Misleading info on setbacks

Yet another debunking of anti-wind "information" has unfolded. Responding to inquiry, turbine manufacturer Vestas informed Donald Bourquin of Chaumont that the 500 meters mentioned in some manuals is not aimed as a normal safe distance, but rather for a malfunctioning turbine: "Vestas has no documentation, studies or analysis proscribing a specified safety zone around its turbines. In fact, a Vestas turbine is installed and operating, safely, approximately 75m (250 feet) from the side of Vestas' global corporate headquarters in Randers, Denmark."

Therefore, the referencing of Vestas material as basis for 1,400 feet or greater setbacks from roads and property lines as has been fiercely recommended by anti-wind people has nil credibility. Whether it is incompetence or intentional misrepresentation this reflects, it is not flattering.

This episode added to others strengthens my opinion that the motives of hard-core anti-wind people are not safety and protection as they profess, but rather they use those ploys to gain public support and cover up their real purpose, which is to stop turbines.

The first solid clue came at a 2008 hearing in Lyme where a BP announcement that the proposed restrictive regulations would cause stopping the wind project there elicited hearty spontaneous applause which unintentionally revealed their inner feelings. However, it also provided a road map for other like-minded groups. Simply opt for restrictive regulations under the guise of safety and wind turbines will go away, and several area wind committees now appear to be in the process of doing just that.

Citizen groups are not obligated to follow strict rules or protocol, but it is presumed that elected town officials are subject to various criteria that guide their execution of duties. One of those should be to provide whatever valid information the public needs for making sound decisions.

In this case, this should include quantification of number of turbines and revenue to landowners and the community that can be expected from regulations the town is proposing as compared with other possible regulations. If this assessment and judgment make it highly likely that proposed regulations would cause developers to walk away, such regulations amount to a de facto prohibition as happened in Lyme, and this should be said up front. Otherwise, the town becomes party to the charade.

Thomas Jolliff

Cape Vincent