interview withe the Belleville Intelligencer, Dalton McGuinty stated that communities without majority support for wind turbines would go to ‘the back of the line’.

Smith intends to write McGuinty to inform him of the referendum and question him on what he said to the Intelligencer newspaper.

“What I want to know and what the people of Prince Edward County deserve to know is whether the Premier will direct the Minister of Environment to use the authority granted to him by the EBR process to deny approval for the projects in South marysburgh as a result of the referendum. If he doesn’t then what he said to the Intelligencer wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.”

 “I was stunned to learn that this is the first vote of its kind in Ontario, if not Canada,” said Steve Ferguson, editor and publisher. Ferguson hosted the vote to help understand what the community wants.
“I cannot recall a time when I have felt such a mixture of emotions as I do now about our provincial government and the stripping of our rights through the Green Energy Act. With the stroke of a pen, it eliminated any democratic input from municipal governments concerning an issue it knew would affect hundreds of thousands of people, particularly throughout rural Ontario.”

The vote, he says, is not about harnessing or not harnessing the wind to generate electricity; “the vote is about whether it should or shouldn’t be done in the South Marysburgh community using Industrial Wind Turbines.”
At the end of the day, he said, “this vote is all about the future and values of our community,” he said. “Many thanks to all the volunteers who gave up part of their weekend to assist with the vote, and to all the residents and property owners in South Marysburgh who came out to vote.”

 

Filed Under: Local News

About the Author:

RSSComments (103)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Anon says:

    About Sue3’s comments about fires – there also a possibility of fires in any power generating station; are we also going to protest those as well? Does anyone recall the transformer fire in the Lennox switchyard years ago?

  2. Lori Smith says:

    Donna, you claim that everyone is entitled to their opinion, yet you insist that only your views are valid. Your statement that “there are no provisions in the Municipal Act for an individual ward-level referendum so this little exercise was futile anyway” is typical of your narrow minded comments. How often in past posts on this subject, have people used the fact that no survey, or poll existed to support one side or the other, and yet when an impartial one is taken, you reject it’s findings because it contradicts what you claim.

    You denigrate the Mirror as a “tabloid”, David Norman as “debasing the discussion”, dismiss hard facts as “continual manufacturing of other non-substantiated excuses that inflames the issue”, yet you present nothing of any substance to explain your unwavering support of IWTs. All you have managed is to convince me that they do not belong anywhere.

    As far as inflaming the issue, it seems that is exactly what you constantly try to do, so I delight in reading David’s replies to your inane comments.

  3. David Norman says:

    Doris, just noticed your comment of support… a heart felt, thank you.

  4. Sue3 says:

    On fires –

    Ontario Ministry of Labour
    http://www.oafc.on.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Section21/Section21-6/GN-6-35%20Wind%20Turbines.pdf

    “Fires involving wind turbines may present a health and safety hazard to firefighters due to the electronics, flammable oils and hydraulic fluids that exist in the turbines. For example, up to 750 litres of hydraulic oil can be found in the nacelle. Electrical fires can also result from both shorts in equipment and surges that may result from lightning strikes. Additionally, secondary wind driven brush fires originating from wind turbine fires can also result in significant damage……”

    Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs
    http://www.oafc.on.ca/article/3-wind-turbine-failures-firefighters-must-know

    “The obvious challenge facing firefighters is the height involved if a fire occurs in the turbine motor. Towers can extend 300 to 400 feet above ground. However, due to the risk of falling fire debris over a wide area, approaching a burning turbine is usually not an option unless there is a life risk involved. If the turbine is turning, power is being generated and an electrocution hazard will be present. Typically, a good option for firefighters to consider is to evacuate any endangered areas, set up a collapse zone, and attempt to control any ground fires to prevent the fire from spreading to other units. In the case of a runaway or over-speed event, rotating turbines can throw debris thousands of feet away during a blade failure. Pieces of blades have been documented as traveling over 4,200 feet…..”

    North American Clean Energy
    http://www.nacleanenergy.com/?action=article&id=11235

    “Turbine fires—and, particularly those that spread—should be a significant concern, affecting the planning stages of any project……”

  5. David Norman says:

    Donna, truth is you read every post I make… in fact, my comments are the first thing you look for. And I know that you clearly understand what is said. You have a demonstrated skill at taking what is said and convoluting the meaning. In doing so you debase the opinions of others, personally attack their integrity, and quite rudely insult their intentions. I hope you are allowed to continue to post your defamatory comments. Ever consider a career as a lawyer?

  6. Ken Globe says:

    And you could also get a fire from someone going down to the gull pond and parking their vehicle with the hot engine in the tall grass and scrub. Should we just ban all vehicles down there during drought conditions?

  7. Doris Lane says:

    Really good point Mark, if there were turbines out there and one caught fire which it might do and more so when the gears get warm in heat like this , the whole south shore would burn up
    Maybe we could do something with the fire marshalls office as they would be a fire risk
    The teraine has a lot of scrub cedar and it burns very quickly
    Donna do not like your comment about David–he is a very intelligent person and researches what he has to say

  8. Mark says:

    A very narrow minded view that the only two things people do not like about Industrial Wind Turbines is the look and not in my backyard.

    Many, I safely believe a vast majority do not support Industrial Wind Turbines for many more valid reasons;

    – serious health impacts
    – effect upon protected species
    – effect upon a significant migratory bird flyway
    – financial impact upon properties and the devaluation of such making most difficult to sell
    – environmental destruction of the south shore
    – 40 – 50% increase in energy rates to pay for this
    – the negative green payoff taking into account how they are built and what they contain
    – negative impact on tourism
    – additional road maintenance costs
    – a significant fire threat to the south shore (can you imagine a major turbine fire in that area right now)
    – decommissioning costs

    Pretty naive or perhaps just blatantly playing dumb to believe that the only things that people do not like about Turbines is looks and a nimby viewpoint.

  9. Gary Mooney says:

    Chris, those allowed to vote in South Marysburgh included adult property owners and residents (part-time or full-time).

  10. Donna says:

    Chris, of course everyone is entitled to their opinion! The selective voting guidelines and narrow poll question did not give all of South Marysburgh or the rest of PEC citizens an equal chance to express their viewpoints. That, and perhaps many people aren’t concerned enough to make a statement with a vote.

    I have always maintained that the only valid reason for being against wind turbines is disliking how they look and not wanting to see them ‘in my backyard’. It’s the continual manufacturing of other non-substantiated excuses that inflames the issue.

    David, since you insist on debasing the discussion with your personal attacks and rude insults, your posts go unread. CountyLive should not allow your continued defamatory comments.

  11. Chris Keen says:

    @ “Donna” – since nothing anyone says will convince you that those who do not favour IWTs in South Marysburgh are entitled to their opinion, I won’t bother pointing out to you that only property OWNERS (based upon the County’s Tax rolls) were allowed to vote – NOT registered voters.

  12. David Norman says:

    Donna, the only aspect that is “futile” in this respect is the premise of your affidavit. Fact is you resent the true expression of empowerment,freedom and democracy this vote represented… it is after all contrary to the confinement of your education and life experience. All it confirmed was your actual identity.

  13. Donna says:

    Since there are 1117 voters in the South Marysburgh ward, 542 votes is not sufficient to constitute a valid referendum. For a referendum vote to be valid in the province of Ontario, there must be 50% of eligible voters voting. From previous experience, we know that County Council will ignore any such vote.

    It’s ironic that some of the driving force behind the anti-wind movement in South Marysburgh are the very same people that were behind the ward boundary challenge. Had they been successful, there would be no South Marysburgh at all!

    There are no provisions in the Municipal Act for an individual ward-level referendum so this little exercise was futile anyway.

  14. No Name says:

    I posted under No Name just to make a point. Names given to us by our well-meaning mothers decades ago make no difference whatsoever to any discussion. We are all entitled to our opinions and our say. That is democracy.

  15. No Name says:

    First of all, why shouldn’t ALL Prince Edward County citizens have a say in this matter? The anti-winds have continually spread the fear that wind turbines will destroy EVERYTHING in Prince Edward County, from tourism to businesses to health to property values so apparently they think wind energy would affect everyone.

    Why should the rest of the County care what South Marysburgh thinks if South Marysburgh doesn’t care about the rest of the County?

    In the last election there were 1117 eligible voters in South Marysburgh. 50% of that is 559. We know that in this County if you don’t get 50% of the vote, the referendum gets ignored by County Council.

    Interestingly enough, some of the driving forces behind the anti-wind movement in South Marysburgh are the same people who were striving for ward boundary changes. They wanted ward boundary changes to improve democracy in the County. Had they been successful there would be NO South Marysburgh ward!

    There are no provisions in the provincial legislature for a referendum at the ward level, so this little exercise really doesn’t count for anything anyway.

  16. Doris Lane says:

    David I think if you look into things carefully you would find a connection between Legette, donna and JD and maybe even Hazel if she ever writes

    If gilead goes through it is the most criminal act ever put into place by the dalton regime

    Letting a big venture take land that belongs to us the taxpayer and using it for offshore investment–because all oil and turbine etc is just big business and cares not for us the little people

    Maybe there is life on another planet that is not in such a mess as our planet earth

  17. Marnie says:

    Oh get real. The South Marysburgh Mirror is a community newsletter, not a tabloid newspaper.

  18. Chris Keen says:

    @ David Norman … if we wanted to apply the term tabloid to a “County” paper, I suspect it would be applied to the County Weekly News … a regurgitation of stories from the Intel courtesy of that bastion of journalistic excellence Sun Media. Methinks “Donna” is pulling your leg!!

  19. David Norman says:

    Donna, curious that you use the same quite inappropriate “tabloid” pejorative that John Legate of the County Sustainability Group used in the Picton Gazette. Both you and JD seem to be on the same wave length as Legate, to the point of using the same pejoratives and references. You’re being deliberately fallacious. This was a vote exclusive to South Marysburgh resident population of 868, not the entire population of PEC. But you know that… why would you present such a puerile distortion?

  20. Donna says:

    So, the tabloid’s vote resulted in 489 no votes. Out of a total population of 25,258, that equals 1.9% against wind turbines…OR…a possible 98.1% in favour of wind energy!!! How encouraging!

  21. Doris Lane says:

    Marnie most people know who I am–yes sometimes I am called Lois Lane and they ask me where superman is, in a phone both changing into Clark Kent. Sometimes when I meet new people I tell them to think of superman and lois lane and then I get called Lois –boy I bet this more than anyone wanted to know.
    Yoo bad the IWT’s have caused a riff here in the County.
    I thought I knew who you were,and if I am correct I can understand you not wanting to use your last name

    On another note altogether for those people who cannot get a reply from a councillor–try Robert Quaiff–he always responds to me

  22. Marnie says:

    Doris – There may be a number of good reasons that some people prefer not to disclose their full names on this site. Besides, how do we know that those who have apparently disclosed their identities really are who they claim to be? Anyone can make up a nom de plume. You could be Doris Day or Lois Lane for all we know.

  23. Gary Mooney says:

    Chris, based on my considerable experience, it is pretty rare to get a response from an email sent to all of Council, or even an acknowledgement of receipt. It appears that individual Councillors don’t perceive a need to take responsibility for responding to an email sent to many — and to some extent this is understandable. But for anyone who sends only an occasional email to all of Council, he/she is likely to be frustrated by not hearing back from anyone. This is an issue that I addressed in my response to the recent Customer Satisfaction survey.

    Councillors are much better at responding to emails sent only to them and to voice mails. Most Councillors will agree to a meeting upon request. Also, Councillors will respond to individual enquiries from anyone in the County, not just from those in their own ward. This is particularly useful if the person’s own Councillor isn’t helpful on a particular issue.

    Regarding the wind issue, it appears that a clear majority of Council is moderately to strongly opposed to wind turbines. To date, Council has passed at least three motions that challenge wind energy development in some way. But our Council cannot be described as activist on this issue, like some other Councils in the province.. We’ll have to see if the very strong NO vote in the South Marysburgh plebiscite makes them more activist.

  24. Chris Keen says:

    To Gary Mooney – Given the large amount of time and effort you have spent on the issue of IWTs, I will defer to your opinion that Mayor Mertens appearance at the Ontario FIT program in April perhaps preempted further IWT programs in PEC.

    I will however assert that, with the exception of Councillors Quaiff and Lunn, any communication with the Mayor and other councilors on the subject of IWTs was neither acknowledged or responded to. If memory serves me, no action was taken by this Council on this subject until earlier this year.

    I’m sure you can understand the level of frustration this can cause residents who may be directly affected by these monstrosities. If my own Councillor in South Marysburgh won’t acknowledge my concerns, forgive my skepticism if I feel this Council has not perhaps done all it can to represent my concerns.

    I look forward to hearing the Mayor and Council’s plan going forward given the overwhelmingly “no” vote in South Marysburgh this past weekend. Perhaps we simply need more transparency and communication.

    Iam looking forward

  25. Mark says:

    I know that the Smiths Falls,Perth and North Grenville council meetings are aired on cable in those districts. It gives residents a real insight into what is taking place and how their elected representatives are conducting business. That would be a positive development here in Prince Edward which I suspect would be well received by the public.

  26. Dayton Johnson says:

    I agree Mark,,,better yet what about a live or recorded video available online of Councils meetings/discussions? I realize not all are public but as one who cannot attend these sittings it would be great to be kept up to speed. One councillor told me to not believe everything printed on Councils decisions.Certainly would give us all a view of how your councillors are working for you.Just a thought…is there still an AV club/class at the highschool?

  27. David Norman says:

    @ Gary. In following the statements of Mayor Mertens at Council and in the media, I get the impression that he would be front and center should push come to shove. I can’t help wondering if the position of defiance towards Industrial Wind Turbine development in Prince Edward County will in fact cause the Provincial Government to go out of their way to force IWTs upon us. It seems to me that acquiescence to the County’s defiance would set a precedence that they could not tolerate politically. Yet, what other choice is there?

    And in reply to Susan Thorne-Jones, my responses are carefully measured to the presentation and assertions implied… and as you attempted to imply with the proclamation of your Industrial Wind Turbine development position, I measure the content and the implications … what side of the fence someone in on is an irrelevant distraction. As well, it is apparent that my “typical verbose” comments have captured your attention… how else could you make this assertion and what more could I ask?.

  28. Mark says:

    I believe that the municipal council should be telling the residents what action has been taken and the response received to date. Let us know what is happening. Communication is necessary. When the construction begins don”t tell us that everything that could be done was done. Let us know now.

  29. Gary Mooney says:

    To Chris Keen: Mayor Mertens appeared on a panel relating to municipal aspects of wind energy development (I can’t remember the exact topic) at the Ontario FIT Forum in Toronto on April 3-4, 2012, along with the mayor of Chatham-Kent.

    The five hundred attendees at this conference included wind energy developers, investors, provincial and municipal politicians, provincial bureaucrats, equipment suppliers, consultants, lobbyists and green energy promoters.

    During the panel discussion, Mayor Mertens made it crystal clear that Prince Edward County does not want wind turbines, contrasting County government’s position with that of Chatham-Kent.

    This put everyone who has anything to gain from wind energy developent on notice that the wind industry will get a very negative response from PEC and that it would be advisable to look elsewhere. Probably the single most effective action taken to date to keep wind projects away from the County.

  30. Chris Keen says:

    As I recall the Green Energy Plan – and the removal of any municipal consultation on any aspect of the implementation of the plan – was not part of the Liberal election platform. Had it been part of their campaign I cannot imagine the Liberals would have been re-elected.

    When McGuinty announced that municipalities would have no say in the implementation of wind/solar projects our council at the time, and every other council in Ontario, did absolutely nothing. Too afraid that Premier Dad would cut off their allowance I guess. Had they stood as one and launched a serious and concerted objection, he would have had to back off.

    Well, now it’s time for our Council to stand up and make a lot of noise. It can start by suggesting that McGuinty move the projects slated for South Marysburgh to one of the “list of municipalities” he says wants IWT projects.
    (Funny that list hasn’t been released!)

    Since we haven’t been told by Mayor Mertens the outcome of his “dialogue” with the Province, I assume nothing has come of that strategy. We don’t need any more “dialogue” Mr. Mayor. We need you to tell the province that PEC is asserting it’s legal right to plan it’s own future. A future that does not include IWTs. A vote has been held, the majority have spoken – now get busy.

  31. Lori Cairns says:

    @ Jack,

    I totally agree. Are you listening ELECTED councillors? You have been elected BY the people to be the voice of the people and to carry out the wishes of the majority.

    The majority have spoken.

    Now your job is to be the voice of the people and tell the province the county does not want and will not allow IWTs.

    If you don’t want to represent the people, resign and let someone else lead the way.

  32. Susan Thorne-Jones says:

    Did an earlier, inflammatory post by Anon get deleted? I keep re-reading Anon’s comment…

    “Anon says:
    Sunday, July 15th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
    Before you label this an overwhelming result, keep in mind that 326, or 37.6% of the 868 eligible voters didn’t even bother to vote. If you base the results on the total number of eligible voters, 489 or 56.3% of the 868 eligible voters said ‘no’ to the wind turbines. Still a majority, but to call it overwhelming?”

    …and all I can see is one where he/she simply stated the results of the vote were not overwhelming. No judgement, no name calling, no criticism otherwise…just pointing out numbers, and yet the responses are incredibly harsh: first David Norman’s typical verbose attack and then Gary Mooney’s incorrect statement that one who doesn’t vote has no right to an opinion. I don’t live in South Marysburgh and was, therefore, ineligible to vote, but my opinion is that IWTs should not be there (or anywhere in the County).

    And, as someone who considers herself on the anti-wind side of this, I find these severe responses to a simple statement, as well as all the recent calls to civil unrest, clear reasons why someone would not want to state their full name when discussing this topic.

    Please tell me if there was there a post I missed or one that was deleted. I can only understand responding harshly to a comment of equal intensity.

    ST, Belleville

  33. Mark says:

    A large number of mayors walked out on the premier in protest at an event in regards to energy in Toronto in the spring. Mayor Mertens did not and stated he preferred dialogue. Has there been any dialogue whatsoever from the provincial government to the municipality? It seems to me that the municipal government forwarded their concerns over a year ago. Still waiting??

  34. Doris Lane says:

    Mark–I think I know who you are and I can understand your concerns–your comments are always good and I would miss them–I guess it is the ones that go off on a tangent that really bug me
    I hope the council will do the right thing and get behind the residents of South Marysburgh.
    A former Mayor and MPP told me he thought the council could do more

  35. Mark says:

    There are some very good reasons why some people cannot put their last name. As an example the County is very political and some may fear retribution for friends or family in that atmosphere.

  36. Doris Lane says:

    It totally amazes me that people like ANON and those that use their first name only are allowed to post to these sites. If you send a letter to the editor of a newspaper you have to give your full name. Sue Capon maybe it is time to only accept enteries with full names.
    If a person, and I presume these no names are people, and you have an opinion–at least stand behind it with your name

  37. Jack says:

    I hope that our elected councillors , especially Macdonald, Forrester and Marrisett put away their personal views and take an active roll in representing the peoples will. Councillor Proctor has assured me that she has no other choice.

  38. David Norman says:

    Actually ANON, I was feeling a little “overwhelmed” when I wrote my last comment… your absolutely correct in your arithmetic… only an eensie weensie, tiny, insignificant, underwhelming 5.88% of eligible voters voted for Industrial Wind Turbines in South Marysburgh.

  39. Gary Mooney says:

    To Anon: I can’t believe that I’m responding to someone without the intestinal fortitude to provide even a first name.

    If you don’t vote, you lose your right to an opinion. So it’s completely appropriate to reach conclusions based on those who take the time to vote.

  40. David Norman says:

    @ ANON… Like the pro Industrial Wind Turbine proclamations of my local County Sustainability Group, you have clearly demonstrated a penchant for the initial notion of the adage attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “you can fool some of the people all of the time”. I do hope that you are not so deliberately sociopathic to think that “you can fool all of the people all of the time”. You give credence, particularly in your anonymity and your very abstract manipulation of rhetoric in your suppositions concerning these numbers, that there are, “lies, damn lies, and statistics”. I could counter with some equally inane references but would rather address the condescending, arrogant smirk you now have on your face… the narcissism of your admiration of your own perceived cleverness. While I would not be so delusional to suggest that you will “burn in hell” for your sociopathic transgressions, in the metaphorical sense, as is inevitable with your demonstrated character, there will be “hell to pay” because “you cannot fool all of the people all of the time”.

  41. Anon says:

    Before you label this an overwhelming result, keep in mind that 326, or 37.6% of the 868 eligible voters didn’t even bother to vote. If you base the results on the total number of eligible voters, 489 or 56.3% of the 868 eligible voters said ‘no’ to the wind turbines. Still a majority, but to call it overwhelming?

  42. Ray Hobson says:

    We should leverage this unique poll and the overwhelming “NO turbines” result. It is the perfect time for all of us to join with other Municipalities in Ontario and DEMAND an IWT moratorium or an outright cease order.

    Consider the quote below that was extracted from a June 19, 2012 letter to McGuinty and Bently. The originator was the Mayor of Melancthon Township near Shelburne, ON

    “We are, at present, the largest wind farm in Ontario with 118 turbines. We have a new Wind Development proposal for approximately 49 more turbines – 18 will be 2.75 MW and 31 will be 1.5 MW. This new development has created considerable concern for my residents and they, quite frankly, feel, through other efforts and avenues, that the government is simply not paying attention to their concerns. ………………

    Our Township has passed resolutions requesting a moratorium on wind energy projects until further health studies are done, suggested a cap on the number of turbines in our municipality, as well as requested the list of municipalities who are eager to host industrial wind farms. To date, there have been no responses received to any of the above. ………

    Premier, in April while in Belleville, Ontario discussing wind turbines, you said “I’ve got all kinds of communities that want them. I don’t need the headaches that are associated with them going to communities that don’t want them.” I would ask you to please send us that list. ……….

    Our Council supports responsible development of renewable energy projects, but feels there is much work your government must do to alleviate the concerns of non-participating residents. …….. ” [end quote]

    Note that the date is before Health Canada announced their intentions to complete IWT studies.

    On July 8, 2012, I sent the above letter to PEC Councillors Quaiff and Lunn and suggested that we follow suit.

    On April 20, 2012, I sent the following to PEC Councillors Quaiff and Lunn;

    “ I am writing regarding CW-132-2012. Thank you for pushing that motion, many of us applaud your initiative.
    Since I am not sure who on Council is Pro vs Con, this concern is addressed to you. What bothers me is that I cannot find any acknowledgement of the Clarington resolution on the AMO website even though they were copied on the letter to Dolton. There is one mention in the “Municipal Wire” section but that seems to be obtuse. Google search indicates other Municipalities agree as we do (some unanimously).
    It appears to me that AMO executive are not supportive of the Moratorium. In reading the current position papers on their website, AMO does not reflect the new reality that many citizens have switched from Pro to Con.
    If we in PEC hope to gain control of our own agenda, we need AMO onside.
    I recommend that AMO poll all municipalities regarding GPA-184-12 and present the results unedited for all to consider (ASAP).
    ………………. If AMO will not conduct such a poll can PEC “easily” do it ourselves? “ [end quote]

    If you, reading this, agree with me, please send a DEMAND to Mayor Mertens;
    1)PEC Council follow Melancthon Township initiative.
    2)AMO be requested to formally issue a statement supporting a moratorium.
    3)The Warden’s Caucus (joint) issue a statement of moratorium support.

    Also contact MPP Smith, MP Kramp, and all media outlets, with your request for a moratorium. To be heard, we need Action and Mass. Let us use the “system” to join with others across Ontario.

  43. David Norman says:

    The preemptive media propaganda strike by the County Sustainability Group (CSG) in relation to this vote, particularly as it came to be laid out in the July 12, 2012 issue of the Picton Gazette was interesting… and I’m sure has them patting themselves on the back. With stakeholder representation in the front page story on Health Canada’s announcement of their “Wind Turbine Noise and Health” study in the form of Susan Holtz’s, media representative of the CSG, assertions of potential compromise, and a “conveniently” laid out (page 8) pro Industrial Wind Turbine propaganda letters from two CSG members, directly adjacent to a CSG announcement of their “bursary awards”. Please note that the bursary award announcement had not appeared in this timeline previously, and is authored under “staff”. We do not know if this represents Picton Gazette staff or CSG staff , and whether this is a public service announcement or a paid advertisement.
    While you might question how the awarding of bursaries impacts on this issue, I point you to the following link to illustrate the insidious nature of this propaganda endorsement; http://friendsofwind.ca/let-wind-energy-project-proceed/.
    As to the two CSG letters, one authored by Don Chisholm and the other J. (John) Legate, both are meant to call into question the virtue of this vote and they are typically framed by condescending propaganda, primarily in the expression of unsophisticated pejoratives.

  44. Doris Lane says:

    Council is suppose to represent the people who elected them and the people have spoken,they do not want turbines in South Mrysburgh. Now it is up to council to see that this does not happen. As a former MPP told me counil has more power than they sometimes think they have, even with the Green Energy Act.
    The Mirror and Mr Ferguson are to be commended for the excellent job they did in organizing this vote

  45. John Storring says:

    I applaud the electors of South Marysburgh for turning out to vote in this privately held vote and Steve for having the courage to host it. My observation at the Milford Town Hall was that the vote was conducted with impartiality and fairness and should send a strong message to our local and provincial Governments.
    I am certain that many of the “No” voters are not against alternative energy in principal but do object to a forced, ill concieved, Green Energy Act that appears to have been passed by a government only interested in preserving their status at Queen’s Park.
    May I suggest some alternatives. How about “conservation” i.e. do we need to have offices and stores so cold during this heat wave that we have to put on a sweater to enter. Is bigger always better? How about small scale Hydro-Electric, probably one of the most cost efficient ways to produce power. and etc. and etc.

  46. Gary Mooney says:

    Re my comment about 30 landowners, several turbines are in Athol; those owners wouldn’t have been eligible to vote. And some properties have more than one turbine. So the reference to 30 should maybe be closer to 20.

  47. Marie says:

    Doris,

    What do you mean by a moritorium vote by council? I think I agree with you, but want to be sure.

  48. Gary Mooney says:

    The results were 90.2% NO, 9.4% YES, 0.4% spoiled. Expressed another way, 9.6 NO votes for each YES vote.

    As 30 landowners have optioned land to wpd, it could be that all of the 51 YES votes were from people who stand to profit from the White Pines project.

    South Marysburgh residents have sent an unmistakable message to Gilead, wpd, County Council and Premier McGuinty: NO turbines wanted in their community.

  49. Doris Lane says:

    Itis good to have what everyone was telling us is true–the people who live in South do not want turbines.
    A moritorium vote should be held immediately by council

  50. cHRiS says:

    significant % of those directly affected. assuming a large % of the 51 “no” votes are iwt hosts and family,have profit potential, or uneducated. better to know we are so many.

OPP reports
lottery winners
FIRE
SCHOOL
Elizabeth Crombie Janice-Lewandoski
Home Hardware Picton Sharon Armitage

HOME     LOCAL     MARKETPLACE     COMMUNITY     CONTACT US
© Copyright Prince Edward County News countylive.ca 2024 • All rights reserved.