The ratio matters? Obviously you aren't the one affected. First point, it's more than Hal Graham with complaints. Second point, we as a town were assurred no impacts "zero", when it seems almost every project there are a handful of problems (common sense) - why didn't UPC acknowledge this and address up front instead of all the smokescreen? At least when it did happen, the law could have provided some redress to the "small ratio" of neighbors that had problems. Third point - the taxes went down 30%, saving 1,300 taxpayers an average of $48 per year. With hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line with my property, $48 isn't worth talking about.

This is the whole problem with this debate - the attitude of most will be fine so we need not worry about those that aren't. Isn't that the whole point to protect the exception, not the rule? That's why laws are made. Instead: too bad Hal Graham and neighbors because the rest of us are okay - and we like them, you are out of luck? Fine, then buy Mr. Graham and neighbors out and let them go find some peace. Cohocton should have zoned the land IC anyways and all of us would then have had the option to get out instead of being stuck with an industrial project in our backyards that "most like".

I think we live in a democaratic society don't we Formasa? At the point when the law was voted on in Churubusco - the town was also holding an election. You can guess which side one - handily. So of course ratios matter. If you read my blog you can see the good things that are being done with education dollars. So spending went up while taxes went down. You're conveniently looking at only the tax decrease aspect.

So let's start at Lincoln (six houses bought), then Meyersville (numerous complaints), Fenner, Mars Hill (dozen complaints), Tug Hill ($100,000 in non leaseholder impact payments), now Cohocton NY. I haven't even started with Germany and the UK.

Still "one" person out of thousands? Still going around with marketing adverts stating quieter than a kitchen refrigerator?

Six houses bought all across this country, plus 100K extra in the kitty - wow -- that sure is a majority of a town. I get it now. Your a genius my man. I don't now why I didn't think there was such majority numbers. And yes - these babies are quiet. I have no problem with them. Just how close are they to you and what actual experience do you have with living very close to them.

So on the one hand 100% of wind turbine energy displaces coal because one CEO of an energy company casually mentions that coal plants get idled sometimes. But on the other hand a wind company's guarantee that they are noiseless does not lose any credibility when a lease-holder says otherwise.

Again, the claim is not that all wind turbines are noisy all the time. It's that the wind turbine companies are making guarantees and claims that they can't keep. Despite all their advanced scientific modeling they still have issues that happen at times. And it's clear they have no way of knowing until the turbines are up. And once they are up they are not coming down.

Do you really think that the votes would go the same if, instead of putting the full court press of "noiseless and anyone who says otherwise is a NIMBY crackpot who wears tin foil" they said "well, you know, sometimes there have been noise complaints, but hey that's a small cost to go green?"