Wrong facts on wind farm
Rockford Register Star|Jim Yeoman and Aaron Funfsinn's response|November 22, 2006
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.
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.
In a guest column, Aaron Funfsinn wrote about an application for a wind farm in Lancaster Township (“The case against wind farms,” Opinions, Nov. 19).
I am the chairman of The Stephenson County Zoning Board of Appeals. This board hears evidence about zoning applications and votes on the worthiness of the applications and whether they meet ordinances and standards of the county.
Funfsinn’s column had incorrect information. The board voted 3-1 against the application, not the vote total that he listed. Navitas Energy, which proposed the project, has not accused the board or anyone else of denying the application based on emotion. Funfsinn ignores the avian studies for the area in question and talks about a totally different region — …
... more [truncated due to possible copyright]In a guest column, Aaron Funfsinn wrote about an application for a wind farm in Lancaster Township (“The case against wind farms,” Opinions, Nov. 19).
I am the chairman of The Stephenson County Zoning Board of Appeals. This board hears evidence about zoning applications and votes on the worthiness of the applications and whether they meet ordinances and standards of the county.
Funfsinn’s column had incorrect information. The board voted 3-1 against the application, not the vote total that he listed. Navitas Energy, which proposed the project, has not accused the board or anyone else of denying the application based on emotion. Funfsinn ignores the avian studies for the area in question and talks about a totally different region — the Appalachian Mountains.
Interestingly, real estate personnel from a nearby wind farm near Paw Paw have found no effect on property values for the area.
Funfsinn writes about the developer bringing in expensive experts to testify about the positives of wind farms. The only people represented as expert in this case were hired by the objectors to the Lancaster wind farm.
While I recognize the right of Mr. Funfsinn to voice his opinion, he does not have the right to use incorrect information.
— Jim Yeoman, chairman, Stephenson County Zoning Board of Appeals
StoryChat Post a Commentl
funfsinn1 wrote:
Mr. Yeoman accuses me of misinformation in his letter because, “Navitas Energy…has not accused… anyone else of denying the application based on emotion.” Navitas indicated otherwise in a statement broadcasted on WTVO-17 after the rejection of that application.
Mr. Yeoman suggests that I ignored the avian studies for this area. I never suggested that the study was for this area, but that it, “investigated the many thousands of bats that are killed each year as they fly into…wind turbines in the Appalachian Mountains.”
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.
Finally, I am not sure how else to describe the attorneys and engineers for a company during the public decision making process, than as “expert.” How are these well-paid “experts” any different than the “experts” hired by the adjacent property owners?