The recent acknowledgment by the National Geographic Society that the Berkshires are one of the earth's 10 greatest tourist destinations (Berkshire Eagle Nov. 19) is a significant distinction. It highlights that our primary attraction is an intact natural landscape. ...Today the commonwealth's secretary of energy and environmental affairs has authored proposed legislation which has the potential of seeing over 700 wind turbines built on the Berkshire's commanding ridgelines.

A well-rehearsed claim repeatedly trumpeted by wind project developers, and those wanting to join with them, promises substantial new property tax revenues as a windfall for our schools and counties. This argument becomes a tool used to disarm those neighbors who are opposed to these mammoth towers and the disruption to this agricultural community. As I have investigated these claims of promised new tax revenues, I was struck by what is not shared: Subsequent appeals of the taxes, attempts to claim the turbines are not real property and affects of accelerated depreciation on these turbines thereby rapidly reducing the taxable value.

I am writing to express my desire to carefully review the wind turbine proposal for Winnebago County. As a resident, I want to see several things in our decision process. I would like to assure that we are taking into account that human development and environmental sustainability are both considered. A connected plan will best serve the long-term interests in our county. Let us use the direction of experts such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the available research.

Research indicates the best site for a wind turbine to be a windy spot in the middle of nowhere. Winnebago County is in no such location, nor is the name of my hometown Middle-of-Nowhere, Illinois! If an ordinance is to be written, and I acknowledge that this is necessary, let that ordinance be an innovative and original document. As is now presented, this ordinance is a cookie-cutter document provided by Navitas for the specific purpose of advancing that company's goals.

I continue to be amazed and perplexed by the thinking of some people who live in town, totally unaffected by the ravages this proposed wind turbine project will bring to the countryside and how they feel it is a sacrifice we, living in its footprint, should bear.

Should the wind-farms get built, the residential development potential on the land surrounding it, will be destroyed, and its "development premium" will disappear. This is because, no one in their right mind, would invest a quarter of a million dollars to build a residence, on land which is engulfed by 40 story towers, when they could just as easily go elsewhere, and avoid this grief, and the potential re-sale loss that might occur on their investment. So why should a wind-farm permit be granted to these interlopers, when the communities and surrounding landowners will suffer so greatly? It shouldn't!

The attractions of wind power as a renewable energy source are easily understood. Wind turbines do not use fuel. The do not produce harmful emissions, nor do they generate chemical or radioactive waste. Yet, wind turbines and wind farms are not without concerns. At the January La Salle County Board meeting a number of issues were raised by opponents to Horizon Wind Energy's Top Crop Wind Farm, the first portion of which is planned for Allen Township.

It is inconceivable to me that (the Horizon Wind Farm) project has been promoted as a way to save farmland. ...I have heard ag pilots in Tazewell, McLean, and Livingston counties testify that they will not risk their lives to spray in a wind farm. Developers tell you that only 2 percent of the land will be taken out of production. They dismiss the need for aerial application as a vital part of farming. Developers say the farmer has the right to decide. That is true. But I believe developers have a moral obligation, if not a legal one, to tell the truth about the limitations wind turbines place on farming. And what about the farmer on the adjacent ground who is not receiving a lease payment and may lose his right to protect his crop because of his neighbor's turbine?

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.

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.