Two Scenic Icons on Different Sides of the Country
Battling Against Industrial Wind Turbine's "Beauty"
The 12,000 ft. San Francisco Peaks of N. AZ. A scenic icon of much of N. AZ.
The new Perrin Ranch Wind Complex about 30 miles west of Flagstaff, AZ
The historic and scenic Tibbets Point Light House, at the junction of Lake Ontario and the
St. Lawrence River in Cape Vincent, NY. The Wolfe Is. Wind Complex across the River.
A discussion of our land use documents can not avoid the question of aesthetic judgment. Is it really simply a matter of personal taste involving industrial wind turbines or is there a consensus? If there is no consensus then our entire Cape Vincent
Let’s first look at our region. It is clearly recognized by people around the world as one of significant natural beauty. That is evidenced by the choice millions of people make to come here to vacation, or live to enjoy the scenery. We have a numerous state parks in the area, as well as the Canadians have determined some of the 1000 Islands as so significant they designated some islands as a national park. Typically this type of park designation by governments is at least in part recognition of unique natural beauty. So it is well established that our region is host to spectacular natural scenic resources, and governments on both sides of the border have taken significant steps to ensure access to it. There apparently is a consensus that our region has natural beauty. Apparently a lot of “beholders eyes” see it that way too.
What evidence do we have, however that wind turbines might not be a beautiful enhancing asset to our community and region. Most people claiming wind turbines are beautiful are being directly or indirectly compensated in some way or aligned with family or friends that are, or will benefit from the development of wind energy which biases their claim. It has been pretty well established by credible sources that industrial wind turbines harm property values, which has a great deal to do with the negative viewshed disruption. Even pro wind sources like NYSERDA, and the NYDEC agree that the visual impact needs to be studied and mitigated. If turbines were universally recognized as beautiful by a majority, why raise this question or concern at all. Why the need for visual studies and mitigation? This makes no sense if turbines are that beautiful. The developers are even admitting to the visual disruption and trying to compensate communities as a result. You know, a new clock on the fire house will fix it!! For example, we don’t find a need to mitigate the scenic views in our community or suggest the views of majestic mountains in our national parks need mitigation or study to reduce their impacts. We aren’t planting trees along a highway or in our yards so people won’t see a spectacular mountain or lake view. From this a logical conclusion can be reached that wind turbines are more disruptive visually to many people than they are beautiful.
What else? Scenic areas draw large numbers of people who want to reside, or vacation surrounded by natural beauty. They value a beautiful unchanged natural landscape. In my area it’s a big advertised selling point if private land backs national forest, or a national park or monument, or state forest. I have seen no evidence that an area dominated by industrial wind turbines creates such a desirable aesthetic quality that it is specifically sought out for peace of mind, or even investment, based on demand. I don’t think I have ever seen land for sale advertised as “backing up to the view or industrial wind turbines”
Small numbers of people may come as a curiosity, but no one or group that I know of is flocking to build vacation condos or set up state or national parks near or under wind turbines because they are beautiful and are sought after for the same qualities as a undisturbed aesthetic landscape. It is industrial turbine’s overwhelming dominance of the natural landscape which in the end reduces the natural beauty or scenic vistas of an area. It’s a matter of being so badly out of context to the natural surroundings. Although wind turbines may be interesting for a short term view, as a technological curiosity, or in the short term have an interesting and somewhat graceful sweep to the blade rotation, their long term presence on the landscape is a different matter and does not relate to or enhance traditional natural beauty concepts. And I might consider the Mona Lisa or other art work beautiful, but I still don’t want it dominating a window that has a beautiful scenic view outside, nor would I want 100 Mona Lisas hanging in my house. There is a place and time for such things.
The pictures below are from the famous industrial wind turbine complexes near Palm Springs, CA. Many of these turbines are abandoned as others are going up. Funny thing...when we were there I didn't see any evidence of people flocking to this turbine area for a long term vacation or high quality property, or homes being sold with signs saying. "Very Desirable Property... Backs By Beautiful Wind Turbines !!!"
Where are the vacation condos and high quality homes?????
Palm Springs is a prime example of what wind developers will do if you give them the rope!
In addition the argument always comes down to, or is neutralized by opinion. When the wind turbine subjective beauty argument is posed by wind proponents, it’s as if it is automatically 50/50 argument on the beauty of turbines, where no majority can be established and thus no one is right. But this illogically leads to a premise that because this 50/50 may be so, it is therefore concluded by proponents that we must automatically accept the significant visual impacts with no further question and is rational for action to develop in their favor.
This completely negates 50% of the equal arguments the other way, that turbines are not beautiful. What about the people who don’t find wind turbines beautiful? If it was truly a 50/50 deadlock as might be suggested by wind proponents, then in reality the rational thing to do would be basically do or change nothing in an argument that can not be won, one way or the other. Similar to a deadlock in government where no majority can be established so no action is taken. But we tend to defer to the argument that beauty is completely subjective and must therefore defer to wind turbines being erected. We need to stop deferring to this stance. There is after all a lot of evidence that a majority of people do not find wind turbines beautiful or appropriate in the landscape, especially in sensitive scenic areas. This evidence also comes in the polarization of many communities over visual impacts where wind turbines are proposed. The evidence comes in the fact that even pro wind sources admit to the objections, and visual impacts and go to long lengths to marginalize or compensate for them, right down to their manipulated visual simulations that specifically try to lessen the impacts. Initially Acciona in their first visual study even omitted the largest impact areas from their document, such as views from the River looking over water inward toward their project, for obvious reasons. They knew it wasn’t “pretty” and knew a large portion of the public might object in such a scenic area. But wait, turbines are beautiful so what’s the problem?
It’s really a matter of context and significant character change. Do wind turbines, beautiful as some claim on there own, fit the context of a spectacularly and traditionally accepted beautiful viewscape. I believe the answer is obviously no and has evidence as you have seen to back it. If it wasn’t, then why wouldn’t we be accepting wind turbines as a natural and sought after enhancement to our treasured national park vistas, or to our other nationally recognized scenic vistas? Why aren’t 1000 Island towns rushing out to find wind developers to enhance the beauty of our region, and bring in hoards of people to buy homes next to turbines? In fact the opposite is the case. Efforts are often enacted to keep large winds turbines from visually impacting theses places. It is simple, because a majority of rational citizens understand the negative visual impacts of industrial wind development, and in the end, so does our own land use documents. If you have detailed regulations for smaller scale flags and signs, as Cape Vincent
This is an insane environmental decision from an aesthetic protection view point. It is neither responsible management of our energy and climate problems, or a responsible government reaction to it, and is not for the greater good with such low return in exchange for such high environmental risks and impacts. If we sacrifice our long range land use goals, we will have to live with that reckless decision for many decades, and it may be an irreversible decision.
Even GE, a large manufacturer of wind turbines, recognizes that industrial wind turbines are not always an appropriate development from an aesthetic view point. . A quote from the section on aesthetics related to siting wind turbines from the GE paper “A Case for Wind”
“There will always be, and should always be, places where wind turbine development is off-limits when aesthetic and other environmental issues cannot be overcome. However, with the limited choices for cleaner energy sources, these decisions should be made with the public good in mind.”
And we have already established that there is very little public good in wind energy or placing it in such a visually sensitive area for such paltry return.
Wind Mill Tours
wind turbine capitals of California
It doesn’t appear that the significant beauty of wind turbines is enticing people to flock to this wind mill tour business!!! You would think that if so many people found wind turbines so captivating and beautiful, this parking lot would be full and the business would be booming. Compare this to the demand for our local boat tour businesses, state parks, marinas, or the Tibbets Pt. Lighthouse etc. There is no comparison, and the “wind turbines are beautiful for the majority myth” is just that…a myth, and this myth propagated by a minority for short term gain, and wind developers for big gains on our tax dollars should not dictate the long range land use policies in our community and region, which is recognized by a true majority and , backed by our land use documents, as beautiful, This unique regional quality should be protected and remain that way.
And Finally
Many of the wind turbines I saw at Palm Springs had long oil and grease streaks running down the towers, like the one in the picture below. This seems to be common as they age, and I have seen it on more modern turbines as well. I don't find a 400 ft industrial tower with rotating blades and flashing strobe lights...AND oil and grease streaks running almost to the ground as a monument to "beauty" !
Get Real!!!!!
It's about time we get serious in Cape Vincent and face reality and stop crapping
around with zoning setbacks as if this is going to solve our wind development problems!
I just wanted to add a note about the picture showing the "Wind Mill Tours." The business was fenced off and appeared to be closed for quite awhile. So much for creating jobs. Industrial wind is a gold rush more than it is an environmental-friendly venture.
ReplyDelete