There were some interesting and thought provoking letters in the paper last week.
A young woman from Perry had a very well written letter published in three different papers. She spoke of “my generation’s future”, of alternative energy sources and she was insightful enough to make note of whose web site was on the local “No Turbine” signs. It was a very good piece. As the father of a daughter who can write well, I think her parents can be justifiably proud.
If she was not at Horizon’s Envirothon she should have been, for I would think she could have walked away with the $1000 prize!
To her I would say the following: Our group (CRED) is a grassroots group, running on elbow grease and spare change. We are up against a large wind power company (Horizon), owned by a mega corporation (Goldman Sachs). This is, truly, David vs. Goliath.
Our contributions tend to be less that $100, usually in the $25 range. Our signs were donated from another group (Save Upstate New York) because they were available… and free. Beggars can’t be choosers, as the saying goes!
Like that group, our goal is really not “No Turbines” but rather ‘Turbines Responsibly Placed.’ Our motto, “Community First” speaks of the people and the impact turbines have on those people. Additionally, if there are to be turbines the bulk of turbine income turbines should go to the town – not pennies on the dollar as the present contracts and PILOT funds are currently constructed.
Lastly, I would say to her that the siting of those “alternative energy sources” is critical. Most huge wind farms in the far West or Midwest, where there is lots of space and people are less apt to be impacted. Most new sites in Europe are offshore, for the same reasons. Some places are simply ill suited for turbines. CRED believes that is the issue for our area. Wyoming County is, to a large extent, rural/residential and that is the crux of the problem.
Pam Bliss will address turbine siting concerns, which would make turbines more palatable for us, in a separate letter – as we promised in our letter published May 11th.
Another writer takes great issue with those of us who are concerned about our “perfect view” or our “property value”, as though these were concerns we should be embaressed about. He minimizes the concerns of people who are worried about noise or vibration near their homes and the impact that might have on them and their families. I, in turn, take great issue with him.
Use of “Ground Zero” as a descriptive term does not trivialize the people who were attacked in New York, any more than attaching that description to New York trivializes the hundreds of thousands that died in the blast of Hiroshima, another “Ground Zero”. The original “Ground Zero” was the Trinity Site where the first atomic bomb was exploded. It has also been used to describe the bulls-eye where hurricane Katrina came ashore. The use of “Ground Zero” does not inflame me - a vet, a guy with a son-in-law in Iraq, a niece who fled from a building across the street from the South Tower and whose best friend’s fiancé died in that same tower.
“Ground Zero” is exactly how someone under the boot of Big Power feels when that boot is coming down and he and his family are underneath. It denotes a place that is going to have or has had a major impact on people. Gerry Sahrle and Dave Conaway have it right: for those people under the boot of Horizon’s turbines, their homes are at “Ground Zero”.
I think it is demeaning of you to use the thousands who died at the World Trade Center as a way to make a local political point.
The people who live or may live under the shadow of humongous industrial turbines are justifiably concerned about the impact of those turbines on their lives. Let’s all use the right term – wind turbines. They are NOT windmills and they are not the type of turbine a property owner would build on his land for his own energy use. These are massive industrial wind turbines. They can only come to our neighborhood because the normal rules with regard to industry and its placement in the community have been suspended.
By all rights, they should be in designated industrial zones.
It is no accident that turbines are not built near or in a village. There are impacts on people. That’s simple fact. The proposed Warsaw law takes into account noise, shadow effect, & electro-magnetic effects and places them in a ‘wind overlay district’. To its everlasting credit, Warsaw recognizes the impact of turbines. Castile, too, has seen the light.
For those people living under the proverbial gun, their concerns are real. To imply they are selfish is simply wrong. To push them to the margin is to say they are “expendable”.
I’d relish the chance to see the bold man who walked up to Dave Conaway, the Sahrles or the DeVaney’s and say, “Quit your whining! These turbines are good for the community and YOU are EXPENDABLE!”
Chances are that guy is either being paid to have a turbine on his land. Or he lives where he’ll never have to worry about it.
Paul Emens