• About
  • BRINSTON/SOUTH BRANCH/NORTH DUNDAS/NORTH STORMONT
  • Donate!
  • Ottawa’s “Energy Evolution”: wind turbines coming to rural communities
  • Wind Concerns Ontario

Ottawa Wind Concerns

~ A safe environment for everyone

Ottawa Wind Concerns

Tag Archives: wind farm property values

Social responsibility key in wind farm leasing decisions: Wind Concerns to OFA

19 Tuesday May 2015

Posted by ottawawindconcerns in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Don McCabe, Jane Wilson, legal actions wind farms, Ontario, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, surplus power Ontario, wind farm, wind farm leases, wind farm noise, wind farm property values, wind power, wind turbine leases, wind turbine noise, wind turbines

Clarify position on wind farms: WCO to OFA

Land owners need to be socially responsible when deciding to sign leases for wind turbines, Wind Concerns Ontario tells Ontario Federation of Agriculture president

The following is a letter sent by Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson to OFA president Don McCabe, in response to remarks made by Mr. McCabe at a wind farm information meeting in Finch, Ontario. Several of Mr. McCabe’s comments to the audience, such as that there is no surplus of power in Ontario, were not correct, WCO said in the letter.

As well, while Mr. McCabe’s advice to landowners to “get a lawyer” is sound, Wilson said, the attitude that landowners need to concentrate only on getting everything they want in a lease is isolationist and archaic, and is helping to divide Ontario’s rural and small-town communities.

“Not one word was said about responsibility to community, and neighbours. This [attitude] does not represent the view of the contemporary and socially responsible farm operators that we work with; they are professionals who believe they are part of their communities and who are aware of—or at least consider—the effects of their actions on others,” Wilson said.

The letter was sent to Mr. McCabe, and the Board of Directors for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Print

Dear Mr. McCabe:

It was interesting to meet you last week in Finch, Ontario at the Lions’ Club event, where we both spoke, along with Mr. Levy of CanWEA.

I was relieved to hear your strong advice to those attending and contemplating signing a lease with a wind power developer, to “get a lawyer, get a lawyer, get a lawyer.” This is excellent advice: as you know, these contracts typically contain dozens of pages of various clauses outlining requirements and limitations…many people do not understand what they are being asked to sign.

I was disappointed, however, in other aspects of your presentation. First, there were a couple of statements made that are not correct and may even be misleading.

Power surplus in Ontario: in my presentation I had suggested that more wind power projects were not necessary, especially not for a form of power generation that is intermittent, produced out-of-phase with demand and is expensive, causing Ontario electricity rates to rise. You countered by saying that Ontario has no surplus of power. This is not correct: the Ontario Energy Minister himself admits that Ontario has surplus power and also says that the province will have a surplus for years to come. See his quotes and the forecast for power rates in a Globe and Mail article here.

“Net metering”: you told the audience that they should arrange in their lease to share in the wind power produced by any turbines on their land. This is not correct—it is unlikely one could get power from the wind turbine on a farm, and moreover, it would be in violation of the contract the wind power developer has with the Ontario government to obtain the Feed In Tariff to do that.

Turbine noise: you suggested to the audience that if the noise from turbines were to bother them, they could make sure that there is a clause in the lease so that the power developer would have to address that. This is extremely unlikely; at present, there are thousands of noise complaints in Ontario that go unresolved by either the developer or the Ministry of the Environment.

Community input to power projects: In response to several questions from the floor, you did advise people to go to the government website on the new Large Renewable Power Request for Proposal process, but you also suggested to at least one audience member that there is nothing communities can do, if a power proposal comes forward. That is not correct: people can work with their municipal governments, members of their community, and also choose not to sign the agreement required of adjacent property owners.

Contracts: I believe you also suggested to a farm owner who had signed a contract/option and was now having second thoughts that there was nothing he could do. This also is not correct, and would have been another opportunity for you to advise him to “get a lawyer, get a lawyer, get a lawyer.”

That brings me to the second area of disappointment in your presentation: the overarching theme of your remarks was that if people are going to sign a lease for a wind turbine project they should make certain that they get concessions from the power developer that benefit them. There was not a single mention in your remarks of the need for responsible consideration of other members of one’s community, including fellow farm operators, and neighbours.

This was a very narrow view that demonstrates no balance and instead indicates an archaic, “I can do whatever I want on my land” view. This does not represent the view of the contemporary and socially responsible farm operators that we work with; they are professionals who believe they are part of their communities and who are aware of—or at least consider—the effects of their actions on others.

Our concern with this isolationist view of farm ownership is that it will further divide Ontario’s rural and small-town communities.

OFA needs to clarify its position on this matter, and further, consider advising your membership that when it comes to deciding whether to participate in a wind power project, the responsible course of action is to balance their financial opportunities with the economic, health and social needs of others around them.

We would be pleased to meet with the OFA Board to discuss our concerns.

Thank you very much.

Jane Wilson

President

Wind Concerns Ontario

Advertisement

Wind farm fight in Ontario 2014: no giving up

31 Wednesday Dec 2014

Posted by ottawawindconcerns in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Algoma, Blanding's Turtle, Drennan case, Environmental and Lands Review Tribunal, Eric K Gillespie, Julian Falconer, legal actions wind farms, Northland Power, Not a Willing host, Ontario, Ontario government, prince Edward County, Rebecca Thompson, Sun News, Wind Concerns Ontario, wind farm appeals, wind farm lawsuits, wind farm property values

From Wind Concerns Ontario

Ontario wind farms in 2014: a look back

A spokesperson for Northland Power, whose Grand Bend wind power project can now proceed following decision in an appeal, told a London Free Pressreporter that “One would think the people opposed would lose their appetite for this fight, but they haven’t yet.”

Indeed not. And 2015 will be more of the same as almost every wind power project in Ontario has been appealed, and several are headed for judicial review. Plus, countless private individuals have lodged or plan to take legal actions related to noise nuisance and property value loss.

The truth will stand, eventually.

Here’s a look back in pictures at the year that was.

Parker Gallant (R) on the Dale Goldhawk consumer radio show for one hour on the $16-million Christmas Day power giveaway in Ontario. Wind Concerns Ontario documented the millions lost over 2014 through Ontario's mismanaged energy sector
Parker Gallant (R) on the Dale Goldhawk consumer radio show for one hour on the $16-million Christmas Day power giveaway in Ontario. Wind Concerns Ontario documented the millions lost over 2014 through Ontario’s mismanaged energy sector
Julian Falconer represented four families in a legal challenge; while many points about the appeal process were made, the appeal was lost
Julian Falconer represented four families in a legal challenge; while many points about the appeal process were made, the appeal was lost
Lawyer Eric Gillespie continues to represent Ontario communities and appeals against wind power projects; more to come
Lawyer Eric Gillespie continues to represent Ontario communities and appeals against wind power projects; more to come
Auditor General Lysyk becomes the 2nd A G in a row to lambaste the Ontario government for its incompetence in the energy file, and wasted money on green energy
Auditor General Lysyk becomes the 2nd A G in a row to lambaste the Ontario government for its incompetence in the energy file, and wasted money on green energy
Transport Canada bends to pressure from Big Wind and rescinds order to remove Chatham-Kent wind turbines for safety. (2015 is an election year!)
Transport Canada bends to pressure from Big Wind and rescinds order to remove Chatham-Kent wind turbines for safety. (2015 is an election year!)
Invenergy pulls out of Listowel-area wind project
Invenergy pulls out of Listowel-area wind project
Health Canada releases non-peer-reviewed summary of noise and health study; shows that 16.5% of people within 1 km of turbines experience distress. Media misses this. (2015 is an election year!)
Health Canada releases non-peer-reviewed summary of noise and health study; shows that 16.5% of people within 1 km of turbines experience distress. Media misses this. (2015 is an election year!)
Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli tries to explain that Ontario's electricity bill increases are insignificant, thereby demonstrating his opinion of the intelligence of Ontario citizens
Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli tries to explain that Ontario’s electricity bill increases are insignificant, thereby demonstrating his opinion of the intelligence of Ontario citizens
Two wind power projecst approved for Ontario's world-famous Algoma region, showing the Ontario government has no regard for the environment, whatsoever
Two wind power projects are approved for Ontario’s world-famous Algoma region, showing the Ontario government has no regard for the environment, whatsoever
None so blind as those who will not see. Or listen. Toronto-based Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne ignores rural and small-town communities. New procurement process for large-scale power projects still does not allow municipalities to say "No" to Big Wind.
None so blind as those who will not see. Or listen. Toronto-based Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne ignores rural and small-town communities. New procurement process for large-scale power projects still does not allow municipalities to say “No” to Big Wind.
Rallies and protests continue throughout the province; this one to Save the Nor'Westers
Rallies and protests continue throughout the province; this one to Save the Nor’Westers
Dr Robert McMurtry, officer of the Order of Canada, publishes a case definition for adverse health effects associated with wind turbine noise, with health researcher Carmen Krogh
Dr Robert McMurtry, officer of the Order of Canada, publishes a case definition for adverse health effects associated with wind turbine noise, with health researcher Carmen Krogh
87 communities have now passed Not A Willing Host resolutions
87 communities have now passed Not A Willing Host resolutions
Fund-raising events occur throughout the province: here Stephana Johnston attends a supper for SWEAR and the Drennan case
Fund-raising events occur throughout the province: here Stephana Johnston attends a supper for SWEAR and the Drennan case
One of Tim Hudak's election promises was to end the Green Energy Act and enact new regulations; the PCs lose the election for various reasons, disappointing rural/small-town Ontario
One of Tim Hudak’s election promises was to end the Green Energy Act and enact new regulations; the PCs lose the election for various reasons, disappointing rural/small-town Ontario. The Liberals win a majority and vow to continue their (money-losing) green energy policies.
Sun Media's Down Wind doc film with Rebecca Thompson attracts $30,000 in crowd-funding in days
Sun Media’s Down Wind doc film with Rebecca Thompson attracts $30,000 in crowd-funding in days
The Blandings Turtle is in and out of court as Prince Edward County citizens fight the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to save the environment. CanWEA lawyer announces in Toronto court that no appeal was ever supposed to be successful, and the Environmental Review Tribunal needs "direction" so a successful appeal never happens again.
The Blandings Turtle is in and out of court as Prince Edward County citizens fight the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to save the environment. CanWEA lawyer announces in Toronto court that no appeal was ever supposed to be successful, and the Environmental Review Tribunal needs “direction” so a successful appeal never happens again.
Drs Ian Arra and Hazel Lynn publish a review that says there is evidence of an association between wind turbine noise and distress
Drs Ian Arra and Hazel Lynn publish a review that says there is evidence of an association between wind turbine noise and distress
After taking on Big Wind for years and NextEra in specific, members of the members of the Wrightman family of Middlesex-Lambton decamp to Nova Scotia (but continue to fight)
After taking on Big Wind for years and NextEra in specific,  members of the Wrightman family of Middlesex-Lambton decamp to Nova Scotia (but continue to fight)
Big Wind continues its indoctrination of schoolchildren with support of the Ontario government. In this case, distribution of the T-shirts was halted when parents complained
Big Wind continues its indoctrination of schoolchildren with support of the Ontario government. In this case, distribution of the T-shirts was halted when parents complained
Ontario communities fight against the Big Wind "scam": wind power cannot deliver on its promises of reducing GHGs, creating jobs, protecting the environment
Ontario communities fight against the Big Wind “scam”: wind power cannot deliver on its promises of reducing GHGs, creating jobs, protecting the environment

Wind farm property value study should not have been published: Queens prof

09 Tuesday Dec 2014

Posted by ottawawindconcerns in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Andrejs Skasburskis, regression analysis, Richard Vyn, University of Guelph, wind farm effects on property values, wind farm locations, wind farm neighbours, wind farm property values, wind farm research

You may have seen the Canadian Press story that surfaced on Sunday and Monday about a study done by a University of Guelph agricultural economics teacher, which was published in the Journal of Agricultural Economics. While the headlines said wind turbines caused NO effect on property value, the real study said otherwise: the co-authors noted that they had very little data, that expired listings (houses listed for sale that never sold) were not included, and neither were sales not on the open market, such as the properties purchased by wind power developers.

So the situation was: very few sales, houses not selling at all, and some houses that did sell changed hands many times. What’s wrong with that picture?

Well, plenty. Here’s a letter to the editor of the journal that published the study, released today. Too bad the damage has been done by the headline writers.

Letter to the Editors of Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics:

The paper by Vyn and McCullough (2014) should not have been published in its current form as the results are being misinterpreted and highly publicized in the press and in radio broadcasts. The core issue is the lack of power in the statistical tests, a problem partially acknowledged by the authors but then dismissed by their focusing attention on tests for the sensitivity of their model specification. The article appears to encourage the misinterpretation of its statistical findings.

Out of the 5414 sales, only 79 post-turbine sales are of properties within a 5 kilometer radius and the rest are within a 50 kilometer radius. The diversity of the houses in the sample is very large as indicated by their price range of ten thousand to two million dollars and by the relatively low R-squares (0.57) in the hedonic regressions. Given the small number of properties that may have been adversely affected and the great diversity of properties in the sample, it is not at all surprising that the regressions yield no ‘statistically significant’ results. The shortage of observations on properties close to the turbines cannot be overcome by extensive sensitivity testing of model form. The problem is with the lack of data not with model form and focusing on the form tends to obfuscate the issue.

The authors do recognize the data problem: “Unfortunately, there are relatively few observations in the post-turbine periods that are in close proximity to turbines” (p 375) and “Hence, these numbers of observations are likely too few to detect significant effects, which represents a major limitation of this analysis” (p 387). But there are three problems that should have been picked up and corrected through the peer review and editorial decision process.

First, the authors conclude:

“The empirical results generated by the hedonic models, using three different measures to account for disamenity effects, suggest that these turbines have not impacted the value of surrounding properties” (p 388). This is wrong for two reasons. First they could not discern an impact which is different from not having an impact. Second, they misuse the term ‘value’. If you have a choice between two identical properties, identical in all respects except that one is close to a turbine while the other is not and if you choose the far one, then the turbine has an effect on the value of the property. This hypothetical example tests the paper’s hypothesis using common sense rather than a statistical measure.

Second, the authors claim:

“The findings of this paper will provide evidence that may help to resolve the controversy that exists in Ontario regarding the impacts of wind turbines on property values” (p 369) and then proceed to do all they can to make a non-finding appear important and repeat the general statement that they found no significant impact. They correctly said in the CBC interview this morning that their study did not find a statistically significant price effect but the public and reporters, not being familiar with statistical terms interpret this as saying that there was no price effect. Not finding a statistically significant impact due to a data shortage does not mean that there was no significant (i.e. important) impact. This distinction was not made clear enough in the paper nor in the follow up interviews and newspaper articles.

Third, the reviewers and finally the editors should have insisted on the power of the statistical tests to be calculated and reported. I understand that editors in the major health science journals insist on this as their readers, doctors and other clinicians, are not always aware of statistical fine-points but they need to be fully aware of the qualifications before using the results to change their practice. Given the potential impact a misinterpretation of the findings could generate, the test of the power should be reported even in the abstract. The reader should be told how big an impact would have to be before it can be detected by a statistical test with this number of observations. Had the price of properties near the turbines been 10 percent lower than they actually were, would the model have yielded a statistically significant finding of a price decrease at say the 0.05 probability level? What about a 20 percent decrease, would it have been ‘statistically significant’? Answers to this type of question would have been easy to produce and far more relevant that sensitivity tests of the model form.

The paper deals with an important issue that can have serious policy implications affecting the wellbeing of many people. The results can affect the location of wind turbine farms and the compensation claims of affected parties. Incorrect information or interpretations can be very hard to correct. In such cases, it is the journal editors’ responsibility to ensure that results are presented in a manner that, at the very least, does not encourage the misinterpretation of the findings.

Sincerely,

Andrejs Skaburskis, Professor Emeritus

North American Editor: Urban Studies,

School of Urban and Regional Planning,

Queen’s University,

Kingston Ontario, Canada

 

___________________________________________________

Richard J. Vyn and Ryan M. McCullough (2014), The Effects of Wind Turbines on Property Values in Ontario: Does Public Perception Match Empirical Evidence? Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 62 p. 365–392

 

Recent Posts

  • Net Zero, renewables, natural gas ban a hot issue in Eastern Ontario
  • What do we know about Battery Energy Storage? Not much
  • Ottawa Council votes unanimously to hold approvals of new power generation installations until protective bylaws in place
  • Rural councillors propose motion to protect health, safety
  • Prince Edward County rejects battery storage proposal

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Tags

Bob Chiarelli electricity bills Ontario Green Energy Act IESO Ontario Ottawa wind concerns wind farm wind farms wind power wind turbines

Contact us

PO Box 3 North Gower ON K0A 2T0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Ottawa Wind Concerns
    • Join 369 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Ottawa Wind Concerns
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...