“The consensus was people were concerned about their neighbors.”

It's nice to see the good guys winning. Let the battle cry ring out "Do unto others".

Kudos to the good people of Jackson for standing up for their rights and sending a message to sleazy wind developers that lies and political corruption don't always win out.

Hopefully other towns in Maine and around the country will be inspired to say no to the destruction and greed of industrial wind.

Use less

Three cheers for the nimby's

Way to go, Jackson! I'm glad your town has placed fair and meaningful restrictions on the siting of these inefficient, destructive nuisances. As for other Maine towns, ask yourselves; do you want your fellow citizens to have their home life destroyed like the people in Mars Hill and Vinalhaven just so Big Wind can enrich itself on the backs of taxpayers? Or do you believe all homeowners have a right to peace and quiet, protected from the ill effects of these noisy, flickering behemoths? The people of Jackson have voted in favor of their own, not First Wind and the Guvnah who is setting himself up for a cushy, high-paying shill job after his reign is over. Good for them!!

Thank the Bennett's, Bloomstien's and others of Freedom. No one would listen to them when they tried to convince their good-intentioned neighbors just how monstrous these things are.

When you sign a 20 to 30 year contract to host a wind turbine on your property you may be signing away many rights you're unaware of. A confidentiality agreement in the contract may mean legal action can be taken against you if you complain publicly about the project. A Fond Du Lac farmer signed away his rights. He was interviewed by Don Bangart who wrote the following on behalf of the farmer, whose contract with the wind company prevents him from speaking openly about any problems.

This was printed as a full page ad in the Chilton, Wisc., Times-Journal, October 25, 2007.

WHAT HAVE I DONE?

Now each morning when I awake, I pray and then ask myself, “What have I done?”

I am involved with the BlueSky/Greenfield wind turbine project in N.E. Fond du Lac County. I am also a successful farmer who cherishes his land. My father taught me how to farm, to be a steward of my fields, and by doing so, produce far better crop production. As I view this year’s crops, my eyes feast on a most bountiful supply of corn and soybeans. And then my eyes focus again on the trenches and road scars leading to the turbine foundations. What have I done?

In 2003, the wind energy company made their first contacts with us. A $2,000 “incentive” started the process of winning us over, a few of us at a time. The city salesmen would throw out their nets, like fishermen trawling for fish. Their incentive “gift” first lured some of us in. Then the salesmen would leave and let us talk with other farmers. When the corporate salesmen returned, there would be more of us ready to sign up; farmers had heard about the money to be made. Perhaps because we were successful farmers, we were the leaders and their best salesmen.

Sometime in 2004 or 2005, we signed $4,000 turbine contracts allowing them to “lease” our land for their needs. Our leases favored the company, but what did we know back then? Nobody knew what we were doing. Nobody realized all the changes that would occur, over which we would have no control. How often my friends and I have made that statement: What have I done?!

I watched stakes being driven in the fields and men using GPS monitors to place markers here and there. When the cats and graders started tearing 22-foot-wide roads into my fields, the physical changes started to impact not only me and my family, but, unfortunately, also my dear friends and neighbors. Later, a 4-foot-deep by 2-foot-wide trench was started diagonally across my field. A field already divided by their road was now being divided again by the cables running to a substation. It was now making one large field into 4 smaller irregularly shaped plots. Other turbine hosts also complained about their fields being subdivided or multiple cable trenches requiring more of their land. Roads were cut in using anywhere from 1,000 feet to over half a mile of land to connect the locations. We soon realized that the company places roads and trenches where they will benefit the company most, not the landowner. One neighbor’s access road is right next to some of his outbuildings. Another’s is right next to his fence line.

At a wind company dinner presented for the farmers hosting the turbines, we were repeatedly told — nicely and indirectly — to stay away from the company work sites once they start. I watched as my friends faces showed the same concern I had, but none of us spoke out. Months later, when I approached a crew putting in lines where they promised me they definitely would not go, a representative told me I could not be there. He insisted that I leave. The line went in. The company had the right. I had signed the lease.

Grumbling started almost immediately after we agreed to 2% yearly increases on our 30-year lease contracts. Some felt we should have held out for 10%. What farmer would lock in the price of corn over the next 5 years, yet alone lock one in at 2% yearly for 30 years? Then rumors emerged that other farmers had received higher yearly rates, so now contracts varied. The fast-talking city sales folk had successfully delivered their plan. Without regard for our land, we were allowing them to come in and spoil it. All of the rocks we labored so hard to pick in our youth were replaced in a few hours by miles of roads packed hard with 10 inches of large breaker rock. Costly tiling that we installed to improve drainage had now been cut into pieces by company trenching machines.

Each night, a security team rides down our roads checking the foundation sites. They are checking for vandals and thieves. Once, when I had ventured with guests to show them foundation work, security stopped us and asked me, standing on my own property, what I was doing there. What have I done?

Now, at social functions, we can clearly see the huge division this has created among community members. Suddenly, there are strong-sided discussions and heated words between friends and, yes, between relatives about wind turbines. Perhaps this is a greater consequence than the harm caused to my land — life is short, and friendships are precious.

I tried, as did some of the other farmers, to get out of our contracts, but we had signed a binding contract. If you are considering placing wind turbines on your property, I strongly recommend that you please reconsider. Study the issues. Think of all the harm to your land, and, in the future, to your children’s land, versus the benefits from allowing companies to lease your land for turbines.

WHAT HAVE I DONE?

PLEASE DO NOT DO WHAT I HAVE DONE!

And I notice there are no comments about the horrific natural gas plant explosion in CT - as if I expected to see any. Let's apply the same logic to that incident that is being applied to wind: these things are unsafe and not worth the risk at any cost. They are noisy. They look horrible, especially with those dead bodies lying around everywhere. They have those massive, tall steam and smoke stacks. The sun hits the steam being emitted and bothers my eyes. How can we let another one of these plants be brought online, when they are obviously so unsafe. Even 1 death, much less 5 at a time, is not worth it. And what about their neighbors?

By the way, 75% of the electricity used in Maine is from natural gas. Ready to put a moratorium in place against these terrible plants???? Didn't think so. But you will distort facts about wind turbines to suit your needs. . .

I just don't understand , down the road where do people think we will get electric power? from Canada, or by using more oil being bought from abroad? We the people have to wake up, let wind mills be build to save us dollars in the long run and not be depended on other countries. Other wind mill locations in maine have gotten used to them being there , yes it is a big change , but some times changes have to be met. Please support other windmill projects here in Maine

Chances are the folks that voted for the ordinance are the same folks that complain that the USA is to dependent on foreign oil and need to find alternate ways to provide electricity. "They want the comfort of flipping the light switch but don't want to see it being made!"

I don't get it either. How can people continue to think we are going to be saved from the need for oil or anything else by building huge wind plants in small rural maine towns. DO SOME DAMN RESEARCH!

Spain, Ireland, Germany, Great Britain, Japan- ALL have built thousands of towers in their countries and have come to the conclusion that it wasn't worth it. These are reports form their own government agencies. Wind has produced, at best 2-6% of their enrgy needs and was not justified by their costs. They have never documented a single fossil fuel plant being able to be decommisioned due to the wind energy. These countries have stopped all subsidies for wind and have canceled contracts.

Gee, where can we sell our towers now???? Do some reading and don't just call us NIMBYs and write the issue off.

This passed because people had NO idea what they were voting on. Jackson will NEVER see windmills. People thought the meeting was about windmills when it had NOTHING to do with windmills. it had to do with this ordinance that is UNFINALIZED and will open the town to lawsuits. We had a moratorium until JULY and now we have nothing. The lawyer even told the people do not accept this as it is. It's ignorance and nothing less.

The following says it all as to why wind has nothing whatsoever to do with oil.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/photo/mainetheres-more-to-feign?context=latest

After the meeting, people who voted FOR the ordinance were asking "So, when do you think they will start clearing for the windmills?". My father told them "You don't get it, you just shot down any chance of ever getting windmills". Clearly people didn't understand. And from listening to what people were saying during the meeting i got a better grip on that fact. They listened to the "fairwind" and took it to be gospel when it was nothing more then trash. The town and its people had a perfect opportunity to become independent, help our citizens on fixed incomes, fix our roads etc. not anymore. ALSO they were lieing to the townspeople throughout the whole ordeal saying there would be 22 windmills instead of the proposed 11. And the 'planning board' who drafted the ordinance, which was actually drafted by a member of the subcommittie, petitioned for it to go to vote before the selectmen could even fully review it. it was a rushed deal that should have taken time and done correctly.

How about you do some research DobieStarbuck. Wind is not intended to "save us", it is intended to be a piece of the soloution not all of it. And let me tell you another thing, America is the leader in wind energy and all green energy for that matter. America installs more wind turbines in a year that just about all of those countries you mentioned have togather, NextEra Energy (formerly Florida Power and Light Energy owns over 8,000). Facts are the USA has the best wind resources in the world. Another fact is, many fossil fuel plants are being decommissioned (3 I can name off the top of my head just this year), because there just is no market for them now after the construction boom of the 90's and 00's of gas turbine technology. Wind will not and should not ever replace our base power needs, it can contribute to it however. Wind will be the reason why your local utility will not have to bring on another peaking unit during high demands.

I FIND IT VERY FRUSTRATING, BUT ALSO HUMUROUS THAT SOME OF YOU PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT AN ELECTRON AND CONTINUE TO COMMENT LIKE SOME EXPERT THAT WATCHES T.V. TOO MUCH.

I do agree with a few of you, developers, all developers are scum. The are like used car men that would sell you their first born. Furthermore, they have no idea about energy. I hope companies smartin up and start sending engineers to be the face to the public instead of business men and developers. Then you would be told the truth and not have so many negative illussions. And you people who don't know what you are talking about would be put in your place very quickly.

well put user5225.

windfuture's linkage of windmills to the natural gas explosion in CT is specious at best. If you subscribe to that logic, we should stop driving cars, stop flying planes, avoid swimming, and so on. And as for the distortion of facts, why not simply acknowledge that when these things are erected too close to dwellings, bad things occur? But, no...just ignore those unfortunates in Mars Hill and Vinalhaven and deride as NIMBYs others who oppose having these intrusive things forced into their lives. I'd be much more accepting of wind power developers if (1) their tactics were less dispicable, (2) they displayed a shread of compassion for those they have harmed and will harm in the future, and (3) they developed their business with their investors' own money instead of slurping up obscene levels of government subsidies and padded electrical rates. Fix those things, windfuture, and I'll consider your opinions. Otherwise, your industry is tainted with greed and lack of integrity.

Buckweet I agree with you, the CT explosion has nothing to do with wind and developers should stick to one thing...land procurement. I guess I also agree with your industry greed and integrity statement...but hey name something that is not. However I believe in the open market and growth things I don't think we see eye to eye on.

windfuture is paid to write this junk.

I applaud the people of Jackson for their very reasoned approach to wind power development. The one mile setback (13 times tower height) required by the Jackson ordinance will greatly reduce the potential for residents to be severely affected by turbine noise and it also allows reasonable conditions that can be readily met by community conscious wind power developers.

Wind turbines typically produce much less than their rated capacity and their power cannot be stored when they are operating. They obviously are not the answer to our future power needs but as long as wind connected politicians and lawyer-politicians continue to make the decisions for us, wind turbines will continue to be built.

Our state politicians stand on the sidelines while the Maine DEP continues unabated to approve projects with turbines obviously placed to close to homes. With the lack of adequate controls at the state level and a Maine DEP seemingly under tight political rein, the only way for a town to protect its residents from the noise problems evident in Mars Hill and Vinalhaven is for each town to develop ordinances like Dixmont and Jackson have done. There is no indication things will change at the state level. The controls must begin at the local level and we can only hope that the state may eventually catch up.

Congratulations to all in Jackson!! I live in Mars Hill and wish we could have done somthing to save our homes, maybe this will get the industrial wind guys to start telling the truth about what these inefficient windmills can really do to people who are forced to live by them.

The good people of Jackson have been duped by the NIMBYs, this is probably the biggest single blow that the towns people could have done to the future of their economy, BUT thankfully when they realize what they have done they can undue it with the same process and get back into the program. they will just be behind the towns that took advantage of wind power, although I would guess it will be a while before anyone concerning the implementation of wind power will be knocking on any doors there.

I wish one of these PH.D's would really tell me how a wind turbine is harmful. Flicker? Please, casting a shadow over anything is about as harmful as turning the lights on and off in the middle of the day. Noise? I lived on a real wind farm (150 turbines) for a year, hardly noticed. I lived next to BIA and I5 in LA which were both much more annoying. The only danger that these things can present is if (when) the blades collect ice and the turbine continues to run. When the ice starts to melt the blade will act as a sling to throw the ice...nothing like 300 lbs of ice being launched threw the air.

As far as effiency. How much more effiecient can you get than turning a free resource into useable energy that you can sell? What all you people forget is that energy is a business just like McDonalds is. Ofcourse power companies want to keep their constumers happy, but they want your money even more.

User5225- The windmills for Jackson would produce NO flicker on Jackson what-so-ever. (Dixmont maybe) I live in the flight path on the other end of town and the airplanes flying low will actually shake my house. I'd gladly trade for windmills!!!!!

Setbacks might prohibit turbines in more settled areas, but agreeing to setbacks implies that turbines sited a few miles or kms away would be okay, which is not the case. There are so many other reasons to not allow industrial wind turbines at all, such as noise, habitat fragmentation, erosion and sedimentation of streams, property devaluation, loss of quality of life, etc., but mainly that they are a highly subsidized scam that will do nothing to solve our energy needs no matter where they are.

These impacts would still affect an area even if these setbacks were enforced.

Opponents of industrial windpower cannot be publicly effective by taking a compromising stance. If it's a bad industry, then it shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Setbacks ignore the obvious. Industrial windpower needs to be defeated, not acquiesced to with a we can accept it and live with it as long as there are setbacks.

\

Daune LaHaye said it right, “We have to think as an entire nation." Translation if we have to sacrifice the quality of a few people to switch to green power then that's justified. I say its never justified. If its only a few people then make them whole first. Make the wind company prove that the wind turbines are safe. Make them prove the economic benefits to the town, the state, and the nation. Make them prove that CO2 will be reduced and energy produced that is less expensive than other forms. Ask why they need a 30% federal pre-generation bailout. IT has nothing to do with NIMBY. Its either good policy or its not.

The 75 who voted against the ordinance must not care about their neighbors. Like the 100 people who stood and watched while a girl was being mugged in NewYork City. The vote should have been unanimous. Greed knows no boundaries. While no turbines would be better, if enough towns regulate windsprawl maybe they will go away. Why would the windsprawlers not answer the question in Carroll last night , "How much power has Stetson produced?" They avoided an answer because they had no idea, they will never tell the truth, and its all about plate output not actual output. Windsprawlers do not deal with facts, only their expedited process and DEP-lite . Any problems will be dealt with POST CONSTRUCTION (if you can afford a team of lawyers.) FirstWindSprawl go away . The people have spoken.

Here is your proof right now, I can tell you 2236 MW of energy are being produced from one company's US wind turbines alone. It is all being sold either on a merchant market (adjustable rates every 15 minutes) or mostly on PPA (fixed rates from 30 - 65 $/kwh). Last year this same company had only 2 injuries. No sicknesses reported from any of the employees (some have 20 years vested). This same company built a school in Colorado. Built new roads in North Dakota. Built a 225 mile long transmission line. This company also pays local taxes and provides jobs and sponsors community events. But would definetly build other forms of energy if not for the tax credit...why? Becasue coal and gas will always be cheaper to build than wind. Wind is new and is evolving...it is just more expesive to buy and build.

The vote in Jackson displays yet another example of democracy still breathing. For the Selectmen and residents who defined the results as "not in my back yard" is a direct lack of acknowledgment and disrespect for the people who are trying to live them and yielding medical repercussions. I look around at all the intelligent designs we are capable of making and the selfish, self serving, greedy behavior comes along and leaves us where we have always ended up. We are capable of so much more, but I feel that success is going to be achieved when greed and self serving mentalities are wiped off the table and replaced with genuine compassion for one another is put in its place as the drafters follow through with a completed design. I live off-the-grid and I know that going green has nothing to do with greed, greed is contradictive to that path. The only time you usually hear someone say "not in my back yard" is because they stood to make some money off the deal. Well, not at someone elses' expense, that is what those ordinances reiterate and protect and that is what needed to be done. These ordinances were not drafted carelessly and without sound research and fair judgment, they were drafted responsibly. All these ordinances are saying is with a 15 year window of opportunity to inform the public of Maine about these industrial scale activities, you had plenty of time to do your homework correctly and creating collateral damage in your designs and leaving the public out of the decision-making process had yielded its own results. Do your homework right, I expect nothing less of professionals.

In his $3.8 trillion budget plan for 2011, released last week, Obama called for boosting loan guarantees to $55 billion to help jump-start construction of U.S. nuclear plants. Story today on MSNBC.com. Don't talk to me about subsidies for wind.

Opposition to Wind Farm Siting Based on Adverse Health Effect from Infrasound?

Posted on February 9, 2010 by Roger Ferland

One of the big hurdles for further development of wind power in the U.S. is landowner objections to placement of turbines near their homes. The rationale du jour for such objections is that the sound produced by turbines causes a broad range of health effects. In particular, objectors point to infrasound, which is sound generally below the level of human perception. A recent case in Wisconsin was one of the first in the country to test the objectors' theories. When a Wisconsin utility applied for permission to build 90-turbine development north of Madison, objectors argued for extremely low limits for wind turbine sound and a mile-and-a-quarter setback, limits which would have made the project impossible.

The principal proponent of the theory that wind turbine sound causes physiological harm is a New York pediatrician, Nina Pierpont. Dr. Pierpont has written and self-published a book, entitled "Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment," which chronicles complaints by 10 families around the world who have lived near wind turbines. As presented by Dr. Pierpont, the symptoms include everything from headaches to nausea, tachycardia, irritability and panic episodes associated with sensations of movement or quivering inside the body. Dr. Pierpont argues that infrasound works in two principal ways to cause these symptoms: first by exciting the human vestibular (balance) system; and second vibrating the diaphragm and organs, thereby passing on confusing messages to the body.

Dr. Pierpont draws upon and supports the work of noise control engineers George Kamperman and Richard James, who, in various proceedings in the U.S. and abroad, advocate very low thresholds for sound from turbines (35 dBA, which is approximately the level of a quiet bedroom). In the Wisconsin case, objectors hired Mr. James to provide expert testimony, which he did, relying heavily on Dr. Pierpont's theories.

Quarles & Brady retained two experts to address sound issues on behalf of the utility. Dr. Geoff Leventhall is an acoustician, consultant and professor from the U.K. who has been involved in studying infrasound for nearly 50 years. Dr. Leventhall testified that neither of Dr. Pierpont's theories make sense. In fact, he testified, the author of the study Dr. Pierpont relies upon for her vestibular disturbance theory specifically disclaimed that his work supported her conclusions. As for Dr. Pierpont's theory that infrasound vibrates the diaphragm and organs, Dr. Leventhall testified that simple math dooms her argument. Sound from turbines results in movement of the diaphragm of less than 10 microns (one tenth the thickness of a human hair), while during normal breathing, the diaphragm moves several centimeters. Dr. Leventhall also pointed out that Dr. Pierpont's analysis completely ignores another, much stronger, source of internal infrasound--the heart.

Quarles & Brady also retained Dr. Mark Roberts, a Chicago-based epidemiologist, biostatistician and physician. Dr. Roberts testified that "wind turbine syndrome" is not a medical diagnosis supported by peer reviewed, published, scientific literature. He completed a review of the literature, and found no support for the claim that wind turbine sound causes physiological harm. Dr. Roberts also identified several flaws in Dr. Pierpont's methodology, limiting the usefulness of her research, including selection bias and a failure to adhere to accepted epidemiological principles in developing her theories. Summarizing Dr. Pierpont's work, Dr. Roberts concluded that it consisted of "opinions that are unsubstantiated," and as he pointed out, "everyone has opinions." Dr. Roberts warned against allowing such "science" to shape public policy.

Both Dr. Leventhall and Dr. Roberts agreed that sound from wind turbines may annoy neighbors or disturb their sleep. Dr. Roberts summarized such concerns as follows: "The underlying complaint of annoyance is, in and of itself, not a disease or a specific manifestation of a specific exposure, but instead a universal human response to a condition or situation that is not positively appreciated by the human receptor."

- - Agreed that some folks hate turbines and some folks love them - but let's base the discussion on science, not emotion.

we should build offshore wind farms up and down the maine coast...

REJECTING the ordinance would have done NOTHING but keep up in moratorium. You act like if the ordinance had been rejected, windmills were going to start popping up. NO. They would NOT have. You people have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. You're better off to keep your comments to yourself because you're just making yourself look more stupid then you realize...

OH, i guess you can't say 'moron' in reference to a person who has no knowledge of the subject in which they are arguing. What would the correct term be BDN? Idiot?

Since my comment was DELETED. They vote was not about WINDMILLS. It was about an ordinance that was un-finalized and now has opened the town to litigation. If it had been rejected nothing would have happened until another VOTE on a FINALIZED ordinance. People who voted against the ordinance were asking when they would start clearing for the windmills, they wont be. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS who, supposedly, drafted the ordinance (but a member of the subcommittee actually did) didn't even understand their own ordinance and still believe we are going to have windmills. It's pretty sad when people push something on people when they have NO idea what it is they are pushing. You people can woo-hoo all you want, rejection wouldn't have done anything either..... Do your homework and learn about the issues.

I'm sorry, people who voted FOR the ordinance were asking ****