Category Archives: legal challenges

Fairwind Project Approval Revoked

Collingwood_Airport_12[7] As described in greater detail below, the Approval Holder has proposed an amendment to the REA to include additional curtailment measures designed to reduce little brown myotis mortalities. The Tribunal finds that these additional measures, provided they are amended to require that they be implemented from sunset to sunrise, is likely to significantly reduce little brown myotis mortality over the life of the Project. However, as neither the Approval Holder nor the Director has proposed effective means to mitigate the serious harm to human health, as found by the Tribunal in its October 2016 Order, the Tribunal concludes that the decision of the Director should be revoked. As such, an amendment to the REA to address harm to little brown myotis via an amended mitigation plan is rendered unnecessary.

READ FULL DECISION & ORDERS HERE : 16-036 WIGGINS V. ONTARIO (MOECC)

brown bat
little brown myotis

 

The Definition Of ‘Nuisance’

Words and their meanings have powers that can impact our very well- being.  Judge Cornelius J. Moriarty II, of the Justice of the Superior Court ordered the cessation of the operations of the wind turbines in Falmouth, Massachusetts.  In giving his judgement he discusses findings and reasons while interpreting and applying the meanings of the words injurious and nuisance.

“Despite the Town’s insistence that Barry Funfar is hypersensitive to sound, it is clear that he is no lone voice crying in the wilderness.  Other residents of the neighbouring area have registered similar complaints which was the very reason the Town commissioned the HMMH study in the first place.”

falmouth_vermont-1473171761-2525

The Falmouth Enterprise  August 11, 2017

A neighbor of the town’s turbines e-mailed us last week to say that we have been misleading the public by stating in recent stories that Judge Moriarty ruled that the turbines were a nuisance to the Funfar property. A nuisance, he wrote, is generally thought of as a neighbor mowing the lawn on a Sunday morning, whereas Judge Moriarty defined nuisance not only as an inconvenience but also a danger. He attached a copy of the judge’s decision for our reference.

In fact, Judge Moriarty went into a good deal of detail in a five-page discussion of his findings and decision.

First, he pointed out that the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision that the turbines constituted a nuisance could not be overturned, as the board would have had to have been unreasonable or on legally untenable grounds. The appeals board found that the turbines were a nuisance to the Funfars’ property because, based on a DEP sound study, they directly affected the health and well-being of the Funfars. “The decision here was hardly arbitraray and capricious,” Judge Moriarty wrote.

But the issue here, of course, is the definition of nuisance. Judge Moriarty pointed out that nuisance is difficult to define and, as much testimony as there was about sound levels, none of it applies to the definition because there are no numerical standards. “The issue is,” he wrote, “whether, on the facts found, the operation of the wind turbines was offensive because of injurious or obnoxious noise or vibration, a nuisance in violation of the by-law.”

He pointed out that, while the town argued that Mr. Funfar was hypersensitive to sound, “it is clear that he is no lone voice crying in the wilderness. Other residents of the neighboring area have registered similar complaints…”

The judge discussed the definition of “injurious,” at some length and concluded that “the physical effects of the turbine-generated sound upon Mr. Funfar have been certainly harmful and have tended to injure him.”barry funfar

There should be no mistake among the residents of Falmouth; when the appeals board and Judge Moriarty called the town turbines a “nuisance,” they did not mean it in the way of ants at a picnic or a dog barking in the night.

Judgement Town of Falmouth vs Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals et al

Noise from wind turbines may cancel a Sale

good neigboursParis – The noise of new wind turbines may justify the cancellation of the purchase of a house if the buyer claims it.

The purchaser, faced with this nuisance, may in fact invoke his own misjudgment which has vitiated his consent, especially if he has been preoccupied with the environment before buying, judges the Court of Cassation.

Although no one is at fault, the error of one of the parties leads to a defect in his consent which justifies the handing over of things to their former state, that is to say the reciprocal restitution of the house and its price, Admit the judges.

Since the construction of wind turbines is not a question of town planning, it may not be reported as such to the future purchaser, To inform the city council on urbanism projects, observes the judges.

This future purchaser can not therefore complain that it has not been reported to him. It would have been necessary to ask precisely the question of a project of installation of wind turbines. But in any case, even informed of the project, the seller could make a mistake as to the significance of its consequences.

In short, the seller, purchaser, notary and administrations are excusable because, knowing the project, nobody could imagine the magnitude of the nuisance. It was only when they appeared that the purchaser could see that if he had known, he would not have bought. 

(Cass Civ 3, 29.6.2017, Z 16-19.337)

This future purchaser can not therefore complain that it has not been reported to him. It would have been necessary to ask precisely the question of a project of installation of wind turbines. But in any case, even informed of the project, the seller could make a mistake as to the significance of its consequences. In short, the seller, purchaser, notary and administrations are excusable because, knowing the project, nobody could imagine the magnitude of the nuisances. It was only when they appeared that the purchaser could see that if he had known, he would not have bought. (Cass Civ 3, 29.6.2017, Z 16-19.337). (© AFP / 07 July 2017 09h55)

Installation of wind turbines. But in any case, even informed of the project, the seller could make a mistake as to the significance of its consequences. In short, the seller, purchaser, notary and administrations are excusable because, knowing the project, nobody could imagine the magnitude of the nuisances. It was only when they appeared that the purchaser could see that if he had known, he would not have bought. (Cass Civ 3, 29.6.2017, Z 16-19.337). (© AFP / 07 July 2017 09h55)

While knowing the project, no one could imagine the extent of the nuisances. It was only when they appeared that the purchaser could see that if he had known, he would not have bought. (Cass Civ 3, 29.6.2017, Z 16-19.337). (© AFP / 07 July 2017 09h55)

Google translate Original text in French:

Link to Court Decision

Le bruit des éoliennes peut annuler une vente  

french wind project
Installation of wind turbines in France

Multiple Wind Turbine Lawsuits Remain Up In The Air

By DERRICK PERKINS  Falmouth News

As Falmouth selectmen consider challenging a cease-and-desist order that left the community’s second wind turbine inoperable, they are taking into account all legal action surrounding the town-owned machines near Blacksmith Shop Road.

Since construction, Wind 1 and Wind 2 have drawn the ire of neighbors. Complaints include excess noise, harmful health effects, drops in property values and officials failing to follow proper rules as they allowed the projects to move forward.

A Barnstable County Superior Court judge’s decision agreeing with the zoning board of appeals in deeming Wind 2 a nuisance—and ordering it shut down—is the most recent development to garner headlines. Wind 1 powered down in 2015 after officials failed to earn a special permit from the town appeals board following another round of litigation brought on by abutters.

In a statement released after a lengthy June 26 executive session on the issue, selectmen asked all litigants to renew efforts to resolve the various legal actions involving the wind turbines outside of court.

The most pressing is the suit recently weighed in on by Judge Cornelius J. Moriarty II. Selectmen have until July 20 to decide whether to appeal, according to Town Counsel Frank K. Duffy Jr.

They likely will continue deliberating the issue in executive session—closed to the public—before their regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, July 10, Town Manager Julian M. Suso said. The next time selectmen are expected to meet is during a joint session with the planning board set for July 24—four days after the deadline.

Were selectmen to fight the ruling, the case would be heard in the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

A similar case is pending in Barnstable Superior Court. The town is appealing a decision by the zoning board of appeals to grant relief to neighbor Neil P. Andersen, who successfully argued the two turbines constituted a nuisance. A scheduling conference for that case is set for September, Mr. Duffy said.

A case pending in the Massachusetts Land Court revolves around the zoning board of appeals’ aforementioned decision to reject a special permit for operation of Wind 1. The town is appealing that ruling, and a trial assignment conference is scheduled for September, Mr. Duffy said.

Three common law cases also are pending in Barnstable Superior Court. Funfar v. Town of Falmouth, Ohkagawa v. Town of Falmouth and Elder et al v. Town of Falmouth all seek financial damages because of the nuisance caused by one or both of the turbines. None have been scheduled yet, Mr. Duffy said.

Decisions that went in town hall’s favor include one in a case arguing Wind 2 also needed a special permit to operate. A Barnstable Superior Court judge ruled in June that the effort had come too late in the process.

Still, Barry and Diane Funfar, the plaintiffs, could appeal, Mr. Duffy said.

In Laird v. Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals, the plaintiff argued officials needed to apply regulations approved since the construction of the turbines on a request for a special permit to operate. The court sided with the appeals board.

In April, a Barnstable County Superior Court jury rejected a common law nuisance case brought forward by Mr. Andersen, who sought financial compensation for physical injury, lost property value and income.

Falmouth stands to lose a significant amount of money if litigation keeps the turbines powered down. Wind 1 largely was funded through a $5 million loan, which the town pays about $400,000 toward annually, whether or not it operates.

To erect Wind 2, the town sought a $4.85 million loan through the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust. Although the loan initially offered interest-free by the trust, officials there have threatened to charge Falmouth principal and interest if the turbine ceases operating.

Additionally, the town has an agreement with the Mass Clean Energy Center, which helped defray some of the costs associated with Wind 1, to generate renewable energy over the course of several years.

falmouth wind turbines 3
Selectmen To Study Turbine Issue Further Before Appealing

Falmouth Wind Turbines- What is Really Going on in This Town ?

barry funfarThis letter is in regards to the Wind Turbines in Falmouth, MA & is meant to reach those of you who perhaps do not know what the Town of Falmouth is currently, and for the past 7 years, putting some of our Falmouth residents & their families through. My Dad, Barry Funfar, is one of those residents. His entire family, is one of those families.

Perhaps not everyone realizes that there are many people in our town that are seriously, both physically & mentally, affected by the adverse effects of the wind turbines that were erected in Falmouth WITHOUT PROPER PERMITS in 2010 & 2011….two 1.65MWatt turbines that are of a size proven to cause serious harmful effects in some humans if placed & operated too close to residential areas.

So far, these machines & their harmful effects have resulted in some Falmouth residents having to close their businesses or move out of their homes, or both. Some had businesses at their homes, so there was no escaping…except to do just that…escape by having to leave their homes. There are residents in our town who would still be fighting for their rights to shut down & remove the wind turbines & live peacefully again in their own homes, however financially, they could not continue to afford the legal fees to do so. Some people in Falmouth continue the legal battle yet have to leave their homes during the hours of turbine operation because it is too unbearable otherwise. Some resort to sleeping in their basements to attempt to get away from the overwhelming vibrations of these machines. Symptoms experienced from the turbines vary amongst individuals but examples include: anxiety, panic, dizziness, headaches, sleep disturbance, blood pressure elevation, nausea, vertigo, stress, ear pressure or pain, memory & concentration deficits, irritability & anger….just to name a few.

I believe it is very important that people know that the tactics the Town of Falmouth is using to break down those trying to stand up for their rights, in my opinion, are sickening, demeaning, and outright wrong. Although even the Barnstable Superior Court ruled the turbines were a nuisance to some people whose homes were nearby, the town is attempting to overturn my Dad’s nuisance claim that he filed, and won, by saying that “because of Mr. Funfar’s pre-existing condition of PTSD, he is not a normal person with normal sensitivities.” Furthermore, he has been referred to by the town, as “not an ordinary citizen.”

My Dad…not an ordinary citizen??! And trying to overturn his nuisance ruling because he has PTSD??! This is absurd, illogical & again flat out wrong.

What exactly is an “ordinary citizen?” My Dad, Barry A. Funfar, voluntarily signed up with the United States Marine Corp in 1966 to serve our country as a proud citizen of the United States of America. In 1968-69, he completed 2 tours, 19 months, in Vietnam, volunteering again, for the 2nd tour. My Dad was a helicopter door gunner. Door gunners do not have a long life span.. My Dad is my Dad because he somehow survived 127 missions as a Marine Door Gunner. A miracle, really, if you read the statistics.

PTSD…my Dad did not know he suffered from this until 2003 when he first learned that help was available through the VA. Although at the time he had never heard of PTSD, he knew something was not right. He was diagnosed with PTSD & 100% disabled because of it. Wow. He had done a great job until that time enduring & succeeding in his life while underneath he was suffering. Finally he had found some relief through the VA….individual and group counseling, at first 5 days a week, in Providence. It helped him so much & to this day he will tell anyone who wants to know, how thankful he is to the VA for giving him his life back, as he puts it. He continues to visit the VA in Providence weekly for his group counseling meeting.

Gardening… this was a huge part of his therapy. Working in his yard, creating his own oasis. He was even invited to have his yard as part of the West Falmouth Garden Tour, and people visited…not just during the tour, but at all different times, just because it was so different & so beautiful. Gardening & his yard was his passion. A special place indeed for my parents, as this has been there home since 1979 after my Dad built it from the ground up himself, intending to live there forever. His first grandchild, Brendan, born in 2003 spent his first years gardening with his Grandpa in the beautiful grounds my Dad had created that surrounded my parents’ home. Life was good.

In 2010, this all abruptly halted, with the start of Wind 1, which has been determined, in court, as not being constructed with the proper permits. It was immediate hell for my Dad to even be outside while the machine was operating. It severely triggered his PTSD…feeling the vibrations in his chest of the spinning blades was as if he was back in the helicopter in Vietnam. The anxiety & panic attacks, according to his doctors, were and are, potentially life threatening. To say the least, he could no longer work in his own yard, on his own property…& at times, even inside my Dad & Mom’s house, the turbines powerful effects reached them both. The amazing leaps & bounds of progress my Dad had made in regards to managing his PTSD, were rapidly reversing.

Today, it is upsetting to me to even be in their yard as it is now a jungle. It is no longer beautiful. I’m grateful that my older son Brendan now has a passion for gardening himself, but my younger & only other child, Kody, who was born in 2007, only remembers from photos, the short opportunity he had to experience this kind of time with Grandpa in Grandpa’s once safe haven. Brendan will never be 7 years younger. Kody will never be 7 years younger. This time can never be replaced. Not only has my Dad been stripped of this time with his grandchildren, of which you can not put a price tag on, but he has had to spend, so far, the past 7 years fighting for not just his & my Mom’s rights, but for all of those Falmouth citizens whose lives have been turned inside out because of turbines being wrongfully placed. Daily, my parents continue fighting for the right to be able to stay in their home, peacefully, without the severely intrusive and harmful distress of the gigantic machines in their backyard, just 1660 and 1550 feet away.

“Do what is right, not what is easy.” In all regards of his life, I know that from the bottom of his heart, this is what my Dad stands for. He has told me that giving up, as the town is so desperately trying to get him to do, goes against everything he believes in and would undoubtedly send the wrong message to everyone involved including his own grandchildren. My Dad served his country, has PTSD because of it and now the Town of Falmouth dares to use this against him. Barry Funfar is a successfully retired Falmouth business owner, a past & current town meeting member and more than anything, he is devoted to his family. My Mom, by his side since the day they met upon my Dad’s return from Vietnam, has dedicated most of her career to the Town of Falmouth as a math teacher & was also a Falmouth town meeting member. They worked hard and saved well, however as the amount of legal fees continues to grow, their savings, not to mention their precious and well deserved retirement years, are depleting far faster than they ever anticipated.

Again, it is beyond my comprehension to fathom how it is the town continues to not just witness people’s physical, mental & emotional well being crumble, but to ruthlessly support and encourage the cause of it, especially knowing the proper permits were not attained. I can’t help but ask myself over and over, particularly when trying to answer my children’s questions, “Why is this seemingly endless battle going on AT ALL?” THE TURBINES SHOULD NOT BE WHERE THEY ARE. PERIOD. How can human beings justify doing this to other human beings? How do those of you who fight this issue for the Town of Falmouth, explain this to your children? It is not just “wrong”. It is not just “unfortunate”. It is INHUMANE.

No resident of Falmouth should be suffering in any way, EVER, for any reason, because of a mistake made by the town…and on top if it, the Town of Falmouth is punishing the victims for it by demeaning their rights and degrading who they are as humans. Threatening to take their properties and homes by eminent domain has been yet another tactic in some of the Falmouth turbine cases in this town, including my parents’. Simply undignified. It is well beyond time to let people know what is really going on. My hope is that this letter will open some eyes & help with that. And perhaps the many many people who have asked me, “Why don’t your parents just move?” will have a better understanding of my response, “Because they’re doing what is right, not what is easy.”

Sincerely,
Kristi D. Funfar
5/2/2017

Falmouth Patch

falmouth wind turbines 3

Falmouth Ordered to shut down Turbines

falmouth wind turbine clock is ticking

By Ethan Genter  Cape Cod Times

Posted Jun 20, 2017 at 9:09 PM
Updated Jun 20, 2017 at 9:34 PM

BARNSTABLE — A Barnstable Superior Court judge on Tuesday ordered the town of Falmouth to shut down two town-owned wind turbines.

Judge Cornelius Moriarty issued his decision at about 4:30 p.m. in the case which pitted the town against its own Zoning Board of Appeals and a neighbor of the turbines. The Board of Selectmen had appealed a decision by the zoning board that found the turbines are a nuisance.

In an emergency meeting Tuesday night, selectmen instructed the town manager to comply with Moriarty’s order.

“We are going to abide by what the judge has ordered,” said Doug Jones, chairman of the Board of Selectmen.

Known as Wind 1 and Wind 2, the two turbines at the Falmouth Wastewater Treatment Facility have been subjected to a litany of lawsuits, with neighbors saying the turbines have negatively affected their health and enjoyment of their properties.

Moriarty’s decision was welcomed by Barry Funfar, who lives next to one of the turbines and has sunk more than $100,000 into fighting their operation.

“We’ve been waiting for this decision for six months,” Funfar said.

The last action in the case was in December.

“My wife and I have been taxed by these turbines, right out of our home. … I’m very, very happy,” Funfar said.

Wind 1 has already been shut down under a prior court ruling, and Wind 2 had been reduced to 12-hour operation cycles.

In their emergency meeting Tuesday, the selectmen only touched on what to do as of 7 a.m. Wednesday morning, when Wind 2 is scheduled to go back online for its next 12-hour cycle.

Jones declined to comment on what the town plans to do after losing its appeal.

“The Town is evaluating the decision with its attorneys,” according to a statement issued by Town Manager Julian Suso.

The selectmen are scheduled to meet again on Monday in executive session to further discuss the judge’s decision, which contradicts another court decision.

In April, a Barnstable Superior Court jury sided with the town, saying there was no nuisance at a Wind 1 neighbor’s property.

There are several other lawsuits working their way through the courts, and while he looks forward to seeing what the selectmen decide, Funfar said he sees Tuesday decision as a “happy bump” in what will likely remain a long road ahead.

“My wife is going to be so happy to hear this,” he said.

 

falmouth_vermont-1473171761-2525

Big Green and Mean

next era bullies

Big ‘Green’ and Mean: A Wind-Energy Giant Attacks Small-Town America

by ROBERT BRYCE May 2, 2017 4:00 AM @PWRHUNGRY

The world’s biggest wind-turbine company has filed lawsuits against five rural governments because they stand between it and millions in tax subsidies.

NextEra Energy, which bills itself on its website as “the world’s largest generator of renewable energy,” is suing a tiny municipality in one of Oklahoma’s poorest counties. In mid February, NextEra, which operates 110 wind projects in 20 states, filed lawsuits in both state and federal court against the town of Hinton, population: 3,200. Why is the wind giant suing the Caddo County town? Simple: Hinton stands between NextEra and nearly $18 million per year in federal tax subsidies. NextEra isn’t suing only Hinton. Since last October, the wind giant has filed lawsuits against five rural governments from Oklahoma to Michigan, all of which have imposed limits on wind-turbine development.

The company has also filed a libel suit against Esther Wrightman, a Canadian activist who opposed a project NextEra wanted to build in Kerwood, Ontario. Wrightman’s offense? She called the company “NexTerror” and “NextError” on her website, ontario-wind-resistance.org. That libel suit, filed four years ago, is still pending.

To be certain, the oil and gas industry has filed lawsuits against local governments that have sought limits on hydraulic fracturing. The difference is that NextEra is using taxpayers’ money to fund its courthouse mugging of small-town America. Between 2008 and 2015, according to a recent report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, NextEra accumulated profits of $21.5 billion but didn’t pay a dime in federal income taxes. Over that time frame, only ten other American companies received more in tax subsidies than NextEra. Nor does it appear that NextEra will be paying federal taxes any time soon. In its 10-K filing for 2016 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company reported $3 billion in tax-credit carryforwards that it can use to directly offset tax liabilities in future years. Remember, tax credits are more valuable than a deduction from revenue or accelerated depreciation. As my accounting consultant (and brother) Wally Bryce, a CPA, reminds me: “You’d much rather get a tax credit because it applies dollar for dollar against what you owe the government.”

NextEra wants more tax credits. And it’s litigating to get more. But each lawsuit NextEra files against a yet-smaller rural town or yet-smaller website owner provides another example of the backlash against Big Wind and, even more appalling, how Big Wind is using the issue of climate change as an excuse to make a run on the Treasury. Since 2015, more than 130 government entities in states from Maine to California have moved to reject or restrict the encroachment of the wind industry. And while other wind companies have also sued small towns, none can match NextEra’s scorched-earth tactics……

Read more at National Review 

wrightmann.jpg.size.custom.crop.487x650
Esther Wrightman holding notice of lawsuit filed against her by NextEra

SLAPP Lawsuit Filed by NextEra Against Esther Wrightman

Statement of Defense filed by Esther Wrightman

Victory! Turtle Power Rules!

blandings-on-forest-floorWhite Pines Wind (WPD) proposed to be located on the shores of Lake Ontario in Prince Edward County has been dealt a severe blow by the Environmental Review Tribunal. The decision from the “remedies hearing”  dealt with issues surrounding the findings of the Tribunal that serious and irreversible harm to the environment to the endangered Blanding’s Turtles, Little Brown Bat and other species at risk would result from the project’s activities.  WPD never the less began land clearing construction in sensitive wetland habitats and continued just days prior to the ruling being rendered.

Photos via APPEC

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Removal of 18 of 29 turbines leaves lingering questions if the wind project remains financially viable.  The residents of Prince Edward County and world wide can only hope that this is a final and fatal blow to the White Pine Wind that will result in halting the invasion of industrial wind turbine generators.

DECISION
[166] Under s. 145.2.1(4)(c) of the EPA, the Tribunal alters the decision of the Director by amending Renewable Energy Approval No. 2344-9R6RWR as follows:
1. Adding the following conditions to the REA:
i. Condition J7.1. The Company shall implement the Mitigation Plan for Operation of the White Pines Energy Project, dated July 21, 2016 prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd., including:
1. Implement the monitoring and mitigation measures as
outlined in Table 2 of the Mitigation Plan;
2. Adjust cut-in speed to 5.5 m/s between sunset and sunrise
from May 1 to September 30 at all turbines for the operating
life of the Project; and
3. In the event of a mortality of a bat species that is a species
at risk, successively increase the operational mitigation as
detailed in Table 2 of the Mitigation Plan.
ii. Condition L2. Further, the Company shall implement the additional
avoidance and mitigation measures as outlined in the report
“Additional Avoidance and Mitigation Measures to Minimize
Potential Impacts to Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)”,
prepared by Natural Resources Solutions Inc., dated July 22, 2016,
65 15-068
including implementation of the mitigation measures described in Tables 2-1 to 2-5 and 4-1 of that report.
2. Removing from the REA the turbines proposed to be accessed by upgraded municipal secondary and tertiary road segments and intersections in Blanding’s turtle habitat, as identified in Figure 2.2 of the report “Additional Avoidance and Mitigation Measures to Minimize Potential Impacts to Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)”, prepared
by Natural Resources Solutions Inc., dated July 22, 2016, specifically Turbines 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29.
Renewable Energy Approval Altered

15-068 HIRSCH V. ONTARIO (MOECC)

The WPD White Pines Wind decision can be read here:

15-071 WPD WHITE PINES WIND INC. V ONTARIO (MOECC)

White Pines Wind (WPD)

Turbines 12, 13, 14, 15,16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 are removed from  the project.

white pines wind

 

 

 

Chatham-Kent Should Stay out of Investment Biz

Letter to Editor:

Sir: Chatham-Kent municipal Corporation continues to make taxpayer funded investments that continue to end in taxpayer liability, when continually given evidence not to.

Municipalities should not be in the investment business. They are hired by taxpayers to prudently manage to create dividends, not to mismanage to create liability. The Bradley Centre, with hundreds of thousands of dollars in net annual losses; the Industrial Park, which accumulated a $20 million total to date loss; the Capital Theatre, having a total provincial and municipal gross loss of about many millions, not the skimpy losses generally reported; Kingston Park with a $2 million overrun in costs; taxpayer funded annual municipal wage and pension payout of about $138M, with only about $146 million in general annual revenues.

If I understood the recent clouded, scattered and incomplete municipal budget correctly, C-K has nearly $40 million in interest payments on such capital projects. Canada-wide, taxpayers are paying about $62 billion and $11 billion annually just to service the debt of Canada and Ontario respectively. All of day-to-day cash of government operations come from the private sector, you and I, but yet, governments continue to financially rape their only source of income by introducing about 120 taxes on everything we do, on every nickel we earn, and continue to make irresponsible and fool hardy investments that never comes out of their pocket book, only ours.

The Provincial Green Energy Act, paving the way for wind turbines, created a 70-per-cent hike in electricity costs, costs consumers an extra $37 billion, and under the Auditors report will cost us an additional $133 billion by 2032.

The auditor’s report confirms for each wind energy job created, three Ontario jobs are lost. The mayor supports wind turbines, and his short sighted thinking makes Chatham-Kent nickels and dimes, while the province is losing billions, whereby billions have to be made up by taxing us more to make up the losses.

Recently, C-K council approved an $8-million investment in wind turbines, cited by the mayor to give us an $11-million profit after 20 years, which will keep taxes down. This thinking is worse than a migraine and mirrors how the province manages tax dollars. More specific to the wind turbine investment. C-K will become “common” shareholders in 15 per cent of a foreign company, meaning if the company dissolves or liquidates or reconstructs itself we as “common” shareholders lose all to preferred stock holders, bond holders, creditors, etc., not to mention if no profits are realized due to provincial or legal intervention. $8 million from reserves invested with compounding interest could give us up to $15M after 20 years without risk. Taking money from reserves means we have to replenish it, either by cashing in bonds, creating higher taxes, reducing infrastructure investment or by other means.

We have reserves for good reason.

If any dividends were realized from the turbine investment taxpayers won’t see a dime nor will any reduction in taxes be apparent. C-K will create a separate corporation, under the Business Corporations Act, RSO- 1990 for this manoeuvre, transferring same to Entegrus, which disallows taxpayers, although it’s all your money, to not know what’s going on, unless Entegrus/Corix wishes you to.

Additionally, Entegrus is courting to grab up to $30 million more from Chatham-Kent taxpayers for future investments with private companies.

Companies like Entegrus are more inclined to use investment income as an indirect way to feed their own wages, pensions, travel, perks and allowances, office upgrades, company vehicles etc., before any benefit is given to the taxpayer.

Furthermore, having Chatham-Kent a wind turbine investor, how the hell can council and our municipality speak against the turbine company respecting any legal action, public safety liability or other?

John Cryderman

Chatham

Published April 24, 2017 The Chatham Voice

randy hope
Mayor Randy Hope of Chatham Kent- Wind Industry award recipient continues to actively promote industrial wind turbines 

Damages & Costs for families forced to abandoned their homes

Ireland’s wind industry has been put on notice.  Damages and costs will be decided for the families adversely harmed by the noise emitted from wind turbines.  The implications for the industry will no doubt reverberate worldwide. (Read prior court ruling by following link below)

Enercon Admits Liability in High Court Ireland

Court Case Has “Serious Implications” For Wind Farms – Local Campaigner

The future of wind farms in Ireland could be called into question this week.

Seven families from Cork, who claim they had to leave their homes five years ago due to noise levels, will have damages and costs decided by the High Court tomorrow.

It is the first action of its kind in this country and may open industrial wind developers to further legal challenges.

Laois woman Paula Byrne, PRO of Wind Aware Ireland, outlines the significance of the case.

Listen here: http://www.midlands103.com/news-centre/court-case-serious-implications-wind-farms-local-campaigner/

enercon turbines