I am my own Neighbor

Nope. Why?

They have petitioned. And from what I've seen reading today on the issue, the plan to place the turbines further away from adjoining properties isn't an illegal manuever around the right to petition. It sounds as if the added distance is what is required to avoid petition legally. So what's the issue?

I also read that now "all" landowners in the project area are invited to participate and some appear to have switched sides and taken the offer.

Can you post a link to what you read.

Quote :

Project boundaries for the most recent application have been scaled back 1,000 feet from surrounding landowners, virtually eliminating the 1,000-foot protest area required to obtain a petition of legal standing.

Quote :

Last spring, more than 20 tracts of land within the project area were not under easement. Since then, leases have been offered to all landowners, and several have accepted, Gordon said.

http://www.hdnews.net/Story/windfarm050408

Ratzilla wrote:

Quote :

Project boundaries for the most recent application have been scaled back 1,000 feet from surrounding landowners, virtually eliminating the 1,000-foot protest area required to obtain a petition of legal standing.

Quote :

Last spring, more than 20 tracts of land within the project area were not under easement. Since then, leases have been offered to all landowners, and several have accepted, Gordon said.

http://www.hdnews.net/Story/windfarm050408

That could read virtually eliminating the neighbors first amendment. They can legally move the turbines. But to move the boundaries of the project 1000' to make you your own neighbor is scoffing at state law that requires the neighbors have a right to protest as well as the first amendment right to protest the location.

As far as the second quote, she is a salesman. Leases were offered long ago, and continue to be offered.

If it's a legal move you need to talk to the state about changing the rules instead of calling everyone crooks for finding a loophole. I'm afraid I don't see why a project boundry can't be halfway through a certain persons property. If you wanted to open a bar and owned everything between it and a school that was the legal distance away, you wouldn't have to declare your property beside the school part of the bar. Why should this be different?

The neighbors have their first amendment rights. But if someone owns a section of ground and wants turbines on the opposite side of his neighbor or in the middle I really don't see where the guy who owns property well outside the distance required has any right to complain just because his property is beside the other guys. By that reasoning I could own 5 sections of ground and plan to put turbines only on the far west end and the guy 4 miles to the east could bitch.

As long as there's no turbines within the required distance of homes or property lines as set by the state I just really can't say I think their rights are being infringed upon. Sure they should have the right to complain. But not control their neighbor if he's within the laws.

And what about those who decided to take the offers after the deal was made open to all land owners? Where does the percentage of objecting landowners fall after that?

was just curious

It sure controling, I'D say!

The ice point is moot. Turbines are locked down in bad weather.

Perceived threat is not a valid argument for violation of first amendment rights.

Ok, I've seen the site map now. So instead of a petition to stop the entire project, why didn't J.P. Michaud and any other owners of small pieces of land that could be surrounded get a lawyer and negotiate? And am I mistaken, or did J.P. buy his land from the landowner who stands to gain most? Do they get along so poorly that a negotiation was impossible?

I’m new to this blog - but not new to this subject. I have listened - and heard - all of the angles from both sides of this issue this past year to try to look at this problem from all perspectives. Yes - I am against the wind industrial complex - let’s call it what it is - they’re not windMILLS or a wind FARM. And yes - I live - or did live in the project area. You see I used to be in the proximity that I could voice my protest - but now since they have moved the “boundary line” 1000 feet - my protest will no longer count. Of course some feel that I don’t count anyway because I only own five acres.

I think that what is most interesting, confusing and frustrating is the sheer obliviousness to what this is really about from those who have agreed to lease their land and to those that support them.

It seems as though, everyone in support of this project, looks at the billion dollar company - Iberdrola - as the guys in the white hats. It’s almost as though they believe that Iberdrola is simply trying to help our community, environment and citizens by providing this “opportunity” to make renewable energy, turn a little bit of a profit and allow the lease owners to do the same. Our zoning board, at the zoning meetings, continue to seek the opinion and approval of Krista Gordan of Iberdrola by asking her if she is “okay with that” each step of the way. Recently, county commissioners Dennis Pfannenstiel and Vernon Berans in a county commission meeting stated that they felt that Krista and her company Iberdrola “have bent over backwards” trying to make this project work.

GET THIS - THIS IS IMPORTANT - Iberdrola is a billion dollar for-profit business that is after one thing - MONEY! Iberdrola is not interested in creating renewable energy to save the earth. Iberdrola is not interested in what is good or not good in what location. Iberdrola is not interested in what happens to the “neighbors” around and within their project. Iberdrola is not even interested in the landowners who are leasing their land to them. They are interested in the subsidies that they will receive from the government - that is us - the taxpayers. They are only interested in the money - PERIOD! The key to this is that once the subsidies are gone, the profit margin is narrow and technology creates a newer form of renewable energy - one that is affordable, reliable and constant - unlike wind energy - IBERDROLA IS OUT OF HERE!!!

Oh but wait, they have signed an agreement for decommissioning these towers and money has been set aside - right? First of all, it will take a lot of money to decommission these things - more than what Iberdrola will commit to. They want wording in their proposal that says that they will have “adequate” funds set aside for decommissioning. Secondly, you will notice that each project area has its own name attached with a L.L.C. Notice that Ms. Gordon is not referencing this project as an Iberdrola project - she references it as Hays Wind, LLC. As most of you know - but I’m going to explain it anyway - a L.L.C. is a limited liability company. In other words, when these 400 foot machines become obsolete and/or when the subsidies stop - whichever comes first - Hays Wind LLC will also no longer exist. Hays Wind, LLC leaves in the night and owes nothing to anyone. Why? Because Hays Wind, LLC no longer exists. I predict that the next area that Iberdrola seeks, such as north of Ellis - they will have an entirely different name with an LLC assigned to that project.

So - even if the zoning board and/or county commissioners come up with a decommissioning plan for these machines - if the company no longer exists - it cannot be enforced. This would mean, therefore, that all of us out here are stuck with these until they decompose themselves. Have any of you seen the fields of useless, abandoned turbines that exist in California and other areas out west? The landowners won’t be responsible nor could they afford it.

Another point that I would like to bring up (sorry this is so long - but I don’t plan to submit any other posts nor respond - so this is all you will hear from me) - these landowners that have sold their souls (literally) to Iberdrola - didn’t always think of us 5-acre or less people as nothing. I remember the first year we moved out here (16 years ago by the way). We were a young couple with a newborn. My husband worked out of town a lot and it was the winter of 1992-93 - the year of the snow. It was a difficult winter. It was hard to get around in the snow and then it was just as difficult in the spring with all of the mud. I remember sitting down with our neighbors at their kitchen table (the ones that will have their turbines closest to our home). They asked if we were going to stay out here and they proceeded to tell us that that winter was not the norm and that it wouldn’t be that bad again - basically trying to convince us to stay. We told them that of course we planned to stay and that we had learned a lot - but that we loved it out here and planned to raise our family and have our grandchildren visit us out here one day. They were so relieved and made the comment that they were hoping we wouldn’t leave as it was nice to have young families come live out here. Now, 16 years later, here we are fighting for our rights as property owners against the same people who wanted us here.

I would like to also address the set-back distances that have been tossed around. The way it appears now, the set-back distances would be approximately 2000 feet. The county commissioners and zoning board have been given research studies indicating the need for 1 ½ mile set-backs from residences to be safe from, in particular, low-frequency noise. Now, many of those supporting this complex think that this research is bogus and that those of us against this project are grasping at straws. Well, as I have said publicly before, my husband’s medical situation is of concern if these turbines are less than 1 ½ miles from our home. We travel to Denver every six months for the specialists to run tests on him to check to see whether or not his lung walls are thickening due to a rare disease. So far, his condition is stable and the lung walls are holding their own. Sadly, one of the conditions that are warned against with low-frequency noise is the thickening of lung walls as well as heart, etc. Now, do we just hope that Iberdrola - the billion dollar company that is just in this for a buck - is right - that there are no negative health effects of wind turbines?

Does the name ENRON mean anything to you? By the way, Enron is the original company that lobbied for subsidies for the wind industry. Do you trust Enron? Do you trust Iberdrola?

Back to the bottom line. My hope is that the supporters of this project, including the landowners wise up. This company has you all fighting their battles for them. If this project goes through, the big winner is…Iberdrola. I am hoping that surely all of the landowners have taken their lease agreements to attorneys that know this industry. Again, Iberdrola is looking out for Iberdrola. Everyone needs to adjust how they are looking at this whole situation. Once you start looking at Iberdrola for what it is - and for what it wants - you might start to question what are we going to be dealing with not one year from now but five years from now and certainly within ten years from now. These aren’t machines that you just fold up and put away. Do you think that technology will create something better and less obnoxious within the next 5-10 years? If your answer is yes - well…that’s the bottom line.

Ratzilla wrote:

But if someone owns a section of ground and wants turbines on the opposite side of his neighbor or in the middle I really don't see where the guy who owns property well outside the distance required has any right to complain just because his property is beside the other guys. By that reasoning I could own 5 sections of ground and plan to put turbines only on the far west end and the guy 4 miles to the east could bitch.

Having the right to protest does not necessarily equal being able to stop the project. It means the project is reviewed by those with the power to OK or deny the project. This last petition did not stop the project, it merely provided a one year moratorium. The project could be presented again, in its original form, after one year.
Instead of the moratorium, the commissioners could have approved the project. The petitioners would have had their petition heard. The first ammendment does not give the people the power to stop a project based on a percentage of signatures. It gives them the right to be heard. If a neighbor is five miles away, and still legally defined as a neighbor, he should have the right to file a grievance. The commissioners would be required to hear this grievance and decide whether it has any merit or not. If they decided that the petitioner did not have a reasonable fear or complaint they would still have the power to approve the project.

The right to petition should not be denied because of Gerrymandered property lines. We should allow the people to be heard. Then the powers that decide can determine whether the setbacks are sufficient as proposed. The neighbor 4 miles away should still be allowed to protest because he borders the property involved. If enough other neighbors also petition the complaint can be heard by the commission. The commission might determine that the complaint has no merit and the project can move forward.
I am not saying that the petitioners have a right to stop the project. I am saying they have the right to be heard. Don't assume that every successful petition results in stopping the project it objects to. A successful petitionis one that is heard and a decision is rendered. No matter which way the decision goes.

I found an article this morning that made me think of your 5 section example. This property owner had plans for his property. He owns 375 square miles all in one tract. The neighbors had the right to petition. They did petition. An agreement has been worked out. It took awhile. But the project was not stopped. Altered a bit perhaps, but not stopped. The grievance was heard, as it should be.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008May08/0,4670,ConservationDeal,00.html

justoo, your last two posts sound different. Up until now practically everything everyone against the turbines has said to me sounded like you intended to complain until the project in that first area was permanently scrapped. I have my concerns over the future removal and making sure they stay a "fair" distance from homes. But issues like low level noise I'm not so sure about. My window air conditioner unit is probably worse than what they'll get from the turbines. I know my stereo playing is.

mbsb wrote:

these landowners that have sold their souls (literally) to Iberdrola - didn’t always think of us 5-acre or less people as nothing.

You had an interesting post, but this line ruined it for me. Sold their souls "literally" That remark changed you from sounding like a person with potentially real worries and points about the possibilities of corporate corruption and made you sound like a nut.

You're right. That was out of line. Let me rephrase this - they have sold Iberdrola the right to build towers on their property. Is that better? I really didn't mean to imply their "souls" so much as I meant that not only have these people sold Iberdrola the right to build these towers - they have also sold their right to say anything bad about Iberdrola or anything negative about the wind towers in general. Once these are built, they have also sold their ability to backup and have a "do over." As much I am against these around my home - I would rather be on this side of the "boundary line" than having to live with the decision that these people made - down the road. So in some ways, these landowners have sold a lot more than just the right to build towers, haven't they?

Now - I had said that I was not going to respond - but I did want to clarify these four words that were bothering you.

I thank you for the clarification. As I said, you have made good points to be considered. I personally don't mind the idea of the turbines, But I don't trust corporate America and I do urge any final go ahead to require certain things be guaranteed.

After some research, certain inaccuracies have come to light. The first of which is siting regulations being Kansas law. This is false. According to the Director of the Kansas Energy Council, these guidelines were never adopted.

Secondly, the setback was increased to 2000' feet to voulenterily try to appease those in objection. (refer to first point).

Third. Flicker... The CLOSEST house to a proposed turbine, would experience 10 hours per YEAR, or .027 hours per day. And that is only provided that the wind blows East to West for said year.

Fourth, Sound. Again the CLOSEST house could encounter SPL's up to 40db. 30 is a whisper quiiet library, 60 is normal human conversation at 3 to 5 feet.

A lot of the web links posted in the other forum were so full of shit

I wonder if the landowners that signed easements would also sign a legally binding paper stating that the turbines on their ground would not interfere with the life that the opposing landowner has known it to be prior to the turbines going up. If not, then I think the landowners opposing the siting have a legitimate complaint.

I am hearing the turbines are not noisy but yet the opposing landowners are to sign a "Good Neighbor Agreement" not to complain about the noise coming from the turbines. If they sign this agreement they will have "X" amount of dollars put toward their electric bill. HUSH money if you will.

Again, hearsay.

Quote research, quote facts.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

After some research, certain inaccuracies have come to light. The first of which is siting regulations being Kansas law. This is false. According to the Director of the Kansas Energy Council, these guidelines were never adopted.

Secondly, the setback was increased to 2000' feet to voulenterily try to appease those in objection. (refer to first point).

Third. Flicker... The CLOSEST house to a proposed turbine, would experience 10 hours per YEAR, or .027 hours per day. And that is only provided that the wind blows East to West for said year.

Fourth, Sound. Again the CLOSEST house could encounter SPL's up to 40db. 30 is a whisper quiiet library, 60 is normal human conversation at 3 to 5 feet.

I don't believe that I said the guidelines were law. I said they were guidelines. Recommendations. No, they were never enacted as law. They should be more clear and enforceable. But they are not.
If the setback was increased to appease the opponents then why were the boundaries moved to a position that prevents a petition. You can change the setbacks and move the turbines with out changing the boundaries. So why were the boundaries moved?

Flicker is debatable

World Health Organization recognizes that sleep is disturbed at 30.
Environment ...Critical health effect ... Sound level dB(A)* ... Time hours
Bedrooms ...... Sleep disturbance ............30 .........................8

That aside the big complaint is ULF. SPL (as in the WHO charts) is a totally different argument. Not at all comparable. They could be at an acceptable level when measuring spl, but driving you nuts with the ulf.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Quote research, quote facts.

And your source?

Justoo wrote:

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Quote research, quote facts.

And your source?

Not the internet.

Funny what you learn in person....

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Again, hearsay.

What part do you say is hearsay? Just because you haven't seen it it doesn't exsist? I know for a fact the "Good Neighbor Agreement" states exactly as I say. I have seen this paper or agreement as it is called.

Post it.

If not the actual document, verbage thereof.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Post it.

It is not mine to post. Contact someone in the counties that live within a windfarm. Someone who did not sign an easement, rather, someone that signed a "Good Neighbor Agreement", ask them.

Then quote it.

Show proof that makes my statements false. And I have.

The HDN printed a story about a guy who lives nearly under the Spearville Wind Farm who doesn't get a dime.he laughed off the flicker and hum bullshit. I hear squeaking oil wells 24-7 and I'm not complaining...put in a few more

I agree that the noise and flicker thing are overblown. The oilwells mentioned are a good example. Many a pumping unit I've been around have a vibration as they pump that can both be heard and felt. Any turning object common to a modern farm such as trucks, tractors, fans, motors of all kinds, and yes windmills, can produce these same vibrations. Much of that type of noise is constant on any busy street. As I say, I expect the hum and vibrations from my window unit air conditioner would drown out any from a nearby turbine.

Society today has gotten so worried about finding excuses to blame our weaknesses on that every study that finds a link to anything in a negative light causes paranoia. The facts are that these types of noise are something most of us have lived with unaffected for a long time. The flicker effect? It will bother those who don't like turbines being here, but I highly doubt anyone will go insane from it.

The anti-wind side has one point to consider strongly and that is to be sure that a huge corporation doesn't use us and leave us with rusting piles of crap years down the road. So everyone needs to quit worrying about what they look or sound like, or if it's worse to have a wind turbine dropped on you in a tornado than a combine. I strongly suggest the infighting stop and everyone work together to make sure Iberdrola doesn't just hose us down the road.

One other thing. I see alot of complaints about something that's starting to bug me. Calling these windmills and wind farms seems to really upset some. Who gives a flying f*** at the moon? What they get called has absolutely no importance to any of the valid issues. Everyone needs to stick to real issues and avoid whiney nitpicking.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Funny what you learn in person....

Then go ahead and ask her why they have to move the project boundaries when merely moving the turbines would accomplish her goal of appeasing the opponents.
You can increase the setbacks without moving the boundaries so why did Iberdrola find it necessary to place the project boundaries where it eleminates the right to protest?

Justoo wrote:

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Funny what you learn in person....

Then go ahead and ask her why they have to move the project boundaries when merely moving the turbines would accomplish her goal of appeasing the opponents.
You can increase the setbacks without moving the boundaries so why did Iberdrola find it necessary to place the project boundaries where it eleminates the right to protest?

Judging by the comments I've seen from some opponents of the turbines on the ECEAC website Iberdrola may have figured the protests would never end without doing this.

If they were interested in getting this in front of a judge sooner rather than later, I couldn't think of a better way.

Justoo wrote:

I found an article this morning that made me think of your 5 section example. This property owner had plans for his property. He owns 375 square miles all in one tract. The neighbors had the right to petition. They did petition. An agreement has been worked out. It took awhile. But the project was not stopped. Altered a bit perhaps, but not stopped. The grievance was heard, as it should be.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008May08/0,4670,ConservationDeal,00.html

I forgot to answer this. Do you think Michaud and the others have as much pull as all the California conservationists fighting to save Condor habitats? Don't forget, California is the state where animal and gay rights supercede all others.

I was concerned about abandond wind turbines when I read about 1 instance in California. After reading tonights HDN the front page article describes wind energy as significant source of energy in the future,If this is the case I believe strict guidelines will be put in place and decommissioned wind farms will be dealt with accordingly.

I still don't understand why they can't build wind tunnels with multiple turbines in them. Power the first set of blades to move air past several more sets that produce power. Or hydro setups that would use high velocity, low volume jet sprays to turn multiple turbines. Once the cycle is started they could be self supportive for their own power needs.

Ratzilla wrote:

I still don't understand why they can't build wind tunnels with multiple turbines in them. Power the first set of blades to move air past several more sets that produce power. Or hydro setups that would use high velocity, low volume jet sprays to turn multiple turbines. Once the cycle is started they could be self supportive for their own power needs.

In theory that sounds good but when a generator is creating power , the magnetic field creating the power draws resistance against the blade/turbine and over the long run it will only produce as much power as it takes to create the wind/water movement to start with.

LukeTHr wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

I still don't understand why they can't build wind tunnels with multiple turbines in them. Power the first set of blades to move air past several more sets that produce power. Or hydro setups that would use high velocity, low volume jet sprays to turn multiple turbines. Once the cycle is started they could be self supportive for their own power needs.

In theory that sounds good but when a generator is creating power , the magnetic field creating the power draws resistance against the blade/turbine and over the long run it will only produce as much power as it takes to create the wind/water movement to start with.

Not to mention all of the blood from sucking in wildlife...

The ne setbacks also eliminated 30 turbines. The only valid reason to deny the windfarm is of unguaranteed decomissioning. I will ask about that.

LukeTHr wrote:

In theory that sounds good but when a generator is creating power , the magnetic field creating the power draws resistance against the blade/turbine and over the long run it will only produce as much power as it takes to create the wind/water movement to start with.

I think it can be done. For example.. Hydro dams use huge amounts of water to turn the turbines, but yet a pump can be made that will use a very small high pressure jet of water that will cut granite. If they could make a pump using small amounts of water at high velocity they might be able to turn multiple turbines and not use as much energy to pump and recycle water as it creates.

The wind tunnel is kind of tricky, but I'm thinking of something that would push air back around somehow to the starting point. Like a series of circular tunnels connected somehow. Neither of the ideas I'm thinking of would suck in wildlife nitro. They'd be enclosed systems. Maybe they are just theories. But alot of what we see now was once considered impossible too.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

The ne setbacks also eliminated 30 turbines. The only valid reason to deny the windfarm is of unguaranteed decomissioning. I will ask about that.

Please ask why it is so important to move the boundaries of the project itself. You can remove or move turbines without moving the boundaries. So please find out why it is being done.

Ratzilla wrote:

LukeTHr wrote:

In theory that sounds good but when a generator is creating power , the magnetic field creating the power draws resistance against the blade/turbine and over the long run it will only produce as much power as it takes to create the wind/water movement to start with.

I think it can be done. For example.. Hydro dams use huge amounts of water to turn the turbines, but yet a pump can be made that will use a very small high pressure jet of water that will cut granite. If they could make a pump using small amounts of water at high velocity they might be able to turn multiple turbines and not use as much energy to pump and recycle water as it creates.

The wind tunnel is kind of tricky, but I'm thinking of something that would push air back around somehow to the starting point. Like a series of circular tunnels connected somehow. Neither of the ideas I'm thinking of would suck in wildlife nitro. They'd be enclosed systems. Maybe they are just theories. But alot of what we see now was once considered impossible too.

the thing about a hydro dam is there is more potential energy stored than is being drawn out. the small volume /high pressure idea would most likely do to the equipment what it does to the granite. it would destroy it

The stream used to cut granite would be too small anyways. I was thinking of volume and pressure more comparable to a fire hose, or maybe a little larger. Maybe start with higher volume to get it going then back off once in motion. The amount of force required to start something turning is not required to keep it moving. Like how much more exertion it takes to start pushing a disabled car or start on a bicycle than to keep it moving once started.

I think it will still draw enough out that it will nullify itself. kinda like a perpetual motion machine. To be able to work, there would have to be an ecxess of energy put in and only a lesser amount will be obtained. At least thats my belief.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Not to mention all of the blood from sucking in wildlife...

Couldn't be any more than is already being squashed on the roads.

In regards to hydroelectric, there needs to be the hydro and with the droughts, there hasn't been much of a surplus. In addition, if you want to get into the ecological impact debate on dams, I can assure you it would open a bigger can of worms than ANY discussion of wind turbines ever could. The Three Gorges Dam project is a shining example.