James Hall of Cohocton Wind Watch casts his hooks into the “manure of absentee corporate carpetbaggers (…) the cronyism of agribusiness avarice”. He has cast his baleful gaze on the evil wind suckers and their toadies.

The arrogance and capricious disregard for community opposition to an ill-conceived wind turbine project on a scale that would rival the intensive concentration of a worm farm, is down right criminal. If you think wind turbines are benign free energy producers, do your homework. Look to the leadership of the adjacent township of Prattsburgh (…) Their site Advocates forPrattsburgh is a treasure chest for sound and rational data

The often invoked treasure chest of rational data. Let us take a peek.

Key Issues:
Viewshed – 384’ towers 80’ taller than the Statue of Liberty with 230’ diameter rotors, dominating the skylines and visible up to 10 miles and beyond.

Shadow flicker – Potentially dangerous strobe effect from reflections off the rotating blades at sunrise and sunset, which can cause seizures.

Safety zone – Ice throws as far as 1500' - 1800', lighning attraction and resultant fire hazard, and potential injury from disintegration of the rotating blades.

Light pollution – Strobe lights atop each tower flashing 24 hours/day.

Groundwater – Towers weighing more than 200 tons can damage the geological structure above the water table, leading to groundwater contamination by agricultural residues.

Property values – Protect the value of residences, future home sites and recreational real estate from the inappropriate siting of these huge industrial machines.

I get it. Build them wind turbines, and one early spring day, frost still on the ground, I might walk out to a turbine only to be impaled into the ground by an ice shard flung off a turbine. As the ice melts, and I weakly crawl to my feet, a thunderstorm will zoom in out of nowhere, and I’ll be struck by lightening attracted by the nearest tower.

Hair a bit frizzy now, I’ll begin to totter away when a turbine above me will suddenly disintegrate. A spinning blade thus shall chop my arm away. Spewing blood, as I am glancing frantically about, the thrumming turbines will induce a seizure, causing me to collapse again. Mortally wounded, a cow will find me muttering about my cherished - - property values.

The record is very clear what happens when a wind farm is located in the mist of a residential community. When it is slated to be in full view of a pristine historic village the reason for a visit vanishes. Property values are in serious jeopardy and will sink like a rock. What exactly is the benefit to individual households when they will be saddled with the burden of the adverse fall out from an economic albatross?…

Let’s all step back and take a deep breath! Slow down this fast track process and conduct some real, serious and independent science and economic impact studies that go to the heart of the issue. Will wind farms truly benefit the ordinary taxpayer and protect the regional community in which we all live?

I take Hall’s point about tourism, and I think SOME of his points about careful placement of a wind farm are issues that any community should consider. I just wonder if he has looked into his crystal ball, and considered what might happen to those precious tourism dollars a few years down the line when gasoline costs five dollars per gallon?

Will wind farms be so ugly then? Or will people find them beautiful, when natural gas electricity plants start dropping off the grid, for lack of fuel? When the Appalachian mountains have been turned into the Appalachian flatlands? The alleged health risks of a humming turbine pale in comparison to the mercury heaving out in our air every second from coal furnaces around the globe.

James Hall doubtless hasn’t considered any of this. He’s a property values guy, a “baby boomer,” in the American parlance. Perhaps he drives an SUV, perched so fearfully high off the ground, so high up in heaven, that he doesn’t realize that the road below is paved with the bones of his grandchildren.

Too harsh? Too imaginative?Having read the entirety of Mister Hall’s dyspeptic essay, no slack shall be granted. There are consequences for consuming the world. One itsy bitsy consequence would be the freedom to live foolishly is no longer possible. Wind turbines are not optional for those wishing to run with the “Energy Set” in the future.


Printed with permission from
Peak Energy: Not in my backyard
http://peake.blogspot.com
Jon S
Seattle, Wa.

OUR TRIP TO TUG HILL

My wife and I are landowners on Lent Hill with a windmill slated for our farm. With all the negative information put out by the Cohocton Wind Watch (CWW), we thought maybe we had missed something, how could we have done that, could we have made a bad judgment. Did we overlook something in our pre-investigation into windmills and on our trip to Fenner?

We decided to go to Tug Hill and talk to the locals. We randomly stopped at houses and spoke with owners and non-owners of windmills. We spoke to people in the local restaurant and to one employee.

The first thing we wanted to check out was the noise claim. We checked out the claim by the Cohocton Wind Watch that the generators would be equivalent to a 747 plane on top of each windmill. This is an absolute and preposterous fabrication by the anti-wind group. We drove our car up to the base of several windmills and had to cut the car off in order to hear any noise. We did hear a very slight whoosh and a very low noise from the generator. We cut the car off at 300 ft, 500 ft and 700 ft to hear what noise the generators make. 300 feet a small noise, 500 feet a very faint noise and 700 feet nothing. No roar of a 747 as the anti-wind advocates claim. No tumbling noise.

One local landowner had no windmills on his land but said he loved them. His pond was clear and he had Geese on it. There had been no dear kill and wildlife was all around. He viewed them as pleasing and calming. The greatest thing that has happen for the Town.

Another landowner, a dairy farmer said his cows had no trouble with the windmills and never have had a nosebleed as the group would have you believe. He would have to stop and listen to see if the windmills were making a noise. He was going to put his revenue back into his farm to keep him in operation for many years.

We asked about:
Ice throw none
Bird/wildlife kill none
Water pollution none
Pond stagnant none
All these with the others are false claims just to meet the agenda of CWW.

As far as the set back and locations we must say that our Planning Board has done one superior job with their requirements. The anti group has gone from a set back of 1,500 feet, then to 1 mile, then 2 ½ miles and now 5 miles. What next??

We also checked out the fabricated untruths that property values would drop like a rock.
The property values in Fenner have had a significant increase in value, not a drop.

In summary, Judy and I did not miss anything, what we did realize was that the Town
Fathers and the Town Planning Board have made the best plans available for Cohocton, and that the Cohocton Wind Watch has fabricated all the wildest scenarios to meet their own agenda.


Hal & Judy Stanton Graham

In response to a question posed at the Public Hearing on the Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2, held by the Cohocton Town Board,June 14, 2006.To the Springwater resident who made the statement regarding the decommissioning of Wind Turbines in Cohocton. If you had taken the time to read the Windmill Law #2, you would have found the answer to your statement on page 10.


(f) Sureties



(i)

Performance Bond (Removal).The owner of a windmill, after such application has been approved and before a building permit is issued, shall submit a letter of credit or other acceptable surety sufficient to ensure the removal if the use of the windmill is discontinued.If transmission/ distribution service from a windmill is to be discontinued for a period exceeding six (6) months, the owner of such windmill shall notify the Code Enforcement Officer within thirty (30) days of the date such discontinuance commenced.Any windmill which has been out of active and continuous service for a period of one (1) year shall be removed from the premises to a place of sale and legal disposal. Any and all structures, guy cables, guy anchors and/ or enclosures accessory to such windmill shall also be removed. The site shall be restored to as natural a condition as possible. Such removal shall be completed within eighteen (18) months of the cessation of active and continuous use of such windmill.


You made a statement that you were annoyed with “wind people” who speak without doing their research. Out of respect, we suggest you, as a non-resident of Cohocton, either read the documents before speaking or let the residents of our town propose the questions and seek their own answers. If you haven't figured out the responsibility for decommissioning yet, it is UPC Wind; they are the owners of the windmills.

YES! Wind Power for Cohocton
Box 164
Cohocton, New York, 14826

ARE YOU AWARE?

At the question and answer “meeting” held at the Wayland Cohocton Elementary School in Cohocton on June 8, 2006. James Hall of the Cohocton Wind Watch organization made several statements regarding potential lawsuits against the turbine project.

At the beginning of the program Hall, stated his compassion for the Town of Cohocton and his desire that issues concerning citizens would be solved without litigation. However, as the evening progressed, Hall stated that he, personally, had successfully sued the Town of Cohocton in the past. Hall further stated that he sues for a living and would match any litigation funds for suits against the Town of Cohocton, dollar for dollar. He would also provide his service of “suing for profit” for free.

Let it also be duly noted that James Hall has verbally threatened lease landowners, some at their own homes. He has also had letters sent from his attorney in Rochester (Culley, Marks, Tanenbaum & Pezzulo, 36 West Main Street, Suite 500, Rochester, N. Y. 14614, to these same lease landowners and some members of our Town Board and Planning Board threatening lawsuits if the recipients of the letters do not withdraw their leases from UPC WIND or in the case of the board members, resign their positions. The law firm’s website is www.culleymarks.com)

As residents of Cohocton, do you think that a farmer in his 80’s deserves this kind of treatment? You all know Gerald Moore as a gentle, kind person. Mr. Moore is a man of high personal integrity who has lived in Cohocton and worked for his community all of his life. Why would anyone think this treatment of one of our community’s landowner/residents would be acceptable? Mr. Moore has received both verbal and written threats to withdraw his lease from UPC Wind or be sued.


One has to wonder how much creditability an opposition group has if their opinion has to be reinforced with threats and lawsuits against their Town and their neighbors.

As a community we should be working together on dialogue not making threats of lawsuits in order to come up with the best solutions for everyone.



Ron & Jane Towner
Cohocton, New York
585-384-5483

This letter is written in response to a letter written to Gerald Moore on June 6, 2006. The Law Firm of Culley, Marks, Tanenbaum & Pezzulo, LLP, Attorneys and Counselors at Law, 36 Main Street west, Suite 500, Rochester, and N. Y. 14614 sent this letter. Glenn Pezzulo signed the letter. The following statements are excerpts from the letter with responses written by Gerald Moore

Mr. Gerald Moore
River Road
Cohocton, New York 14826


Re: UPC/Global Wind Project ("the Project")


Dear Mr. Moore:

We represent the interests of James Hall regarding the Project, which has been proposed for the Town of Cohocton (the "Town"). It is recently come to our attention that you and your family have entered into several leases with the Project Sponsor (UPC/Global, or one of its subsidiaries) to allow wind turbine generators (WTCs) and or power lines on property owned by you and your family. (Threatening excerpt omitted to protect the innocent).


Response from Mr. Moore:

The property in question is deeded to our daughter and son-in-law, Sara and Richard Edmond, upon the death of my self and my wife. No other family members have any connection or interest to this property. We have signed only one lease with UPC, NOT several.


Continued dialogue from the lawyer:

The Project will not only harm the environment, but the health and safety concerns greatly exceed any benefits of the Project. WTG"S are extremely dangerous to the general public. For example, there is the issue of danger to both human life and property as a result of ice-throw caused by the Wags. There are also noise and lighting issues, which may seriously affect the health of nearby residents. As you now, it is the Board that will make the ultimate decision as to any setbacks required to alleviate these issues. If they are inadequate we will seek legal recourse. Finally it is clear that the Project will have a significant effect on the value of real estate in the Town and nearby areas. In fact, at least one individual that had a purchase contract in place had the buyers rescind that contract when they learned of the Project. (Threatening excerpt omitted to protect the innocent).



Yours etc,


Culley, Marks, Tanenbaum & Pezzulo, LLP



Glenn Pezzulo


Certain threatening excerpts have been edited out in order to protect an innocent person named in the letter but one who has no connection to the property in question.


Mr. Moore would like to point out that in recent meetings the Wind Watch Committee has express the interest in having the project developed by the Town of Cohocton rather than the proposed developer. It should be pointed out that the town would not only have a larger stake in the profits generated by the project, but would also take on the responsibility of extended liability, construction costs and would in fact have to hire out the development and maintenance of the project. The town does not have the expertise or the finances to engage in the scope of such a large project. Mr. Moore further questioned how the so-called dangers of the Project would be diminished by the ownership of the Project by the Town rather than UPC.


Submitted by Gerald Moore
Supported by YES! Wind Power for Cohocton

June 1, 2006

The Town of Cohocton has been presented with a situation that is quite unlike any we have ever had before. It is an opportunity to participate in fulfilling several vital needs of our modern community. We are fortunate to have wind resources that blow across our township in enough quantity to produce 116 megawatts of electric energy if we allow 58 2-megawatt wind generators to be erected. These 58 wind turbines will be our contribution to a statewide system that will provide an additional 5% of electric power from renewable sources.

We will accomplish this without mining any mineral from the earth, without burning any fuel that fouls our air, without creating any radioactive waste that will be a hazard to all forms of life for the next 10,000 years. This is an important project that deserves all the support that we can give it. For these reasons alone it should be a no-brains decision to go forward with wind power development in Cohocton.

We need not consider these reasons alone. Attached to the wind power installations is a revenue stream that will benefit our town, our school district, Steuben County and the farmers who own the land where the wind turbines will be located. If we take a look at the example UPC has proposed, $660,000 per year in payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) over the next twenty years of the contract, revenues would amount to the following:

Town of Cohocton $3,204,000.00

Wayland Cohocton School $6,580,000.00

Steuben County $3,560,000.00

Cohocton Landowners $3,480,000.00

Total $16,824,000.00

Never before now has anything with this positive impact been presented to us in the Town of Cohocton.

There are some among us and many from outside our town who insist that all of this is just plain wrong. They disrupt our public meetings, hound our Town Clerk, put pressure on our leases holders to withdraw their leases or be sued, threaten the Town Board and its directors with lawsuits and spread the most preposterous claims of destruction and doomsday prophesies that you could imagine.

It is our hope that you, the residents and citizens of our town are not unduly swayed by the negative posturing and loud talk and will stand behind your Town Board until this worthwhile project become a reality.



YES! Wind Power for Cohocton
P O Box 164
Cohocton, New York 14826

yeswindpowercohocton@frontiernet.net