But the process has become a handy tool for developers rather than a safety net for anyone needing protection.

Opposition to industrial wind power, however, is about more than just the view.

While we're sure the PDC has spear-headed many worthwhile ideas for Perry over the years, the immediate gratification mentality being displayed by the PDC in their pursuit of the quick buck in the case of wind is astoundingly short-sighted. The wind industry themselves says the life of a project may be 20 years. What then? ...A Bliss man recently told us that promises of reduced taxes for the area are also blown way out of proportion, as he's saving a whopping $54 a year compared to last year. ...What's really at stake here - that you simply can not put a price tag on - is peoples' quality of life! Sorry fellas, but our quality of life is NOT FOR SALE AT ANY PRICE! As environmentalist Jon Boone said, "Perhaps people would be willing to sacrifice their quality of life on the altar of 'green' energy if it actually worked as they claim."

Decisions on the appropriateness of building industrial wind installations should be based on the scientific facts of the issue, not just about who stands to profit from these projects. Since wind can never provide RELIABLE power on demand, it is simply the electricity version of the ethanol scam. It mattered not that it cost more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than it provided, nor that there were many who foretold of the problems associated with ethanol. Alas, since there was money to be made, politicians pushed it through in their "politically correct" rush to appear "green". Now, we are left dealing with the consequences of the rising costs of food and anything else associated with corn, the havoc it is wreaking on the environment, while it certainly isn't alleviating our oil dependence. It is very sad indeed, that energy and public policy decisions are being based on greed, ignorance, and misinformation being put forth by corporate wind profiteers, pandering politicians, and agenda-driven, corporate-owned media (e.g. - GE owns NBC), rather than according to what's actually right and wrong.

The battles over wind farms in Ontario and New York state have had no shortage of press coverage. The battle lines are most often drawn between those who place a premium on scenic and historic preservation, property values and other quality-of-life factors, versus those who place a priority on the personal and municipal income the wind projects offer. But the processes that decide these battles are seldom fair or transparent, and are skewed in favour of the few over the many.

Tax-credit-driven developers – Governor Pataki blessed and encouraged them – ranged the nation’s sixth most populous state seeking to plant 3,200 wind turbines on verdant fields and ridge lines. It became clear the Empire State was on the verge of a huge mistake, almost irreversible, the equivalent of West Virginia’s shaved mountaintops. Even though the turbines are said to be only 30 percent efficient, even though they loom, hum, flicker and, occasionally, catch on fire, an alliance of Big Government, Big Capital and Big Environment seemed determine to crush all opposition. In the face of such Goliaths, Cherry Valley’s Davids kept sling-shotting pebbles at the behemoths.

A renewable portfolio standard is said to be needed for creating and improving renewable energy technologies. In practice, however, it does little to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and makes energy production excessively expensive. Coal-fired power plants produce more than 83 percent of the electricity sector’s carbon dioxide emissions. But because coal is cheaper than natural gas or oil, it is the least likely to be displaced by solar or wind power. Natural gas has a relatively low carbon content. But it is likely to be the first to be displaced by renewable sources of energy because it is more expensive than coal. That means that even a renewable portfolio standard as high as 20 percent would reduce emissions by only a small fraction of what is needed to lower the risk of catastrophic climate change.

The presence of these overwhelming techno-energy giants brings to mind a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. ...It's hard to see anything else. When I look towards the water, I don't see the natural beauty of Kingston's harbour anymore. I don't see Garden Island, Simcoe Island or even Wolfe Island, as my vision is drawn to these massive propellers waiting in rest or whirling away, depending on the breeze. If the daytime view isn't bad enough, the blinking red warning lights on the towers at night light up the sky like a runway at Pearson International Airport.

The development of wind power locally raises many questions and issues that are being addressed and others that are becoming more evident. Yet as the projects are discussed, debated and considered, it becomes apparent that each one does not affect just one town or village alone. The considerations are broader in every case and call for substantially broader oversight and planning. Plans for 77 wind turbines on Galloo Island, for instance involve more than the specific site of the towers. ...In Clayton, the wind developer has offered the town $300,000 before any final determination has been made. These cash promises to agents of government who are then expected to independently determine the appropriateness of a project can be construed as a public form of bribery.

A form of eminent domain is happening here in New York state with the placement of industrial wind turbines. The town of Prattsburg, N.Y., is one example. The town has voted to condemn private property to aid a wind company in building a local wind farm. There has also been talk of taking private land in Henderson for power lines to service a wind project on Galloo Island. In Jefferson County, wind projects are being planned for the towns of Cape Vincent, Clayton, Orleans, Lyme, Brownville and others. Placing a few hundred huge wind turbines throughout these towns is a foreign wind company's form of eminent domain.

Robert Sullivan's review of "Cape Wind" (June 17), about the battle over the development of a wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod, made me wonder why a majority of Cape Cod and island residents would oppose a project that promised them clean, cheap, non polluting renewable energy at a time when everyone is focused on making America energy independent. You can start with the fact that this project won't deliver lowercost energy because offshore wind is by far the most expensive form of energy. You can then wonder what all the fuss is about when you understand that at its optimum operating efficiency (an average of 170 megawatts, according to Cape Wind's own Web site, and not the 468 megawatts its proponents claim) it would produce just 1 percent of New England's electricity supply. And because wind energy is inherently unpredictable (it depends on when the wind is blowing and cannot be stored), fossil fuel plants would always have to be online as reserve power to keep our lights on. Concluding his review, Sullivan mentions the growing opposition to a wind farm proposal off the coast of Long Island. This opposition is bolstered by the economic facts of the project - according to previously confidential documents obtained by Newsday, energy from the proposed wind plant would cost Long Island ratepayers as much as double the wholesale cost of energy.

It’s outrageous that any environmental organization would advocate AGAINST our local rural environments and FOR the industrial developers who are infiltrating them at alarming rates. The (so-called) Environmental Advocates of New York are demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the wind industry and total disregard for the residents who are being asked to share the rest of their lives with dozens of gargantuan machines. Reunion Power’s claim that “1,200-foot setbacks are restrictive” defies all common sense, yet these sentiments are echoed by wind developers everywhere in order to more easily achieve their goals within the boundaries of residential areas where industrial development has always been considered inappropriate.

Gordon Yancey of Martinsburg, N.Y., (about 55 miles northeast of Syracuse) ...owns Flat Rock Inn on Tug Hill, where 195 nearby windmills spin in the breeze, make noise, throw ice from the blades in winter and drive away the snowmobile and ATV riders who are his main customers. The 400-foot-high towers don't attract tourists, but instead lure rubberneckers, Yancey says. "They drive up the road, look at that these things, get out of their cars and take some pictures and then drive away." Yancey says. "They don't stay and spend their money here." Curious people may find the windmills interesting the first time they see them, Yancey says. "But by the second and third time, they realize how truly ugly and distasteful they are...

Much of upstate New York, from north of Albany to Buffalo, from the Catskills to the Adirondacks, is in danger of being transformed beyond recognition by industrial wind parks, scores of turbines as much as 400 feet tall, as tall as forty-story buildings, marching along ridgelines. Some fifty are in various stages of planning and even execution. Yet the public - upstate as well as downstate - is remarkably uninformed about this precipitate change in the country and quality of life. All of this is being done in the name of clean energy and saving the planet. But it is not clear that wind power, which may have a role to play, is such a panacea in the battle against global warming that the wind-power juggernaut should be allowed to run roughshod, unchecked, over some of our loveliest land. What are needed are statewide siting guidelines that take other environmental factors, including visual impacts, into consideration.

So why, apart from the well-intentioned New York state legislators, who want renewable energy but don't understand the costs and inefficiencies, should the beautiful Catskills await the new industrial rapists? The claim of new jobs doesn't stand any scrutiny, since teams of contractors will be brought into the area and taken out again after the turbines have gone up. No, the real reason that Goldman Sachs and other big mecantile financiers are backing the giant windmills are good old-fashioned tax breaks. The US government permits a triple depreciation for tax purposes on wind turbines, and those with enough capital can invest in tax shelters that use these depreciations to remove the tax on profits for other ventures. In the words of one Catskills campaigner: "If I had the ability to invest $1 million in a wind farm, I could avoid paying taxes on another $2 million in profits from some other venture. Yup, that would save me half a million in taxes. Hmmmmm". Maybe, when it comes to some of the solutions offered by well-intentioned environmentalists, it would be wise to examine the motivation of some of the lobbyists who profess to support them. It's still not too late for the Catskill Mountains.

Two area residents present their views, CON and PRO, for the Jordanville wind energy project.

Wind energy is one of the fastest growing energy sources in the world. In 2006, new wind farms were the second-largest source of new power generation in the United States, after natural gas power plants. But there's an untold story here that can have a huge impact on area farmers and small communities. It's the story of who really owns the wind, and who will profit from it.

...All this, and the promise of quick money, effectively silences all voices of reason in the debate that will bring the most drastic change some communities will ever experience. Why? Because wind companies know that their shining green (dollars) exterior is simply a facade which quickly unravels upon critical examination.

The Clayton zoning law allows noise levels up to 50 dBa with setbacks of 1,250 feet from off-site residences, hospitals, churches and public libraries, irrespective of boundaries. Given our very quiet residual ambient, which is typically in the range of 20-35 dBa, our 50 dBa represents untenable noise inside residences and other public locations. The law also allows wind generators to be built within 500 feet of property lines and existing public roadways. ...A start in the right direction was announced at the Nov. 12 town council meeting that a citizens wind committee will be formed very soon.