Shame on you, Gov. Butch Otter, and every other representative for Idaho (including the Fish and Game) who is letting our Fish and Game regional supervisor take this in the backside and then deny that you've even done anything wrong. Don't you advertise for people to move to Idaho because of its wildlife? Why do you, governor, do commercials with the backdrop of eagles, wildlife and green pastures? And why does the governor's office need to OK a government employee's opinion to the editor? This isn't just Fish and Game's problem.

A landmark court ruling has ordered that Jane Davis be given a discount on her council tax because her £170,000 home has been rendered worthless by a wind turbine 1,000 yards away. This is effectively an official admission that wind farms, which are accused of 'spoiling countryside views and producing a deafening roar', have a negative effect on house prices. ...One of these impacts is of course safety. In June this year a 16-foot wind turbine blade smashed through a farmhouse roof in Northern Ireland as the farmer and his family slept inside.

Whether the reports of health hazards are true or not is almost irrelevant. Just the fact that many people are truly concerned about the potential health effects of living near a wind farm, or the electromagnetic radiation from high voltage electrical wires, is reason enough to try to avoid buying a property that is close to power lines. It's a simple law of economics: As demand for a product goes down, so does its price. When you have a certain number of people avoiding a certain property, for whatever reason, the price of that property will be negatively affected.

At times, the process seemed like a circus. Although everyone who wanted to speak had a chance to address the zoning board of appeals - as true democracy dictates - the time it took to put everything on the table was far from efficient. In looking at how other appeals boards have handled this process, Logan County metaphorically set the record with the time it took to wrap up its hearings. And some professionalism was also lacking within the appeals board. Members were told they could not have extra time to read important materials pertaining to the subject before taking a vote, and one zoning board of appeals member even applauded after a proponent spoke on the issue.

In Tazewell we detect something more to the spat between the state's attorney and some County Board members than just a difference of professional opinion. While we're none too keen on one part of local government suing another - attorneys win, taxpayers lose - Umholtz is on the right side of this issue by taking his stand on principle. ...the everybody-does-it defense employed by some Tazewell board members is a cop-out for those who know they're on shaky ground but want to rationalize a "yes" vote. Sorry, but these elected officials can read and comprehend the law.

Furthermore, if turbines can never generate enough electricity to pay for themselves, and if government pays the majority of their cost, then they are an additional drain on the nation's economy - and if they are only 30 percent efficient - and if they are detrimental to the health of people living at even a much greater distance than 1,000 feet, then why, oh why, is Boone County even considering reducing the setback from 2,000 to 1,000 feet?

The Boone County Board is considering a zoning ordinance that would permit wind turbines as close as 1,000 feet of adjacent property. That is a far cry from the current setback of 2,000 feet, which after numerous meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeals, three Boone County Board meetings and two years of litigation in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, was deemed reasonable given the limitations to aviation, crop dusting and quality of life of adjacent property owners. ...An enterprise can be a good neighbor when it listens to its neighbors and makes adjustments accordingly. That is what a zoning ordinance should encourage, and no doubt does encourage for other industry. But why are wind projects any different?

Who decided they could put this industrial wind project in a residential/agricultural area? We are taxed under a residential rate, but live in an agricultural area. How can the wind company propose measuring distances for safety from noise from the corner of our residence instead of the property line? Nowhere else in any zoning laws does this exception apply. Who gave them that right to use our backyard as their buffer zone? ...The cost of ``free'' wind doesn't figure into it the astronomical cost to upgrade the transmission lines. The utilities passed that cost on to us! We ask that the board study the issues objectively and find their own answers through independent research. There are better choices instead of spending upwards of $200 million for this project. The money could be better spent on education.

In Odell Township, less than half of the turbine sites are owned by folks from the township. Those that live in Wisconsin, California and Chicago are happy to ruin a place they don't have to look at or live in. How convenient it is that there is no mention of these spinning, blinking, eyesores as being 500 feet tall. Which of our county officials have seen a 500-foot tower in person? ...Why do they need to be so big? In poor wind areas you need bigger turbines to produce power, and the state of Illinois has identified this area as economically marginal.

Yes, I have strong opinions about the wind farm issue, not that I believe wind energy is good or bad, rather that the whole episode has been handled so wrongly. Thirteen months ago I had no opinion at all, then I attended a Zoning Board of Appeals hearing and could not believe the audacity of the supporters and participants toward those who objected. ...Then eleven months ago I was part of a group of residents from both Lancaster and Waddams townships that drafted a compromising plan for proper and safe zoning setbacks of wind turbines with property protection for neighboring residents. When that proposal was presented to the county's Plan Commission it was rejected with one board member making the comment "we don't owe these people anything,"

The biggest concern that we all should have is how certain members of our county board have swayed many to believe that there are no alternatives but to push through with the construction of wind turbines. They have disregarded county zoning restrictions and recommendations (which exist to give residents a right of appeal) only to write their own rules which can lead to serious ramifications down the road. There was a concentrated effort to disallow the petitioned voice of nearly 1800 county residents who have various health, safety and financial concerns about the construction of these enormous structures. To throw out approximately 60 signatures as illegible ... seriously? I think the chairman has underestimated and insulted the intelligence of the rural population in Stephenson County to think that so many can't write their own name.

Opponents of these projects were initially stunned by the blatant disregard of public input by county board members on these zoning matters. Lawsuits have subsequently been filed, challenging the special use permits of each planned wind farm, and arguing the validity of a petition that may have changed the outcome of the county board decision to eliminate special use permits for wind farms. In the end, the question of whether these legal actions would have been initiated if county board members had been more receptive to public input should be asked.

From my perspective, the future for Illinois is bleak - due to the failure to meet rising demand for electricity. Industry requires power and will migrate to areas with assured supplies of electricity. That isn't Illinois. ...This problem cannot be legislated away and will only be solved by adopting rules and legislation that encourage construction of new power plants here.

As a veteran of the wind turbine war over East Hill in Cherry Valley, I have advice for residents of Fulton and Richmondville.

Given two identical houses at the same price, one with wind turbines on the horizon, which would you buy? No prizes for guessing that the twirling monsters would be a deterrent. But the British Wind Energy Association dismisses this as a "myth about windfarms - their impact on house prices". It is hardly surprising that a trade organisation uses "spin" to sell its windmills, but I wonder how it will react to the news in Denmark's Copenhagen Post (July 30) that its government is drafting a proposal suggesting that "homeowners living in the shadow of the 150-metre giants be compensated for lost property value where values have been brought down by the presence of nearby wind turbines".

There is a person near here who has had most everything done to his house to try to keep the noise out. The power company, from what I understand, is paying for trying to keep the noise out in his home. Nothing has worked. He still has the constant noise in his home. Unfortunately, the tower is on the neighbor's land. He is just going to have to put up with it. I had two couples come out looking at lots and both of them wanted front lots or lots at the top of the hill. When the women got here and looked around, they looked at the view to the north and to the south. No way, they said. We are not going to look at those towers the rest of our lives and both couples left. One of the couples bought 40 acres. The other couple would not buy around the wind charger area.

Do we want to leave the entirety of our surroundings to the administrative technicalities of a zoning office through the mere vote of 12 people whose interests raise grave doubts of motive? Of course not. Clearly, a matter of this gravity and importance should be decided by public referendum.

Is it right that a small number of people should make substantial financial gain from development that impacts so greatly on their neighbours and the surrounding landscape? Is it right that the Council should permit it? I think not, but your readers should judge for themselves as it is very likely that this type of development will be before the planning department very soon again.

Forty-three owners with 72 tract of land have agreed to construct turbines. How can we allow so few to dictate to so many?