Articles filed under Property Values
We cannot avoid the fact that some people will suffer from the wind farm projects, but we can ensure that the wind farm companies adequately compensate the damaged individuals for their losses. No reason exists that a farmer who happens to own the specific property on which the company will place its turbines will earn hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue from the project, while a simple family with a small home adjacent to the wind farm will lose tens of thousands of dollars of property value from the same project. County officials can and should insist that corporations obtaining permits for wind farms agree to a legal process whereby individuals whose property values are damaged will be compensated for this loss. Many Americans, including the majority of conservative Central Illinoisans, reacted with anger when the Supreme Court ruled that a city could take an individual’s home and give the land to a private developer. But at least in that case, the homeowners were receiving compensation for the taking. The wind farm situation, where no compensation for damaged homeowners is offered, presents a far worse scenario. We need not, and must not, tolerate it.
The concept of public welfare is broad and inclusive. … The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of legislature [to have] determined that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well balanced as well as carefully patrolled. … “The County found that placing the complexes of wind farms, of the size and scope necessary to accomplish their intended purpose, would have a dramatic, and adverse, effect upon all of the general welfare issues found in the comprehensive plan. … “The Court finds there is substantial evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusions reached by the County. “[I]n the County’s denial of placing wind farms in the entire county[,] [t]he County didn’t take any existing rights away but only refused to expand the existing rights including wind rights.”
A few landowners in Logan County might have the opportunity to lead the way in Ohio with the largest wind power operation in the state if the plans of a few green-energy companies prosper on properties in Jefferson, Monroe and Rushcreek townships. However, the proposed construction of up to 120 wind turbines in as soon as a year, each up to 550 feet tall, might be a bad move the community will have to live with for a long time, opponents say. Nearly 100 local residents met Tuesday afternoon at Marmon Valley Farm to discuss the implications of turning Logan County into what would fast become the largest wind power community in the state, while several posed the question: Are developers and landowners moving too quick with a decision that will affect the local community and disturb Logan County’s historic and scenic landscape for generations to come? After extensive research, Tom Stacy of Zanesfield, and others, believe so. “This is a way to shelter big company profits from taxes,” Mr. Stacy said. “It’s a symbol; it’s a monument that we’re doing something to conserve energy. The only thing is: It’s not conserving energy. They want to put up at least 100 to 120 of these things soon and it’s going to devastate the property values and scenery around them for miles.”
The Jordanville Wind Project’s 68 proposed wind turbines, which would stand nearly 400 feet tall, could have a visual impact on southern Herkimer County and as far away as Cooperstown. A debate is emerging among residents about how the sight of the turbines would affect the beauty of the landscape, land values and tourism. Some think the impact will be small or nonexistent, while others believe there could be many downsides. People visit the Cooperstown area not just for the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, other museums and tourist attractions, but also for the scenic views, said Harry Levine of a citizens’ group called Advocates for Springfield. “I think we have to be very careful how we treat this background landscape because it could have a long-term effect on tourism,” Levine said.
MARS HILL, Maine — Something has turned terribly sour for about 18 homeowners who live along the mountain roads where the state’s first and only wind farm has recently gone on line. To a man and to a woman, they feel betrayed, cheated, used, ignored, and dismissed. Put them in a room and they are spitting mad. Collectively, as they gather on a Saturday morning inside a home that sits in the shadow of the turbines, their anger is barely palatable. Since the turbines started up, they say, silence has become a luxury.
FREEPORT - Attorneys Monday debated the merits of a homeowner protection plan for the two wind farms proposed for the area at a meeting of the Stephenson County Planning and Development Committee. At issue Monday was a draft version of the plan, which is designed to set up terms by which the wind-farm companies would compensate adjacent homeowners who experience a loss in property value due to the wind towers. After discussing the plan with attorneys representing the wind-farm companies and objectors to the project, the committee voted Monday to lay the issue over until next month’s meeting. Jeff Mikkelsen, chairman of the committee, recommended committee members take a month to review the draft version of the plan, and also to consider amendments offered by various parties.
As Stephenson County officials work to create a homeowner protection plan for the two proposed wind farms for this area, some objectors to the project are concerned a draft version of the plan does not sufficiently protect residents who experience property value loss. Currently, the plan is in draft form and may be changed as participants continue to discuss the terms of the document, said Terry Groves, director of planning and zoning for the county. The plan, which is also known as a “home-seller protection agreement,” will be discussed at the next county Planning and Development Committee meeting scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Feb. 5 at the county courthouse. County officials, the wind-farm companies, and landowners are providing input on the plan’s creation, officials said. Groves said it’s unclear whether the committee will approve the document at its next meeting, or whether it will undergo further revisions. To Groves, the document as it stands now is “fair” to all parties involved......... The main purpose of the plan is to set up specific terms by which the wind-farm companies would have to compensate adjacent homeowners who experience a loss in property value due to the wind towers. At this time, the plan only covers homes that are within 2,000 feet of a wind tower, but this figure has not yet been finalized, Groves said.
Andrew Manning, spokesman for KNOll to Windfarm, says: “The findings are clear to us. Property values are likely to fall as a result of the proposed commercial wind development at Inner Farm.” “What is particularly worrying to us is that many wind farms in the UK are located in areas where there are relatively few residential properties, not close to towns and villages such as Burnham and Brent Knoll, where there are far more properties to be affected.” “The big question for the residents of Burnham-On-Sea, Brent Knoll and their surrounds must surely therefore be not whether values will fall, but by how much?”
An energy and environmental consultant hired by opponents of the proposed White Oak Wind Energy Center maintains Invenergy Wind LLC fails to meet several requirements for a special-use permit for the wind farm. Tom Hewson of Energy Ventures Analysis Inc., Arlington, Va., spoke to the McLean County Zoning Board of Appeals during a hearing Wednesday night. He said the proposed 100-turbine wind farm in McLean and Woodford counties would be a detriment to the public because of noise levels and visibility. Hewson said he did a “simple approach” simulation of one turbine to see how far a person had to be away from the turbine before it complied with Illinois’ noise regulations. “At 750 feet away, it exceeded the range,” he said, noting that three property owners have asked for waivers to allow a turbine in about that range. Hewson said it wasn’t until a person was 1,200 feet away from the turbine that the noise met Illinois’ requirements.
Sue Brander of Advocates of Stark and also a wind farm opponent, sees several other economic disadvantages. Brander sees the wind farms as a federal tax scam. She said the federal policies were designed by Jeffry Skilling, the former Chief Financial Officer for Enron, who is now in jail. The 68-turbine project proposed for the Stark, Jordanville, Warren area would cost approximately $136 million. Under the current system, the owner of the project can deduct 64 percent of the investment in two years, which comes out to $96 million. Brander said that Congress needs to review these laws and change them because investment banks, such as Goldman Sachs, are buying them just for the tax write off. She also sees an economic disadvantage for real estate value. Brander said that although some developers and market analysts have said property prices would not go down, properties up for sale around wind farms see less interest than homes away from wind farms. “It is all supply and demand, and people are seeing losses in their real estate value,” said Brander.
Some local realtors are expecting significant decreases in land values to homes in the area surrounding local wind turbine projects, but the proponents have said they have no indication that will be the case. Across the Municipality of Kincardine, the 120-turbine Enbridge Wind Power Project has been a highly-debated topic, while Suncor Energy’s 38-turbine project has been widely supported in the Ripley area of Huron-Kinloss. Mitch Twolan, Mayor of Huron-Kinloss and broker of Lake Range Realty, said he’s already experienced the pros and cons to real estate which have come along with the turbine proposals. But Twolan believes it will take the completion of the projects to properly determine what widespread impact it will have after that time. “It’s going to be two to five years before we see the real impact,” Twolan said. “At this point, it’s almost too early to know. A lot of people are afraid of the unknown.”
The 15-story towers and crackling cables that are planned to cut across the Northern Virginia countryside are just red lines on a map, a paper illustration of what could come. But for Cameron Eaton, who learned shortly after Thanksgiving that one of the proposed routes for a new high-voltage power line slices across her Fauquier County property, they have already brought the specter of financial ruin. She bought her 100-acre Delaplane farm last year, when it was an overgrown slice of land anchored by a rundown old farmhouse just off Interstate 66. She plowed all her savings into it. To pay down her $1 million mortgage and build up her horse business, she planned to sell a five-acre chunk within a couple of years. Then came what her neighbors have come to regard as “the black cloud.”
When Fatima Hamioni and Gary Colclough built their dream home from scratch, they made sure its stunning view of the countryside was its main feature.But now a wind farm could be built on neighbouring land, ruining their rural outlook. The couple had been hoping to sell their home in Knighton, on the Shropshire-Staffordshire border, for £395,000 so they could move to Alsager. But the week they put the three-bedroom property on the market, they discovered Nuon Renewables was thinking of erecting nine 100m tall turbines nearby. The couple spoke out after around 120 people braved the wind and rain to attend a public meeting on the issue at Knighton Village Hall. Ms Hamioni, aged 36, said: “No-one in their right mind will want to pay £395,000 knowing there is a possibility of a wind farm. You are buying the view.
Nimby-ism (Notin My Back) is almost understandable when talking about a gas pipeline or an ugly McMansion. But when it comes to environmentally friendly, quiet and- some say- beautiful windmills, an astonishing number of people are saying "no". Melanie Wold asks, "Why? Is it all the dead seagulls?"Editor's Note: This article appeared in the October 2006 issue of Shattered Magazine. The pdf version is available via the link below.
His distaste for wind-generated energy may have begun as a “not in my back yard” sentiment. But as he learned more about the industry, Rankin said, his attitude hardened. With several of his neighbors, Rankin filed one of the first anti-wind-industry lawsuits in the state, arguing that wind farms are a public nuisance that do little to help the state’s energy needs. “One of the things that really energized us is how quietly, how stealthily and surreptitiously these people worked behind the scenes,” Rankin said. “The lack of regulation, combined with the state renewable-energy mandate, is making Texas a prime spot for these wind companies. But I can tell you, nobody wants to live next to them.”
When the Siddells moved to rural Ayrshire, they hoped for a life of peace and quiet. Now, at night, they say they can’t hear the television properly because of the wind turbines that loom over their converted steading.
Mr. Yeoman criticizes my assertion about property values because, “real estate personnel…near Paw Paw have found no effect on property values.” I stated that a study was, “skewed because many of the wind farms were near communities that were already economically depressed, where property values could go no lower…” Certainly, that is true of an agricultural community like Paw Paw, where the crops grown determine the value of property, and not the potential for future residential development.
Let’s be honest and admit that wind power plants on mountains will amount to an industrialization of the fragile high landscape of Maine. These plants cannot fail to change forever the character–including the ecosystems–of some of the most beautiful parts of our state.
Industrial Wind Action Group, a nationally based grass-roots effort, claims companies are exaggerating the amount of megawatts wind farm projects can produce by giving maximum output figures instead of more concise estimates.
It might not be in perfect harmony, but a proposed wind farm and a planned lakeside subdivision hope to coexist together in Livingston County. Plans to ban wind turbines within 1.5 miles of Chatsworth city limits with not stop Chicago-based Invenergy Wind from erecting the Pleasant Ridge Wind Farm nearby, a company representative said Tuesday. Meanwhile, developers of a 900-acre lakeside subdivision in Chatsworth also expect to move forward, despite concerns that the wind farm could make the land a tough sell.