Kansas County BANS Wind Turbines

                                                           Is this worth defending?????

And when is somebody going to be willing to stand up and really defend it!

Get your noses out of your sceince books for a minute and LOOK around.

Wake up people...this doesn't defend itself, it will take us to protect it!!!

More on the post and comments from JLL.

There is a lot of conjecture out there whether we can prohibit wind turbines.  Here is a real time case from Kansas that addresses many of the challenges that could come up in case like this.  Notice as well the BAN by this county was based on the aesthetic qualities of the area called Flint Hills.   Gee imagine that,  some officials really going directly to bat for the beauty of a region!!! What a concept!!!

What is critical is this case is very recent, and addresses many of the very critical legal issues surrounding a ban.  And guess what?   If the zoning committee had not summarily dismissed my input in my two papers by refusing it outright, they would have seen this case documented in one of those papers, and could have been following it as it progressed. Even if they won’t ban, this case is critically important to what they are doing since Mr. Cullen of the committee to his credit has rightly said that the new zoning law is a “defacto ban” on wind development. And this case goes directly to the issues here in CV either way.   Seems to me this information might have been helpful for the committee to look into…Oh well!     In fact it is ironic isn’t it that the zoning committee doesn’t want to BAN anything…except that is, my input!!!!  They seem to have no problem with that.

Link below to the Kansas case:

http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/ban-on-commercial-wind-farm-upheld-based-on-aesthetics/

I would disagree, with all do respect, with zoning committee member Cullen when he said this reported from JLL:

“He also said that a zoning statement based on protecting one's view shed would not, in his opinion, stand up as well as all the scientific justifications and protections of the health and safety of residents against wind turbines.”


I think the scientific justifications are all well and good and would have to be included in a setback approach OR detailed in a prohibit approach, but he should realize the viewed protection is just as critical.  Why?  The Supreme Court of Kansas apparently does not agree with  Mr. Cullen.   He  should realize since he was on the Economic Committee that Cape Vincent IS VIEWSHED, and that viewshed is critical to the very  economic health of our town and region!   So why are we scared to death to address it, and defend it?


When my parents bought the land for our cottage in Cape Vincent they made in large part a scenic viewshed decision.  They didn’t buy land of the water and near the steel mills of Buffalo or Gary Indiana.  There is a lot of hoopla about property value reduction due to wind turbines.  Well, what do think a large part of that issue actually is?  It is VIEWSHED. Why do tourists and seasonal  dollars flow through CV?  In very large part because it IS THE VIEWSHED!  It is just as strong a reason to protect if not MORE than the scientific reasons, and in addition our zoning must strongly address it because it is (or was) addressed clearly in our Comp Plan, and the science is not.  And I am talking about the interior viewshed as well because some people coming to CV to possibly reside permanently (which we are trying to encourage right?)   might choose the quiet and rural scenery over the busy river corridor.  Now if the committee had read one of my papers they would have seen a strong documented case for why the beauty of the region has to be protected, and a  strong case why the turbines are beautiful argument is pure crap.  If you don’t defend the viewshed of CV you are not defending the prime thing that makes Cape Vincent…Cape Vincent! 

The committee and the town hired a lawyer and they are going to pass this zoning defacto ban thing by him for some big dollar advice.  Anybody want to guess what he is going to say????  This board paid a lawyer just like the Edsall planning board paid a lawyer… to basically say what they want to hear…why else do you hire a lawyer?  I wonder if the lawyers for the defendants in the Kansas case against that county wind ban told their clients that the case was a loser?  I doubt it.

And talking about legal advice. There is a lot of banter going around in CV that we have to defer to the “experts” and the lawyers etc.  The lawyers for the defendants in this Kansas case against the county ban apparently were convinced they could win, and convinced their clients as such.  Well the county’s case has held up through two levels of Kansas courts so far!

Sounds like the defendants expensive lawyers might be WRONG!!!