There has been discussion in the last few years of property value guarantee agreements or (PVA) In other words if you were suddenly near or surrounded by industrial wind turbine development, that the town would have a zoning agreement with the wind developer such that the developer would compensate you if you could not sell your home, or not sell it at a fair pre-wind complex value. That is the basics of this type of idea, and frankly I think it is a ridiculous notion. Some people promote this as zoning protection, some as compensation, when in fact it is neither nor responsible.
The picture above is a view from along Rt. 12E near Millens Bay Cape Vincent Cape Vincent
The Cape Vincent Wind Turbine Economic Report suggests that if town officials decide to allow wind development that a PVA be included as compensation and protection, as does the McCann report within the CV report. McCann is a well known appraiser who has dealt with industrial wind impacts on communities.
But the pertinent question for me is this. If officials know well before hand that the wide spread land use they are about to allow in the community is likely to be so disturbing to some residents that they might actually move away….why the hell are we allowing it AT ALL. What is wrong with this picture???? We know industrial wind has far and wide impacts, especially visually. What happens if the use is proposed along or near another town’s border? Does Cape Vincent
A PVA is not protection because if the people are so impacted that we have to plan for them to move in disgust, you aren’t protecting anybody from anything. You are buying them off. A PVA is not compensation either since there are many things I outlined above you simply can’t compensate for that are well beyond monetary consideration.
A PVA analogy might be someone telling you have no choice but they are going to burn down all or most of your house…but hey, here is a certificate for a free meal for your family at Olive Garden that should take care of things…it is absurd! In fact it is just one more of the completely absurd ideas that must surround industrial wind to attempt to make it palatable. Just like... we are going to destroy your town’s scenic value, but ignore that because we’re giving you a new clock on the fire house!!!! You have to be kidding me right!!!!
Let’s keep an eye on our zoning committee. If this PVA nonsense comes up, which has been supported by some of our new town council we need to protest it in no uncertain terms for the nonsense it realty is.
Here is just a little of what McCann says from his appraisal experience about the impacts of industrial wind turbines, keeping in mind that this was included in the Cape Vincent economic report and as such our officials and committees are fully aware of it.
” As a real estate appraiser with 25 years of experience in evaluating zoning matters, I am unaware of any other land use in the 20 states in which I have worked that is permitted to cause such a nuisance that a property owner’s rights are completely disregarded and protection of their property values marginalized to the point of meaninglessness and non existent protection, via inadequate separation of incompatible uses based on industry preferred setbacks.
I also suggest that when government's goal is economic and tax revenue as the foundation for approval of these large scale projects, they would be well advised to build in to their equation not only the cost of attorney fees to protect governmental decisions, but also the lost tax revenue from abandon houses, potential medical costs and injury claims from neighbors, road damage, and other ancillary cost that developers do not advertise, much less typically admit.
All emphasis is by the blog author.
Seems to me he could be saying the same thing about living next to the Nevada Test Site where they used to test nuclear weapons, and where the govt said everything would be fine. Just keep your kids indoors for few hours while that ash is falling on your lawn!!!!
US Govt Photo - NV Test Site
Seems to me what McCann is witnessing and making us aware of is pretty damn extreme. And people think I am extreme for having a hard line no wind “hissy fit” as R. Wiley at JLL once called it, in my no wind views. Go back and read again what McCann is warning us about. So why are we considering this development in any form. Seems to me rather reasonable and responsible to outright prohibit such an extreme land use wouldn’t you say. Once again keep in mind that our CV zoning committee is considering a wind overlay zone. Maybe they should take a tour of the NV Test Site before they make that decision!!!! Don't let them drop a nuke on our community! And dropping it over there by Lyme nuking the CV backcountry residents rather than by the lake and river residents isn't going to make a hell of a lot of difference in the unacceptable impacts to all of us.
Art Pundt
Art,
ReplyDeleteAs usual you have over analyzed the subject of property value guarantees. The heart of your argument is right of course, but there is more to it than you have chosen to address, which in the end makes your assessment and opinion dead wrong.
Just saying no has never been a real option. Just saying no has failed almost every time it was used as a method to create a solution anywhere in the world. If just saying no worked we wouldn’t have any drug users in this country now would we?
Just saying no is an ideology not a solution to the attack on small towns by big wind. Property value guarantees are needed as one prong of the defensive stance to stop big wind. Taken together with a no a pilot stance, tough road use permits, a solid comprehensive plan, good zoning laws and the Federal Government sucking the wind out of subsidies it is a real and effective defense to big wind. One prong without the other doesn’t carry much weight, but taken together it provides a brick wall around targeted towns.
No one has EVER said property value guarantees along are sufficient to stop encroaching industrial wind projects. Yet in your post you myopically challenge property value guarantees and our town government for considering them. Your entire post is misleading, self-serving and utterly and completely shortsighted.
If the PVA comes up with our zoning committee I will applaud them for their foresight and encourage them to enact one. If you protest a PVA it would be a clear sign you just don’t get the big picture and that you think your opinion is more important than a real and comprehensive defense to the problem.
John
John,
ReplyDeleteYou must recognize that we already say NO effectively to many things in our society and, even in our own CV zoning...like signs with moving parts and flashing lights for example. The Community Environemtal Legal Defense Fund lawyers CELDF (look them up) who are quite successful are all about running democracy schools that teach communities how to take control and say exactly that...NO to unreasonable development invasions forced on communities just like ours. CELDF lawyers realized that they were very good at temporarily defeating these community destroying projects by find the technicalities in siting requirements. But in the end the projects usually were approved, so CELDF took a hard look at why,and what they were doing wrong and realized that fighting on the basis of allowing a community to outright say NO was the correct approach. Besides John you need to get up to speed. The NYPA turbine proposals in the lake were precisely defeated by many communituies along the lake passing resolutions opposing lake wind development...effectively saying NO. Some communities around NY are saying NO to wind, and it appears more everyday, so apparently they don't agree with your idea that NO never works. It baffles me that you think saying NO has never been an option, I would say that is your very narrow interpretation. There are some very credible people in CV, that are coming to a very different conclusion. Keep in mind that in Illinois there is a county with a PVA...and you know what else they have? 100's of wind turbines. I watched an AZ group try to defend themselve with this well rounded approach and negotiation...and you what we got as a result...62 massive industrial wind turbines. They talked themselves right into a wind farm that they didn't want.
There are people in the Sierra Club like 90+year old Martin Litton old long time leaders who fought some real big battles that will tell you that their best and most significant victories where the ones they said NO to and would not compromise on.
And self serving. Oh come on John! My suggestion of NO...one that apparently a lot of credible people seem to back outside the little CV sphere is not self serving. It would be the option that would truly protect our community. And when it comes to Article 10 this well round multi point defense that might in the end do the same thing and prevent turbines...do you really think you are fooling the state? The outcome is exactly the same, and it will be no more legally defensible than to outright prohibit turbines so you might as well fight. Artlcle 10 was not design to say to a community ok you didn't ban turbines, but your law eliminates them so although wind power is big our agenda we are perfectly OK with this The best defense is to have more and more communities prohibit turbines. Then it will be a really nasty political battle for the state politicians to run around and start taking away local rule by premepting so many local laws. That is a political nightmare and they know it. And they breath a little easier every time they see this mantra against saying NO because they know that by fear alone they are winning.
And lastly John read our zoning laws page 12 about Planning Board site plan review. It disagrees with your entire premise. No matter whether we say NO or have a PVA or not the Planning Board has a power and obligation IN OUR OWN LAW to DENY any project that can not be mitigated, or does not comply with our comp plan. No matter where you turn or how you try to deny it, it comes back to hit us in the face. Even our zoning law is set up BY LAW to be able to say NNNNOOOO!!! So apparently it IS an option that our community by acceptance of our laws has approved and agreed to already.
Sorry about that!
good to see a discussion of the issues again. My thoughts....I question the direction we seemed to be headed. If we don't want turbines why are we considering a wind overlay district. Why are we considering a property assurance plan? Why does it seem like the zoning committee has already planned for turbines while the comprehensive plan committee is still debating whether wind power even belongs within the Cape Vincent boundaries. Sure these things might have some value if we are somehow FORCED to accept them, but I don't understand why we have not at least tried to avoid turbines altogether. Other communities have done so. Why is Cape Vincent rolling over?
ReplyDeleteOur new open transparent gov. seems to be putting the cart before the horse.