Posts Tagged ‘property values wind farms’

For those who think Europe is the haven for wind power generation done well, and where citizens are happy with the beautiful turbines spinning happily in the breeze, this will be a shock: people are sick, the landscape is ruined, and property values (and lives) devastated.

This short video comes from Russia Today via Facebook; thanks to Esther Wrightman and the Middlesex-Lambton group for calling attention to it.


Read Full Post »

One of the most preposterous claims from the wind power generation lobby is that there is no effect on property values for neighbouring properties when a wind power generation project is built nearby. They still claim that even though in Ontario, there is a question on the Ontario Real Estate Association’s Seller’s Property Information Sheet or SPIS that asks about plans for wind energy development projects, in the same line as garbage dumps and quarries. Sounds like a positive influence on value to us!!

The question has to be asked then, what will the effect be for Ontario of the rolling decline of property values throughout this province due to wind turbine projects? In the case of North Gower, using the Luxemburger model (which is now thought to be conservative) the $20-million “green energy” project will actually cost the community $45 million in lost property value.

But don’t take our word for it. Here’s a news story about a new study on property values, from the U.S. Note the property value effect is seen at a distance of THREE MILES. How is that going to work for Ontario’s future, Messrs McGuinty, Wilkinson, and Duguid and Mme Pupatello?

Study finds wind turbines can sometimes be tough on neighbors’ property values

Published: Wednesday, July 06, 2011, 9:31 AM Updated: Wednesday, July 06, 2011, 11:00 AM

By Charles McChesney / The Post-StandardThe Post-Standard

Stephen D. Cannerelli / The Post-StandardLarge wind turbines cover the hillside in the Madison County town of Stockbridge in 2010.

Potsdam, NY — Wind farms reduced the value of nearby real estate in two Northern New York counties, but not in a third.

Martin D. Heintzelman and Carrie M. Tuttle, of Clarkson University, studied 11,331 real estate transactions over nine years and found that the value of property near wind turbines dropped in Clinton and Franklin counties. But they found no impact in Lewis County.

The paper they produced, “Values in the Wind: A Hedonic Analysis of WindPower Facilities,” hasn’t been finalized, Heintzelman said, but an earlier version has been shared by opponents of wind farms. (Hedonic is a economic term referring to estimating value or utility).

A March version of the paper, distributed by opponents of a wind-farm proposal for Cape Vincent in Jefferson County, found an overall decrease in values among properties neighboring wind turbines in Clinton, Franklin and Lewis counties.

But Heintzelman said the research was reviewed, and combining the counties, it turned out, “was not a reasonable approach.”

The refined findings are, he said, “somewhat more nuanced.”

Heintzelman said past research, including a study of Madison County, showed wind farms had little or no impact on real estate values. But he found that hard to believe.

“Anytime you put a large industrial or manufacturing facility in someone’s backyard,” he said, there is bound to be some impact.

So he and Tuttle, a graduate student, statistically analyzed real estate data, mostly from the state Office of Real Property Services.

They found that placing a wind turbine a half mile from the average property in Franklin or Clinton counties would result in a loss of property value of $10,793 to $19,046. The impact drops off as properties become more distant, he said. At the distance of three miles, the impact is $2,500 to $9,800.

But Lewis County, with the 321-megawatt Maple Ridge Wind Farm, was different. “Lewis County does not see negative impacts,” Heintzelman said.

Asked whether the study’s findings hold lessons for communities weighing wind-power projects, Heintzelman said it could be worth considering how those who have wind turbines near, but not on, their property might be compensated if they see their real estate drop in value.

Other than that, he said, “Sadly, no, I don’t think I have any specific advice.”

Contact us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

Try as they might, the industrial wind developers can’t seem to get people to believe that their giant, noise-producing machines don’t have any effect on property value. Both the Canadian and the U.S. wind development lobby groups have commissioned deeply flawed studies to prove there is no effect, but the public isn’t buying it.

This week, a landmark case in Ontario, where a retired couple, on their own save for their real estate agent, is going head-to-head with MPAC over the assessment on their house on Wolfe Island. The island, as you may know, now has 86 industrial wind turbines—the people there were told there would be about 20. The Kenneys had retired to Wolfe Island, hoping for a few years on the formerly beautiful island (it looks like a power plant now–oh wait, that’s exactly what it is), hoping for the value of their property to increase modestly, providing them with some more money for later years in their retirement.

Not to be.

This story comes on the heels of the report of five homes in the Ripley area being purchased by the corporate wind developer, which claimed that some people just can’t adapt to “change” and that perhaps because their view of their favourite “apple tree” has been lost, they are selling out. Insulting … and ridiculous.

Here is the story from the Whig-Standard.


By the way, in case you are swayed by the arguments that such sacrifices are necessary for job creation, and for air quality in Ontario, two facts: 1. only 3 jobs were created on Wolfe Island and the net result of the wind power generation project has been a decline in the Island’s economy; and 2. Ontario has very good air quality—what persists comes from south of the border and from CARS. That said, today, May 5th, air quality is “good to moderate” in Ontario, including Toronto which is “very good.” http://www.airqualityontario.com/reports/summary.cfm

The North Gower Wind Action Group Inc. is a community group in the North Gower-south Richmond area of Ottawa, where an industrial wind power generation project has been proposed. We are a corporate member of Wind Concerns Ontario Inc. Contact us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

People attending out April 2010 information session will recall speaker Chris Luxemburger of the Brampton area (he is now President of the Brampton Real Estate Board). Chris revealed the results of his study of the effect of industrial wind turbine developments on property values and concluded: they are like garbage dumps and quarries and serve as a negative influence on value.

We have been wondering why the Ontario Real Estate Association has not been communicating about the issue of turbines and property values; turns out the membership has asked them to, and now they are. This is from Chris’ blog a few days ago.


The new form may require sellers to disclose knowledge of a wind turbine development (This was already on the Sellers Information sheet, but was not mandatory.)


Read Full Post »

A Spanish wind developer in New York State is threatening to cancel its plans for an industrial wind turbine development (you’ll never see us calling them “farms”) because the municipality is considering holding them to a contract that says any property value loss must be compensated for, by the developer.

Of course, they say that property values won’t decline. So why worry?

 Here’s the story:

Iberdrola Threatens To Leave

print this article
e-mail this article

HAMMOND – If Hammond adopts a wind law that requires Iberdrola Renewables Inc. to compensate property owners who see drops in their land values, the company says it will scrap plans to build a proposed wind farm.

“They’ve basically said if we pass this agreement, that they will pick up their tinker toys and leave the sandbox,” said Richard K. Champany, the wind committee member responsible for the proposal. Mr. Champany, a real estate attorney with offices in Alexandria Bay and Pulaski, said he didn’t anticipate this reaction from Iberdrola.

“It’s very infuriating,” he said, holding up the letter from Iberdrola. “I’ve attempted to mediate and make everyone happy. This is a very fair proposal. I didn’t expect this kind of reaction.”

“It also says they don’t have any experience with property values dropping,” said Michele W. McQueer, committee tri-chair, “and that they would like to discuss the proposal with us.”

I could care less what Iberdrola feels about the agreement,” said Ronald R. Papke, tri-chair of the committee appointed by the Hammond town board to draft a law regulating wind turbines. “If there aren’t any negative effects to property values, then they are no worse for wear if this agreement is included. We’re here to protect the citizens of Hammond.”According to Mr. Champany, his proposal calls for assurances from Iberdrola that if a property owner cannot get the appraised value of his/her home at sale because of the presence of wind turbines, then Iberdrola would be required to make up the difference.

“This agreement must be entered into within 90 days of the conclusion of the permitting process, and is good only for those properties falling within a two-mile range of a windmill,” he said. Additionally, according to Mr. Champany, the proposal calls for a one-time only “buyout clause,” which would give a property owner who was completely opposed to living near a turbine an opportunity to have Iberdrola buy their property outright.

For the purpose of the agreement, Mr. Champany said, a qualified professional appraiser, licensed in New York and not related to the property owner or with a relationship with Iberdrola, must conduct the appraisal. Comparable properties would come from the neighboring town of Alexandria, “where there are no wind farms due to the proximity of the Maxon Air Field.”

If both parties cannot agree upon the asking price of the property, Mr. Champany said, an appraiser with MAI certification must be selected by Iberdrola. He defined MAI certification as “the highest level of professionalism.”

According to Mr. Champany and the wind committee, the proposal was just that – a work in progress.

“These were my thoughts,” he said, “but I’m open to committee suggestion, as well as ideas from community members. I mean, we’re here to serve the best interests of this community, and to work together, right?”

The remainder of Tuesday’s meeting, chaired by Mrs. McQueer, was dedicated to ranking the quality of the committee’s collected documentation on the issues surrounding industrial wind energy development.

“We’re going to go through all of the documentation and rank them on a scale of one to three, with a one being the lowest level, and a three being the highest,” Mrs. McQueer said, revealing a pyramid-visual labeled “Hierarchy of Evidence.”

Mr. Papke objected, questioning the committee’s ability to rank its sources, as well as the usefullness of such an undertaking.

“We’ve all done a lot of research. I have about 10 reams of material I’ve collected during my own. This ranking of documentation is not going to be the sole basis by which we make our recommendations. A lot of it is subjective,” he said.

Dr. Stephen D. Sarfaty agreed with Mrs. McQueer that he felt the exercise would be valuable to the committee’s end result.

“We said we would consider any information from any source. If we rank them, it will undoubtedly help the committee with the charge we have been given,” he said.

“A systematic approach is necessary, otherwise, it’s an opinion-fest. Let’s take a less controversial area, go through the exercise, and see where it brings us.”

Frederick A. Proven pointed out that the committee is “running out of time.”

Mr. Papke lamented on the volume of resources and stated, “There’s an awful lot here, I would be hard pressed to say these are the facts.”

The committee decided to rank their documentation on environmental issues and, after about an hour of labeling the sources as a 1, 2, or 3, Mr. Champany asked, “Why are we doing this?”

“Because we agreed to,” Mrs. McQueer said.

The committee will meet again on Dec. 16 at 7 p.m. in the Village Community Center.



Can you imagine the cost of having to buy out or compensat everyone within a 2-mile/4 km radius of an industrial wind turbine development, when you have deliberately CHOSEN to build next to hundreds of homes? Interesting.

Read Full Post »