Printable View
"The fall hunting season might not be the same for some Ontario hunters after a major wind farm company asked landowners to ban it on their properties."
"Banning hunting from areas around wind turbines would essentially ban hunting in almost all of Chatham-Kent, the Progressive Conservative MPP said."
http://www.lfpress.com/2016/08/07/a-...-on-their-turf
thats kind of ironic because its all archery down this way southern ontario save for some 1 wk controlled hunts in certain wmu. Although I am confident my 420grain arrow will take down a nice size deer this year I cant see it making a scratch in a 50mm thick bottom plate on the tower which is nowhere in my firing line. All it takes is some extra training for their frightened city workers and they should be fine... I went on a windfarm site last year for work and in the safety orientation they explain hunters are in the area and to respect them and to be aware of your surroundings. I think they should worry more about what government subsidies they're going to mop up next since profit margins are falling. Wind farms are already under lots of heat from public opinion and this may help nail down the coffin. Dont they know many farmers are hunters? lol...
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
Unless you hunt things that aren't deer....Quote:
Originally Posted by Deer Wrastler
I wonder if he's off work suffering from PTSD..LOL.Quote:
In the other, an employee heard gun shots nearby.
I'm with you on this one. The irritating hum they make most likely has gotten to someone. It seems pretty late in the season for a control hunt. What surprises me is that similar concerns haven't been raised around solar farms, or they have and I've not heard anything about them. It strikes me that those solar panels could really me messed up by stray shot pellets.
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut
true true i am so exited for deer i forgot about the rest of the hunts lolQuote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
Most of the solar farms I've seen lie well within the Town limits so the discharge laws would keep them safe from hunters...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Nut
As the article noted, the only property damage 'incident' appears to have been caused by vandalism so they really are barking up the wrong tree with this.
We hunt coyotes around these bird choppers. If we see employees around a turbine, and we have a yote on the run, we go speak to them and let them know we are there. At no time has someone said they were concerned. Most tell us where they see the coyotes. This is a knee jerk response to some moron shooting a turbine out in Dover. This was clearly mischief, and had nothing to do with hunters.
You could see this coming! Here in Niagara, the St Lawrence Seaway Authority (canal), has asked city council to create a 200 meter buffer of no-hunting bordering all it's seaway properties. I guess they think that a by-law will stop a terrorist from shooting at the passing ships. The seaway already has it's own security and the local police and RCMP at their beck and call. If trespassing is an issue then deal with it on their own property but they're trying to impose this no-hunting ban on bordering private property. Anyway we (hunters) swamped the council meeting and reminded the councillors that we pay taxes on these properties. How much tax does the seaway pay to the city NUTTA! anyway the requests seems to be going nowhere!
Sounds like our neighbourhood every single day but I was wondering if something happened to the guys down the road, no constant banging for 12 hours a day, are they ill?Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
I was going to ask....are there any deer hunters on here who are affected by these Windmills in the area they hunt. Do deer even graze near around these wind farms ?
I'm sure if a farmer was asked to ban Coyote hunters from their properties, they wouldn't be to obliging.
actually mike the farm i hunt has a windturbine on it...the deer are walking 20 yards from it and directly below the blades. they arent affected by them whatsoever as far as i can see they must adapt to the noise. although annoying they help show when the wind is changing directions and from a mile away i can plan my hunting spot based on seeing which exact way the wind points. but the noise does deteriorate the hunting experience if not covering some of the sounds walking ito the stand but we respect the wind turbine company and hunt far from it. they should be more worried about the vandalism and graffiti ive seen scratched into the paint which is garunteed by the mfg for 7 years lol I park my truck at the entrance and hang an orange vest from the back of the truck...hoping people realize its kinda universal language "hey im hunting here". plus im pretty sure they only own the roadway and gravel plot the turbines sit on the fields surrounding them belong to my uncle who would prob tell them to stick it if they said no hunting.
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
The "anti-wind" sentiment stems from the Ontario Power Workers Union, who see wind energy as a threat to their livelihood. There is no proof that the turbines present any health threats, or that they kill more birds than high tension power lines, or the stacks from a nuclear power plant.
Nope. The "anti-wind" sentiment stems from the communities that have had them unwillingly shoved down their throats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mcfasio
People that are paying too much for hydro might not like windmills either.
It's ok to kill birds as long as it's not more than high tension power lines, or the stacks from a nuclear power plants?
My objections to wind have nothing to do with any of those reasons. Simple economics. Massive subsidies for unreliable capacity that is not even needed. Anytime the wind blows we have to essentially give the power to the US or Quebec at a loss of $500 million per year. Utter stupidity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mcfasio
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
Quote:
Originally Posted by glen
Couldn't have said it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Species8472
I want to find out where they are giving the cheap hydro to.
Then I will hook up my line from there.
Do they shut these things down when power is not needed,the reason I ask is that coming down the 35/115hwy I see these seven on the horizon and they are not turning.I passed today when there was a wind and nothing.
Some are already shut down and we pay the owners for what they would have made this way claims the Liberal government we save money by not selling it at a lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
"Banning hunting from areas around wind turbines would essentially ban hunting in almost all of Chatham-Kent" quote
Seems like a big deal to me.
OFAH rep spoke well to the issue.
http://www.lfpress.com/2016/08/07/a-major-hunters-group-has-its-back-up-after-engie-a-wind-energy-company-big-in-southwestern-ontario-asked-landowners-with-its-turbines-to-ban-hunting-on-their-turf
[COLOR=#333333]"Most of the solar farms I've seen lie well within the Town limits so the discharge laws would keep them safe from hunters..."
[COLOR=#333333]And here I thought what was keeping them safe, was a better educated class of hunter, tuned in to respect for the landowner and having a broad appreciation of hunter ethics. Up west and north west of your location most the solar interest is outside of town limits, at least the ones in the area I drive through. Meanwhile with the OFAH and the Delta Waterfowl Association offering a defense they are doing so in support of the ethical hunters who have better things to do then blasted away at equipment, and attempt to intimidate field staff. The one other point that comes into play is solar solar doesn't put out the noise vibes that accompany wind generation, which in part may explain some of the concerns that have promote vandalism, in the case of wind whereas solar gets a pass.
You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut
This will be interesting. The wind employees are supposedly concerned for their safety while working around the turbines. What about the landowners who are out working the land ? Obviously they aren't too concerned with the hunters they have given permission to! As I said earlier, we hunt around these things all winter. Not one employee we have spoken to, has any concerns. Sounds like Big Wind BS to me.
I have ten pretty much in my backyard and very, very rarely there isn't a crane and work crew working on one. Breakdowns or maintenance seem to be a common occurrence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Same here along Lakeshore Road (LAKE Huron) they are in my backyard and always see crews working on them. Kinda funny to see them turning when the wind isn't blowing. I told my son that they are basically big outside fans cooling us down on hot summer days. lol They are also used to aid in the pollination process for field crops. That was part of Kathleen Wynn plan as well. She's a fricken genius !
They are basically burning off power saved in the battery banks that is not being used. They then start them up on a windy day to recharge and sell it to us suckers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
How do you figure they aid in pollination ????
Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
It was a joke. lol
I hope your battery post was one as well!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
They must be relatively new construction. I drive by or around a couple hundred of these things and once they are operational, I very rarely see anyone around them. I think we have 800 or so here in Chatham-Kent, and they are building more!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by bardern
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
I think bardern's post illustrates part of their effect on the deer herd quite well. Constant human pressure will move deer out of an area.Quote:
Originally Posted by bardern
Now you're just making stuff up.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
Everyone knows they're really huge propellers used to slow the rotation of the Earth so our corporate masters can make us work longer days. Have you measured the length of an hour recently? The closer we get to hunting season the longer the hours take. Coincidence? I don't think so!
The government sells us this "hydro generation" lie because they don't want us to know the truth.
4yrs old. our municipality has banned any more construction but that isn't worth the paper it is printed on. another 40 of the bustards going inQuote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
-Gutted property values for anyone who has had them rammed down their throats.
-abnormally high bird and bat strikes
-possible affects on people vis a vie near constant hum
-hydro rates
etc.
and on and on.
have been turkey hunting on fields afflicted with them. Doesn't seem to bother them but who knows.
find it interesting that big wind and their employees are trying to dictate what land owners can or can't do on their own property. I pity any government officials (muni or prov) who don't get behind land owners, and stopping this cold in its tracks.
Ontario Mining Act says that you do not own the rights to the minerals under your property and a mining co can go under your property to dig them up. Don't own the wind, don't own the dirt what is next ?
Are the wind farm companies, or government, expropriating the land they sit on?
No, they're offering the landowners pretty sweet deals over the next 20 years, except after 20 years, the landowner is responsible for the decommissioning....Quote:
Originally Posted by zoli 16ga.
The Province rammed the Green Energy Act through. Part of it actually makes municipalities powerless to oppose them. The only thing a municipality can do is gum up the works with excess load restrictions on the trucks hauling them......and those don't hold up to scrutiny, or high priced lawyers....Quote:
Originally Posted by bardern
"No, they're offering the landowners pretty sweet deals over the next 20 years, except after 20 years, the landowner is responsible for the decommissioning...."
The all mighty $ wins again!
Many times you don't own the trees either as forestry rights are often reserved to the crown.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Little bit of a difference between the crown saying I don't own mineral rights, or have to pay foresters to come in, and decide on a plan for logging. Which I still think I'm compensated for the minerals and certainly the trees.
And say Samsung, or some U.S. Company having the right to deny me what activities I ok on my land.
I believe, though could be wrong that following some of the ire raised in rural Ontario, the province relented some on the GEA. Especially in light of the gas plants where they blinked to save 5 seats, but rural Ontarians getting shafted by these eyesores and more? Think these days a town, muni can "say no" but it still has to go through some rigged system. There was a case before the courts recently, where the town/muni won. The first time.
Can't find the news on an appeal finally won. It was about 3 weeks ago. To whoever said the only people complaining are hydro employees...lol....are you a wind employee because the only people who like them are those getting rich off the deals.
anywho, just google "Ontario, wind appeals" to see just how many there have been (lost to date) and are on going.
Many deny its not affecting property values. Funny when looking to move to the country this spring, Orono/Bethany were on the list. The ones visible from 115.......ultimately scared us off.
http://m.durhamregion.com/news-story...oject-in-orono
so much for being "green champions". The "protected" Morraine (possibly the single most important area in the province)....
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...l_hearing.html
it goes without saying that Many in the GTA who don't see or have to live with these monstrosities...out of sight, out of mind. No clue what's they are doing to rural Ontario.
Eventually to everyone's chagrin it will just be part of rural living, like homeless shelters are just an urban problem. Neither are going away.
Tell that to a farmer Gord, whose property value has been gutted. Who needs say 2million in new farm equipment. How do banks determine credit lines? Ah yes, property value.
apples and oranges comparing what is occurring throughout Rural Ont (not to mention the cost of hydro, which is considerably higher) and "homeless" shelters. Try leaving the GTA more often, see (actually see) more of the province.
It's pathetic. And worse, it's the head in the sand "see no evil" GTA that is partly/largely responsible.
If you think Hydro rates are high now wait until Wynne completes the 60% sell off of Hydro and rate payers will be powerless to protest. You can't "vote" out a corporation that is privately owned and controls pricing. And you can't do without hydro. All this so she can pretend to balance the books in the next election year and dupe the imbeciles again who keep voting Liberal. Imagine selling the wheels off your car to make the monthly payments. In this case she's giving raises to PS unions. What next? Sell Queen's park next election or contract negotiation ? She's actually lending money to hydro share buyers and selling them below market value. It's beyond stupid and now entering the realm of bizzare.
Well those are largely separate topics Terry. Bad yes, worse for rural Ontario. Where there are fewer jobs, jobs pay less, and hydro is more expensive, where home heating options are fewer, and many are on electric. If people in the cities think it's stupid expensive, move to rural Ont......
what the heck am I saying....I just moved into it, am I nuts?..wonder why (points at the asylum aka city)
:)
We can thank gullible people, who got caught up in the Green wave sweeping NA back around 2006-2008. McGuinty/Wynne hitched their wagons wanting to capitalize on the wave. Enter the GEA, and the prices paid for idealogy versus practicality.
G, you always bring smiles to me. Whether it's your updates from the links, or railing against the establishment and corporate greed. I assume you know, she's made deals with the devil..........where by golly are all the promised jobs in return? And if you think city dwellers are the only people who see derelict homes, run down neighbourhoods....have you visited many small rural towns in the last 8 years?
Be that as it may. The gall of these (this) company!!! asking land owners to ban hunting. Many of these same communities are torn apart, due to the inner strife these wind farms are creating as some owners "sell out", and neighbours see the property values plummet, get the eye and ears sores.....who knows how this might play out. I pity any local politicians who don't jump to land owners defence and call spades spades.
JB , I do travel around this province, I was in Trout Creek visiting friends just last week , and you can't get any more rural than that. I also spend 5 months of the year living 50 miles north of your new place. I agree that in reality, you should not have something put next door that affects the value of your property. Nobody wants the unwanted beside them. Tell that to the urban folks whose house just became worth a lot less because of a homeless shelter being put on their street. Maybe just maybe the owner of the land on which the wind gathering machine sits is very happy with the monetary arrangement, after all it is his land and should be able to have on it whatever he sees fit, which has been stated many times on this site about various topics.
I know G, which makes me wonder sometimes, just "how you miss so much".
Trout Creek. Bah, you can get more rural than that. It has cell service. Go about another 20-30min west on 124. There's a slice of heaven I frequent once a year in Dec, twice a year when I can.
"homeless shelters" or even co-ops (don't forget I'm inner city raised kid) don't compare to what windfarms are doing to rural Ont.
-for starters (see farmers/lines of credit)
-you can't see 1 "shelter" or group home (lived in one of those to) from miles away, you can't even see them from around the corner, or hear them from across the dale,(sound does travel out here I'm sure your aware. :). let alone 5-10-20-50.
-when people are moving in the city, they expect certain things, be it streetcars or sirens or.... It's part of life that doesn't disrupt the "ambiance"..group homes, shelters, derelict buildings, more.
.when people move in the country those things don't "jive", don't go hand in hand, aren't part of it. Hence why in many of the areas, there's an exodus. Apples and Oranges.
if you really want an "eye opener" go to the Bruce or SW Ontario. Heck even Amherst or Wolfe Island.
And stop in for a beer on the way by.
Actually JB, I was closer to your slice of heaven than you think, in Commanda, no cell service unless you climb a tree. My friends work in Sundridge and live on Eagle Lake. I am just pointing out that both the rural and urban folks have problems with neighbors. BUT, many people on here in different threads, have said, 'it's his land he can do what he wants with it'. If that applies for, shooting all day, spreading manure during a wedding, etc. it should also apply here.
Love it there. A little past Commanda is Golden Valley. And there's a place I know, words don't do it justice. Next time your passing shoot me a note. Cold beers or coffee waiting.
/edit
don't disagree (in ways), aside from the differences (both fruit, but A to O) and aside from other issues. When I moved here. I knew there are going to be days when the wind blows foul (manure). Part of the "ambiance" of country life.
Imagine if you will, one day the province started spreading fertilizer over 300 acres in your subdivision, not once, but every day. Forever.
That is what industrial wind farms are more like to "rural" life. And I imagine if the province did start spreading manure over 300 acres in numerous subdivisions, every day..well things would go downhill in those communities, and the manure would hit the fan.
What happened to the 'it's my property and I can do what I want on it", guys on here. Is nobody going to defend the farmer who wants a turbine on HIS property? Or is it only OK if he does what he wants on his property, if you agree with it.
Almost every landowner with wind turbines is a BIG TIME Liberal a**kisser,anyway,so,they likely have already posted No Hunting signs on all their property.
I have absolutely no respect for the farmer that crawls into bed with any of these wind turbine companies. They don't give a rats a** that a large portion of what they are being paid is subsidized by the taxpayer. Shame on them greedy scoundrels.
I could not agree more. In fact this whole wind turbine thing is 100% subsidized. It has been shown globally (i.e. in other countries) that no company can provide wind power generated electricity without losing money. For this reason they have to be subsidized by the public purse.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
As for farmers allowing wind turbines to be built on their land, I have no respect for them. Collectively these people have contributed to destroying the natural beauty of huge areas of Ontario. If you want a perfect example, just look at what has been done to Amherst Island off shore from Kingston. Interestingly enough, the planned wind turbines off the shore of Toronto were cancelled since they left-wing in the GTA complained that they detracted from the view of the lake. Fr#cking hypocrites!
tantamount to the welfare and disability frauders only this is legalized.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
Lest we forget recent events...
In addition to the potential impact to hunters as part of this thread the implementation of wind energy in this province is fraught with lies, deception and mismanagement of public funds.
http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto...e-project.html
While a agree...I also like the fact that I live in a country that allows a landowner to have the freedom to choose to lease a portion of his land freely and make money off of it. Sometimes the freedoms we enjoy have to be taken in context...you cannot please everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGearyFTE
Agreed 100%. but when it is our money is being stolen or at least wasted we should have some say Mike.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
And let's not point fingers just at the farmer for being "greedy"...
Quote:
In Crysler, Mr. Lesko proudly stated to a gathered crowd, that in Goderich Township, over 80% of the municipality were against wind turbines, so they went and offered neighbours $500 to $1000 dollars and the next survey had a totally different approval result, with over 80% being in favour of them.
http://www.ontariolandowners.ca/news...-beth-trudeau/
We do every 4 yrs; also something many have died for to provide us.Quote:
Originally Posted by bardern
Wind and solar is a garbage source of energy.. this has been revealed to me by people in the industry..
The Wynne govt is coddling up to the enviro-nazis... this prov. is going to the crapper... we really need to take our province back.
36,000 jobs lost last month... $320 BILLION debt... and now they want to teach my kids about alternative marriage arrangements and LGBT agenda in grade 3.
and now, they are going to further erode hunting opportunities..
So I shouldn't apply to install wind mills near Russell? :)
I agree the landowner has a right to put them up. The problem is not with the landowner - it's with the system that has been put in place to subsidize what would otherwise be a money-losing venture.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
agreed. my uncles brothers farm put one up in the beggining of all this debacle. i doubt he knew the financial impact/losses incurred at the time. so to shame the farmers who allow you and others to hunt their property all I say is careful what you wish for. if my relatives read this thread they would have quite a thing to say about hunters and granted I might loose my hunting privilidges so all you nay sayers watch your tongue, all it takes is poor outspoken opinion to ruin a good thing for myself and others. farmers are having a rough go in my area dont know about anywhere else but perhaps it seemed like a good idea at the time to help the dwindling cash flow. so lay off and go enjoy your turbine-less hunting properties. some of us are not that lucky to have boundless options. Dont take your frustrations out on farmers they provide most of the food you eat and how does that beer taste...you know that came from a farm right?Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
none on my property yet. doubt it will happen since my property is owned by the total opposite what you are describing and he has quite a bit of self respect for himself and others...something to think about eh i doubt you know "most" of the landowners so your statement doesnt hold much waterQuote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Yes, there is blame enough for all. It is really a sad statement of our society. I am also sensitive to the fact that in some (perhaps many) instances where the land was simply taken. For this and many other reasons I am a member of the OLA. Property rights need to be protected - (in fact it is a myth that Ontarians have property rights)
Now back to the OP (sarcasm intended)
It is my understanding that wind turbines have a radiator in the back. Pretty sure this is a vital spot. I wonder how much a Wind Turbine tag is worth? Does anyone know when they are in season? If I shoot it, do I have to skin it right away or can I just leave it in the field and go back for the parts as I need them?
People need to realize that those turbines actually cost the province money every day to operate. This money is actually borrowed from your grandchildren. Turbines produce power that Wynne sells below market rates as surplus capacity.
No doubt,it wasn't intended to,anyway. My post was rhetorical only.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deer Wrastler
"some of us are not that lucky to have boundless options."
Grew grew up around farming. I understand their train of thought. However, to blame the city folk for turbines in rural areas is ludicrous. Farmers can sell parcels of land to whomever they wish, developers or wind turbine companies alike. It just irks me when others get blamed for their decision.
I will be selling my house in the city shortly. I will sell to the highest bidder, whomever they may be. But I will not be a hypocrite and blame the city for ruining the neighborhood if I happen to sell to the wrong person, ethnic or cultural group, as their money is all the same. But that's just me.
And to reiterate another point, what brought the liberals into power WAS the rural vote...all over the province, and country....much to my dismay.
I just found another reason that hunting turbines is good for everyone...
http://business.financialpost.com/fp...er-been-higher
To me, the big worry here is not that this company is asking landowners to ban hunting, because most will just shrug and ignore the request. They're used to working outdoors during hunting season already.
The bigger worry is that these companies will start including a clause requiring the landowner to prohibit hunting in their future agreements with landowners. That would be a huge problem and I hope the OFAH would push back hard.
Agree 100%. Our farm was to be wedged between 2 of these monstrosities. Neighbour on one side gladly signed on the dotted line (doesn't even live on the property). But the small beef farmer neighbour on the other side of us turned them down. Twice! $50,000/yr for 1 turbine. $1 million dollar contract for 20 years. Nope. He asked if we had signed up next door, when the pencil neck CEO said 'no', he turned it down. There's a man I can RESPECT.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
Clearly your neighbour has integrity as do you.Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
not quite accurate..notice the concentration of RED...Quote:
Originally Posted by zoli 16ga.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...on_Map.svg.png
Yes indeed....even if it's nothing more than forcing the farmer to increase his insurance rates to cover damage incurred by hunting on the property.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
some of the legal issues landowners face down south...probably equally applicable up here.Quote:
While current uses of the property are reserved to the landowners (such as farming, ranching, hunting, and oil, gas and other mineral exploration/development), these reserved rights are almost always subordinated to the wind company’s exclusive right to wind development without interference. For example, a proposed lease might provide:
Likewise liability coverage must be examined with special consideration given to any concurrent uses by the landowner or those whose rights are derived from the landowner (i.e. farming, hunting etc.). Generally, the agreement should specify requirements for applicable insurance policies typical of landlord/tenant relationships and include minimum coverage limits, maximum deductibles and waivers of subrogation.
http://www.mcafeetaft.com/wind-law-a...rs-perspective
Or enough money so they don't have to give into temptation. Some don't have that choice, because maybe that million will save the family farm.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGearyFTE
Well said Mike.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
People forget that freedom is a double edged sword. While every story, is unique in its own right this (to me anyways) differs some. In so much as the combined greed, corruption, self serving interest, NIMBYSM, hear no evil, see no evil, lack of moral compasses so obviously and patently on display by those who live in the golden TA, reap so many benefits, and pay little prices.
Have trashed this province. Figuratively (the landscape and eyesores) and literally. And until there is some much needed electoral reform (number of ridings, concentrations, unions and conflict of interest). Well rural Ontarians are paying huge prices.
be that as it may, put the blame where it belongs. Politics and those who despite oh so much, elected this crew. Sad truth is, there were two chances to stop the insanity. 2011 and again in 2014.
too late now and really "you reap what you sow"
As I said. The gall!! Of these companies who on top of everything else, are responsible for hard feeling and rifts in rural communities and tearing them apart as well.
Yep, obviously.
Well I'll agree I'm not knowledgeable enough to put down numbers, scroll through this and pick out the number of MP's elected in rural areas. Again, I voted PC just to be clear.
https://www.liberal.ca/mp/
http://www.ontarioliberal.ca/OurTeam/WhoWeAre/MPP.aspx
DEFINITELY not. It's all integrity with this fellow. Remember, the landowners that sign up also sign a non-disclosure agreement that forbids them from telling anyone about the project before it's publicly announced. To prevent neighbours from being able to defend their properties. (ie. Pulling building permits)Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I don't think I could sign that in good conscience. Couldn't do that to my neighbours.
I know many farmers and the majority are very well off. I use to sell milking equipment in the Ottawa Valley for about a year and had just over 200 hundred customers that were farmers. I recall only two that may have jumped at the opportunity if given but for the most part these two farming operations were poorly managed and would go under. Most farmers pass the family down from generation to generation and if they have no one to pass it down to they sell it making huge profits. Farmers are typically good money managers and are for the most part able to buy land to expand the farm because of their asset's . We can only dream about getting into farming as a way of life or career but simply cannot afford to along with a financial support of a Bank. To me it's simply greed.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
So it is the farmers fault? If they just say no, then the problem of the wind farm blight is solved. On the other hand, it is their land , they can do what they want on it, and who are we/you to say any different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
But there are lots of farmers that are only rich on paper and only when the sell off the farm and their quota's will they live comfortably. Lots are cash poor and struggle to make ends meet like anyone else and if the opportunity to lease out some land for an income comes along, it's would be stupid not to consider it.
By the way, by what measure of a man's worth do you judge him as greedy ...and by what right do you have to judge him ?
Right. That's where the landowners 'integrity vs greed' comes into play.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
this is what I meant by "don't understand how you miss things". When the province first brought in the GEA, many said no. They were rammed through anyways. I could be wrong but I think it was just before the 2014 election that they backed off and said townships could refuse them due to all the heat, the hypocrisy of moving gas plants to save 5 seats...but rural Ontario and wind farms? Eat cake was their initial stance. Today, the town/muni can still vote no and in theory stop them, but the process is rigged. Im googling for it, for you. Suffice to sayQuote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/not-a-willing-host/
And they are still going in. See also the sheer number of legal fights (also paid for by us).
Google ontario-wind farms appeals. I linked the Oak Ridges Morraine appeal last night. I pray to all gods people understand just how important the Morraine is........So much for protecting it (provincial legislation) and being "green champions"
Thus far only one has won. But hopefully its A) a sign that more will start winning and B) a bow shot for this crooked inept and worse admin.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...e-project.html
Yup, which is why for some of them, kneecapping their property value is a serious blow. Banks extend credit based on those values. How much do combines alone cost??????Many farms live, operate, exist on debt (and govt tax breaks). Well what happens when their borrowing capacity is knee capped? Then what happens when they decide to sell and the value isn't much more than their debt loads. Rock meet hard place.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Another Ontario Jewel slated for farms, despite many attempts to stop it.
Think the city dwellers know much about it, let alone care or will add their voices?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...lity-1.3140144
See also Wolfe/Amherst Island
soooooo many.
Have been looking for the history of the GEA and subsequent change to the process. Cant find it, but the gist of the GEA was that amongst other things the act gave the province the power to build things carte blanche, don't like where? Too bad. Don't want a turbine 300 yards from your bedroom, or 50 of them in your back yard. Too bad.
Then due to all the heat prior to the 2014 election they relented some. Re jigged it, so that in theory and on paper they can be stopped. Forget details but suffice to say....Finally one appeal has been won.
Read this through if you want some history and some clarity on different things, but some salt to.
Oh and one reason JT scares the help out of me? Well he's a little too cozy to Ms Wynd.
The key person behind Ontario’s move to Wind Energy is Gerald Butts who is currently chief advisor to Federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.[COLOR=#333333]Butts was Principal Secretary to Premier McGuinty, who states that he was intimately involved in the government’s environmental initiatives.
Worth the read.
http://www.windontario.ca
You're right JBen...the whole GEA was forced...
that's from an article dated Mar 12 2016: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...ions-1.3487708Quote:
Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli says wind turbines are an important part of the province's drive to reduce its carbon footprint and develop sustainable, low cost, renewable energy.
He says that municipalities were never given a veto over electrical infrastructure requirements, whether those were transmission towers, solar panels or wind turbines.
(Ontario's Ministry of Energy has approved five large wind turbine projects, including one for 30 to 40 turbines near Berwick and another in St-Isidore, a few kilometres away.)
Of the five approved wind turbine projects, only two had the endorsement of their municipal councils.
Wynne has enough safe seats in the urban areas and couldn't give a damn about rural people having to live with unnecessary monstrosities. The Citiots who support her rarely get North of HWY 9 so they could care less. Of course these are the same people who endorse lies, electoral fraud and $$ Billions in boondoggles. We already pay the highest Hydro rates in NA and she hasn't even tacked on the Carbon taxes yet. Do you really think that when 60% of Hydro is in private hands they will reduce rates? Do you realize how much they have us over a barrel with something essential like Hydro? People in this Province are idiots to not see this coming.
Right on !Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
Well Terry, I bite my tongue these days but yup and yup. You forgot the Unions. The GTA is less than half the province by population. Look at the map Mike linked earlier, note the high number of small, concentrated ridings. What's worse is that over the past 15-20 years, Urban sprawl has gobbled up more and more "rural" communities. As one writer in the Nat post called it a few months ago. Toronto has become a cesspool. Of many things, greed, self interest, willful blinders, and idealogy.
Carbon taxes?
Well let's see. Who will pay more. Person A who lives in a rural community and has to drive quite far for a loaf of bread, or case of beer, or night out with the family? Or a long way to work? Or one of the 30,000 expected to move into the "hamlet" of Brooklin over the next 7 years, who take the subsidized Go Train to work? Or can drive a heavily subsidized electric car, or Prius in winter?
Hydro?
where people get raped by delivery charges over and above....God help you if your house is on base board electric, or forced air electric furnaces. The place I bought was, despite not having a job, or knowing where my next pay check is going to come from I forked out the $6,000 for propane, and a heat pump/exchange will add another 6,000. Want to know what their annual hydro bill was (family of 6)???
and then if all that and more isn't enough, there's these monstrosities being rammed down communities throats. God awful eyesores and more, that have neighbours at each other's throats and more...
but if you want to know why, despite all that I happily moved to the country. Well, let's call a spade a spade. Getting out of the city, and what it's become was/is a fairly big part of it.
never been happier.
This topic, (wind in Ontario) will undoubtedly go down as one of the worst examples of greed, ineptitude, mismanagement and an unparalleled disaster in history. And what's laughable, is. As bad as we have it. Our kids who today, on top of soaring Hydro, job losses as a result, etc etc. Can't afford a home until there's a crash in the GTA, or they look for
greener pastures away from the insanity.
Read this in the post this morning: explains how badly we're being screwed :(
Quote:
You may be surprised to learn that electricity is now cheaper to generate in Ontario than it has been for decades. The wholesale price, called the Hourly Ontario Electricity Price or HOEP, used to bounce around between five and eight cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), but over the last decade, thanks in large part to the shale gas revolution, it has trended down to below three cents, and on a typical day is now as low as two cents per kWh. Good news, right?
A hidden tax on Ontario’s electricity has pushed the actual purchase price in the opposite direction, to the highest it’s ever been. The tax, called the Global Adjustment (GA), is levied on electricity purchases to cover a massive provincial slush fund for green energy, conservation programs, nuclear plant repairs and other central planning boondoggles. As these spending commitments soar, so does the GA.
In the latter part of the last decade when the HOEP was around five cents per kWh and the government had not yet begun tinkering, the GA was negligible, so it hardly affected the price. In 2009, when the Green Energy Act kicked in with massive revenue guarantees for wind and solar generators, the GA jumped to about 3.5 cents per kWh, and has been trending up since — now it is regularly above 9.5 cents. In April it even topped 11 cents, triple the average HOEP.
So while the marginal production cost for generation is the lowest in decades, electricity bills have never been higher. And the way the system is structured, costs will keep rising.
The province signed long-term contracts with a handful of lucky firms, guaranteeing them 13.5 cents per kWh for electricity produced from wind, and even more from solar. Obviously, if the wholesale price is around 2.5 cents, and the wind turbines are guaranteed 13.5 cents, someone has to kick in 11 cents to make up the difference. That’s where the GA comes in. The more the wind blows, and the more turbines get built, the bigger the losses and the higher the GA.
Just to make the story more exquisitely painful, if the HOEP goes down further, for instance through technological innovation, power rates won’t go down. A drop in the HOEP widens the gap between the market price and the wind farm’s guaranteed price, which means the GA has to go up to cover the losses.
http://business.financialpost.com/fp...er-been-higher
And who exactly created this situation?Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
Yea, ya gotta hate that greedy farm family, struggling to make ends meet, who leases out some unused acreage on the family farm for a Turbine or two so that they can put their kids thru University...Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
I think I trust my wife's judgement and moral compass to quite her job working for one of the bigger player wind turbine companies because of the shadiness of it all.
Ah yes, the image of the poor hard working farmer struggling to make ends meet. Yes, there are small farming outfits that could use the money, but for the MOST part, they're not the ones being offered these contracts. It's the ones that already own 1000+ acres, who buy up land at ridiculous prices and squeeze out the little guy, that are coming out ahead here. From my local project alone, I could name names of several BIG operation farms that are cashing in big time. Thanks to signing that sneaky non-disclosure agreement and keeping it quiet from their neighbours.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Same sentiment, why are they considered "greedy" for making money off their land. They were lucky and made a smart business decision. Capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
The only bad guy in all of this the Government who allowed it to spiral out of their control at the cost to the taxpayer....
My point is, smart business decisions are not ethical business decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Integrity vs greed.
Signing a contract and gag order to hide information from you neighbours is a smart business decision, but one I'll never respect.
Your spot on LbA and knowing this information first hand sickens me to death. Well said !Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
Question. For those who feel that the farmer should be able to do what he wants with his land.
Should a farmer be allowed to bulldoze fence lines and timber to increase their workable acreage?
Around here, I see big farming operations buying properties, and bulldozing fence lines. Big equipment moves in, safe wildlife travel corridors turn into increased profits.
Simple answer is Yes. It's his land. Should you be allowed to buy a bush lot up north and put a camp on it??
The Farmer is running a business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
Neither are most corporate decisions...it's how Capitalism works....isn't every business that uses off shore manufacturing to produce cheaper products lacking integrity and filled with greed ? Taking jobs from Canadians ?Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
How many things do you own that are made by what is paramount to slave labour in off shore factories ? Got an iPhone ? Let's no get all sanctimonious about integrity v Greed and then look the other way to buy a cheaper products made by cheap labour.
A farmer that is offered money to lease his land has every legal right to do so. If they have a moral compass and decide that they don't like what it will do to the landscape good for them. But to use a blanket statement like they lack integrity and are all greedy without knowing the reasons as to why they signed the contracts is wrong. Since when is making money considered greedy ?
Have you turned down a promotion or bonus because you didn't want to make more money and appear to be greedy?
Just because you don't like the sight of them while driving along the rural hwy's doesn't give you the right to condemn the landowner for having them on his property anymore that I have the right to condemn the developers for putting up skyscrapers, office towers and apartment buildings on what was once scenic farm land.
Do you like the look of the sprawling suburbs on the outskirts of the GTA ? Urban sprawl stretching as far as the eye can see on what used to be farm pasture...a blight on the horizon...Why was that allowed ?
Were the farmers that took money from the developer for the land your house is sitting on greedy ? Do you lack integrity for buying a home on land that was once scenic farmland ?
Lets' not get too sanctimonious here in deciding what is a blight we need and can live with.
The issue of wind farms is fraught with problems that land squarely on the laps of politicians..period. Take your outrage to them. And as was pointed out, Ontarian's have had the opportunity twice to remove them and failed. Now as taxpayers we will pay for it.
Pretty much Mike, though there is truth to what they are saying. My limited understanding ( not an area I paid much attention to) is that "really", most farming these days, is large conglomerates vs smaller family farms. But also agree with you. If I or anyone here own a hundred acres of bush lot and want to log it for $. Who thinks I shouldn't be able to or would begrudge me. Or conversely if I decide to raise chickens ( something people on these forums do).......or if I decide I want to HUNT on my land, kill wildlife (some might consider that avarice) and some might resent being woken up Sunday mornings when I and my friends cut loose on a flock of Geese. Or as in Monihan. Try to ban target shooting....
so "the truth lies in the middle" and "shades of grey". However there are differences. One of which is zoning by-laws (enter the GEA). For example even though it's my land, if I want to fence my land, by-laws dictate how high fences can be. They also prevent people from erecting eyesores and more. There are other factors to. One being we don't need them. We produce so much excess power as is. We need to house people, so selling farms to get plowed under...etc etc
In the end, after slicing and dicing it. Cut to the chase and there's no one to blame but the politicians and those who despite oh so very much campaigned for this admin, and voted for them. Not just once (2011) but again in 2014.
Wait till they start the east-west pipeline....right thru the backyard of people who heat their home with oil..:)
Now here may be a firm that might be justified in requesting a 'No Hunting' clause and a landowner might actually agree if he's responsible for the clean up.
I wonder what caliber it would take to puncture one of these at 100 yds ?
https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...e8&oe=58561C8C
Oh man, you really are reaching here...Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Well, personally, I do actually happen to be the kind of guy that will spend more to buy something locally and ethically made. Who won't buy a Juan Deere product since they moved the local plant to Mexico. Who won't even watch Global TV since they cancelled all hunting programs. Stuff like that.
"If they have a moral compass and decide that they don't like what it will do to the landscape so be it." Exactly.
Selling out to disgusting urban sprawl? Sure, same idea. (Montgomery Gentry's - Daddy Won't Sell the Farm comes to mind. Haha)
Spin and stretch this thing any way you want to continue your argument, but simply put, if you sign a gag order to hide information from your neigbours, and take their property value/children's inheritance for personal profit to further your multi million dollar operation, you're a peice of garbage.
really..and you accuse me of stretching it..LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
not my argument..just punching holes in yours :)
you might be interested in reading the facts about property values....but then again, not likely to change your opinion.
Darn those nasty facts :)
Quote:
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) commissioned this study of the effects of industrial wind turbines (IWT) on the current value of property in proximity to the turbines. Over the last few years, the subject of IWTs has been the subject of a number of reports and studies – both in Canada and worldwide. Past and current studies
undertaken by both academics as well as real estate and health professionals have focused on the potential impacts of IWTs on property value and health. Given MPAC’s
legislated mandate, this report focuses on the potential impact of IWTs on property values.
MPAC’s study concludes that 2012 Current Value Assessments (CVA) of properties located within proximity to an IWT are assessed at their current value and are equitably assessed in relation to homes at greater distances. No adjustments are required for 2012 CVAs. This finding is consistent with MPAC’s 2008 CVA report. The 2012 CVA study also found that there is no statistically significant impact on sale prices of residential properties in these market areas resulting from proximity to an IWT. The study underwent a rigorous independent third-party peer review and includes appendices describing the study parameters and documenting the analyses.
https://www.mpac.ca/sites/default/fi...ndTurbines.pdf
:)
Mike, first off, you don't have to spend a lot of time researching MPAC before calling in to question their ability to assess property values and "allegiance".
file this under anecdotal, given we recently went through the insanity of moving. Not sure how familiar you are with Durham region, but for the sake of bandwidth, will assume you know it. We looked at very many properties, put offers in on four. While we ran into a number of things, that really would take too much to relate concisely. Here's two things we found.
Properties inside Whitby, Oshawa, Courtice, Bowmanville. Would sell in 1 day, always with multiple offers ranging in number from 3-5 to 20 offers. And would sell for anywhere between 20,000 over ask, and 120,000 over ask.
properties around Port Perry (rural) would sell in one day, with multiple offers. Fewer offers (3-6) and 20-80k over ask. That surprised us, thinking the further out we looked, we'd avoid the insanity. Uh uh. One place on Scugog Island we bid on, I offered 50,000 over list. We lost to someone who offered 10,000 less, but was willing to waive septic and well inspections. I wasn't. In short, everything no matter how good, or run down are selling. In a day.
we looked at 5 houses in Bethany. Where turbines are going up and where the 407 will link to 115 a little down the road. It's a prime place. All but 1 of those house sat. And sat and sat. Likely until the sellers lowered their asking price.
and we ultimately decided those turbines and who knows how many more coming. Not worth the risk. Mind you $ talks, and I will always at least look at and consider good bargains, for the right price
Of course he should.Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
There's a farmer near Limoges that in the last couple of years has clear-cut about 300 acres of soft maple bush, bulldozed it and is now growing corn.
If you want the land preserved in its current state, BUY IT and you can.
I am completely astounded by the number of posters here that don't believe in landowners rights.
I think of it quite simply. There is unarguably a definitive percentage of potential home buyers that are opposed to purchasing a home near one. That percentage of the population alone is enough to lower property value by 'x' amount.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Fair enough. I disagree and think there should be an approval process involve with a local conservation authority. I suppose this opinion's greatly affected by what part of the province you're in. In the densely populated south, there's less and less timber standing every year. I don't think that's a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Normally, yes I would agree....but as it said for this report; " The study underwent a rigorous independent third-party peer review and includes appendices describing the study parameters and documenting the analyses."Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
see: https://www.mpac.ca/PropertyOwners/I...alWindTurbines
Your findings..anecdotal yes...but the same finding you see in any report ..it may take a little longer as there would be less buyers, but eventually they would sell at close to asking.
A lot of property for sale around here have 'use' restrictions on portions of the property applied by the Conservation Authority, but it usually involves water/swamps etc. Never heard of one with trees/brush.Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
And a lower price Mike. You would have to understand the real estate market here. That is seeing small, run down old bungalows being listed for 350,000 and selling for 500,000. Or better homes being listed at well under market value, in order to generate interest and bidding wars. And so on. A page or so ago, I including a link to windontario.ca that mentioned that development and the Bhuddist temple 5 min north of Bethany. And the hit they expect.
simple laws of supply and demand. Anything and everything can and will sell. For the right price.
another one that's worth the read. And due note it's not written by a Sun Columnist. By someone who I believe lives close to you.
http://m.torontosun.com/2016/07/21/f...s-gridmonsters
You also can't ignore the GTA effect on real estate prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
We're seeing it up this way as well.
Or simply, consider just how people feel them. The opposition to them, the communities who don't want them, but are having them rammed down their throats. Very, very, very few people want them. Thousands upon tens of thousands are irate and sickened. Of coarse it will affect property values. No body wants them, let alone to live under them. Property is only worth what someone is willing to pay.
We have 350+ of them just North of here. By and large the real estate market in those areas has remained fairly stable, but to be completely honest, Melancthon Township wasn't a real hot market to begin with. Properties there still list and sell fairly well however.
Well this is a broader topic. How long has that development been in place? Is that real estate market mainly comprised of people who live/move within. Or is it more influx/out flux. Certainly over time, values will "stabilize". The new norm. I imagine for example prices on Wolfe Island are no longer affected........
you oknow what my house looks like. The view I have. Think if it was announced tomorrow that a wind farm was going in, and the farmer who owns the field behind me signed on. I'd get what I paid for it one month ago?
not a chance
This is getting well off topic, but thought of a way to "word" it? That should hopefully settle it. Preferably cold. Every real estate market, there are things that effect the market value. In suburbia for example pools add a little to the price. Sure lots of people don't want them, and won't look at houses with pools. Many do. Regardless it adds value. No matter where you buy though, there's always a premium for green space and views. Whether that's a house on the water front, and the identical house on the other side of the street. Which will sell for more. Or new home subdivisions. Does your house look out and see bricks or your neighbours kitchen, or do you have a view. Builders tack on huge premiums for....Or high rise condos. Are Penthouses on the top floor worth more than those half way up? Why? Well the view. Does a condo on shore of lake O in downtown TO. Some units face North, some south. Those facing south sell for way more than those North.
Agents will ill sell some places as "million dollar views".
Im guessing they never use those words if there's a windfarm in the back yard.
how/why MPAC can claim there's no effect. Just lol. And in fact MPAC jacks your "assessments" (and thus land taxes) for it, just as they do waterfront houses/cottages or condos with views.
You pay big premiums for this
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s4/v63/p1982937051.jpg
And in related, just noticed that Temple in Bethany is in the news a couple weeks ago
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...-say-1.3652314
Well since MPAC has published peer reviewed study and have proved out the 'how and why' to conclude that "The 2012 CVA study also found that there is no statistically significant impact on sale prices of residential properties in these market areas resulting from proximity to an IWT." ...I guess well have to wait till a comparable peer group study on the Real Estate market is released to know if it's valid or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
To just say it's bull crap doesn't work...prove it with more than anecdotal evidence.
This is a study done by Realtors down in the states....the results may surprise you JBen...
Scroll down to "Impact on Real Estate Values' ...lots of states/counties with "no statistical evidence" ..same as MPAC results.
example :http://www.realtor.org/field-guides/...roperty-valuesQuote:
A three-year study by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory concludes “neither the view of wind energy facilities nor the distance of the home to those facilities was found to have any consistent, measurable, and significant effect on the selling prices of nearby homes. No matter how we looked at the data, the same result kept coming back—no evidence of widespread impacts.”
Oh please Mike. We can suspend reality if you like. Me, the next time MPAC assess a property higher then a house across the street which doesn't have a million dollar view, perhaps you should just ask them then about the hiprocrisy. Ask them point blank why property with a view is assessed higher than a property without....
Seriously Mike or perhaps the next time you decide to move, like a house and then you try to convince the seller its worth less than X and the lack of an eyesore/obstruction has no bearing on its market value. Or very, very simply why don't you explain why Condos in downtown Toronto that face South and look out over the lake, are worth and sell for a lot more than the same unit on the same floor that looks North. Or go to a neighborhood built on hillsides and why properties near the top are worth and sell for a lot more than those lower down.
Please.
Or very simply go to any subdivision and compare either the builder assessed premiums for lots with views and those without. Or simply find a neighbourhood, where homes are selling. Some with and without Hydro transmission lines.......
Good god.
As with respect to "peer" reviews.
Next thing you know, your going to tell us all the science AL Gore had behind him is to be taken at face value
:)
Crap JBen..speaking of being obtuse (:)) the study I linked from the US Realtors that have been in the game a lot longer than here in Ontario....it's not MPAC..but they had the same findings..why are you on me for this...it's the proven facts, even from the Real Estate side of the market.
I only mention peer reviews because there are a bunch on guys on here that will only accept study results that have gone thru the peer review...means it's more truthy to them, go figure. :)
by the by..MPAC doesn't even see the house or it's surroundings..their findings are based on sales of similar houses in the area that have sold recently..so the 'view' value is strictly inside the real estate market...and the US study says that doesn't seem to affect most of the homes even there.
Your arguing for the sake of arguing. Fine, i will bet you $1,000. This is in writing, right here. Im not joking.
That identical houses in the same neighbourhoods, those that are close to train tracks sell for less than houses 100 yards further away, but for more than houses that back on to the tracks. Why?
The noise.
Thus far, we've only discussed views.
Put up or shut up
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
again..your confusing it ...that is not MPAC....that is Real Estate...now if you were to tell me two identical homes on the same street on with/without a view had different Municipal/MPAC mill rates... I would be surprised. Are they worth more/less, of course...but as far as what they pay in taxes..probably not.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Nice try. Were aren't discussing mill rates, nor are we "discussing" what MPAC would assess those properties at. Though I would be highly, highly surprised if MPAC assessed them at the same. An ex girlfriend lived in a development in Pickering. Her house was about 200 yards from the tracks. When she sold, hers went for $40,000 ($420,000 vs 380,000) aka 10% more than an identical house, identical that sold two weeks prior but happened to back on the tracks. And Im pretty sure she paid more in taxes to. Thats not what we are discussing (arguing).
We are arguing whether or not, they have an impact on property value...Property value, what a place is worth, what it will sell for (also what banks will extend in credit and who have their own appraisers). and subsequently MPACs ludicrous claim they don't effect property value.
Do note, in that article I linked about the temple in Bethany. The developers, the two companies wanting to build obviously believe and know they impact property values because they claim the hills will muffle the sound, and they are far enough away so as to not ruin views.
You noticed that too eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Seriously guys; you post nonsense during a discussion/debate and expect that it won't get challenged and I get told I'm arguing for the sake of arguing ?Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
Quote:
We are arguing whether or not, they have an impact on property value...Property value, what a place is worth, what it will sell for (also what banks will extend in credit and who have their own appraisers). and subsequently MPACs ludicrous claim they don't effect property value.
Yes and I posted a both studies from MPAC and Realtors that prove that it doesn't...you have yet to post anything but anecdotal stories and quips from articles..NOTHING factual to support your argument..but you keep going and going and going..
Whose really arguing for the sake of arguing JBen...
so I will stop arguing now till you can prove your side, with facts found in a study, as I have done.
edit add: and save us some time, check your sources, those anti-wind nut-bars spew lots of unsubstantiated hogwash
Mike you know I like you, and I happen to like discussions/debates on a wide variety of topics. I like to read, and there are some (usually those that involve politics/finance) I join in on. Believe that debate is a healthy thing. It proves nothing Mike, it suspends reality and if anything only calls their (can't think of right word) maybe integrity into question.
So right here, yes or no. Are you willing to bet $1,000 that sound alone affect property values. Because I am. You backed off fast, because you know it does. Find two property for sale in your neck of the woods. Maybe in a little hamlet one that backs onto or abuts a busy highway/concession one that doesn't it. Let us know which has to reduce the price in order to sell. Can say I looked at a beautiful home in the town of Sunderland. While it wasn't right on highway 12, nor could we see it , it was close, just beyond the house to the East. We could certainly hear the trucks rumbling down it. Our agent ( and us) said no-way this house was worth $500,000 nor would they get it. And guess what, it sat for weeks. While similar houses, priced similarly sold in a day.
Mike, its you thats posting/arguing nonsense. Just because MPAC "says so" doesn't make it so.
Well, it has now come to light that water wells in our area have been rendered useless due to vibrations from IWT's. Landowners with them were apparently sworn to secrecy, but others in the area have not......the cat is now out of the bag. If this doesn't impact land value, I don't know what will. Apparently the wind contracts include provisions to pay for bottled water if the wells were compromised. How many bottles of water will it take to water livestock ?? Should be interesting!
Quite the conversation here!
It's like guys arguing over who has the best Ex-wife.
Anyway back 80 yrs ago I wonder if these same arguments arose when hydro started stringing those monstrous hydro towers?
They travel endlessly in 200 foot wide corridors and can be seen from miles away.
and they hummmmm and they're known to affect health.
they're everywhere now and no one bats an eye over them.
maybe wind mills will gain acceptance - it will take time!
for the record - I thought the first few were cute - now I don't like them.
how long can we pay them (80 cents per kw) before we the consumer get the trickle down affect.
anyway .. nice heated discussion.
we as Canadians are too passive and polite .. we get bent over a fence and say sorry after it's over!
Now that is very interesting. Do you have any more info on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Actually Skeeter they do. Theres a big Hyrdo corridor that runs through the north end of Durham. House prices are depressed relative to comparibles. That doesn't mean people won't and don't buy them (especially these days when demand is so much greater than supply).And at the end of the day, open fields with towers is still a better view than living in a fishbowl and staring into your neighbours kitchen. Read something not long ago, that in Durham alone the estimate is 50,000 homes are needed to meet demand. Years ago when I first got divorced I looked at a new home build development going in in Ajax. The north edge backed onto the conservation belt with the Hyrdo corridor, the East side backed on the same green belt but the hydro corridor was to the north.
Builder premiums at that time for the greenspace lots.
$75,000 for those on the East side, $40,000 on the North. Same model home, same lot size, both with large open spaces behind. Wonder why the different premiums?
:( Rick.
I ignored it because it's a old diversionary tactic and a suckers bet...you know how many things affect the value of a home...hundreds..you've been thru it...crap my own wife refuse to buy a house because the owner left his dirty underwear by the bed the morning of the showing..talk about a view :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
No that is nonsense.
No MPAC proved it wasn't so, not said..proved...did you read thru the link and all the appendixes as to how the study was conducted by a 3 rd party....no I imagine not...it would put your position in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
read thru this one at least before you make another fool hardy attempt to discredit the test scenarios ;
https://www.mpac.ca/sites/default/fi.../AppendixG.pdf
No kidding, that's a huge issue for future expansion. At least maybe the courts will now give the municipalities the right to veto the governments plans.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
And Kemptville has a subdivision that has a golf course in the middle of it..you pay a $40k premium for that view..so what ?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
The posted studies have proven the proximity to a turbine has no substantial effect on the re-sale value of a home because one is across the road from it..
Some explanation:Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
(note the source)
news release;Quote:
The pile driving of foundations began the onset of water quality deterioration during the construction phase. After the wind mills are in service, the vibrations transfer into the concrete foundations and continue to vibrate the rock and soil formations of the surrounding areas. This activity directly affects the sources of the residents’ water wells. The result is dirty, turbid water. These residents are also rightly concerned about what effects this vibration has in an area known to have elevated levels of Radon gas.
http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2...verse-effects/
http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2016/...ine-vibrations
Whats the first thing you learn about statistics?
Whats MPACS track record.
I read through it moderately, but I found this a little interesting. Most of their data and the area studied looks at the years 2010 and around. Gee Mike, do you think conditions around then especially in SW ontario might have affected supply/demand which might have resulted in people leaving one town area and moving into another thus changing supply/demand. Maybe less "here" and more "there" which would totally skew results?
Funny no mention of economic conditions. A whole lot of talk discrediting the Lansink study (most of which I agreed with). I also wonder which they don't discuss is how many of the homes had renos done during the period. Maybe a new kitchen, maybe this or that.
Its a simple question and bet Mike. Does sound alone ( either from train tracks or busy roads) depress market values relative to properties just that further bit away. Bet me or don't. Im also betting you don't have the conviction in your argument to bet me.
Give it a rest JBen...Your not going to succeed in discrediting two separate studies that prove out the same thing .
Bet me Mike. Its a simple bet, does sound alone affect market values.
$1,000 dollars. Ill even give you odds. Ill put up $1,00 you put up $500. Ill bet another $100 you won't take the bet. Because you know I'll win it in 10 seconds flat.
Have been searching for something I know is out there, can't find it yet. But Im curious Mike, as Rick said now this.
So obstructed views/sightlines
A lot of noise
bad wells
Want my email address to EMT me $400?
As I’ve already made clear, a bet during a debate is just a pathetic diversionary tactic, oldest trick in the book, I would have thought better of you.
Have fun trying to finding a study that trumps my two...LOL...
Until then…
http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2016/...-from-turbinesQuote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Will liberal appointed judges and bodies like MPAC take opposing sides to Wynne's green ideology? Does the OPP ever seem to work quickly when investigating liberals and their friends? This new revelation of damaging wells could/should be a game changer and cost hundreds of millions to the wind companies if they have to provide new water sources. You would have to connect all the affected properties to a municipal system with miles and miles of pipes assuming there is even capacity available. "Bottled water"???? Good god I would be hiring the meanest most feared lawyers in the country and not letting up. I really think the public would get behind a class action against Wynne and the wind companies if this was proven true.
If nothing else, it should at least make the voices against these projects heard to a higher level. Until now, the only protests that have had success, was with disruption of wildlife habitat...a yawner.
Hope this is isn't another red hearing like they tried with fracking.
No its not.
We both know many, many things affect market value. You as much said so. We are agreed. How anyone (MPAC) can really nail down and eliminate all factors and claim it doesn't, well that really is another topic. We both know and agree number's/statistics can be spun to show what you want. IN this case its pretty obvious all MPAC wanted to do was discredit the Lansink study but be that as it may.
So cut through the noise and bet me Mike. Its not a diversion. Forget MPAC, forget IWTs. Either you have the conviction and stones to bet noise doesn't impact market value or it does. Your rather cowardly trying to side step now.
PS Mike before you agree to EMT me $400 ( you still don't have the conviction to take the bet) Ill let you off the hook even further (instead of even odds on the $1,000).
Take 30 seconds and google affects of noise on market values and people. Whether they are studies in the UK or the US, whether they are airports or roads....what levels (decibels). Also look into research by heath canada on noise levels. And we are only talking noise here, not sightlines or curb appeal and more.
Don't be a coward Mike. Stand up for what you believe in. If curb appeal, sight lines, noise, views etc, etc all are known to affect property values how is it magically in Ontario they don't. How is it perhaps magically all RE agents will tell you noise pollution whether its from planes, or roads depresses market value, but somehow magically the noise from IWT won't?
lmao
PS Mike you should know me well enough to know I have aces up my sleeve, and am still looking for something I know is out there. Sometimes the net and studies is like needles in a haystack.
What..that's what your going on about ..refresh my memory, post the quote where I said such a thing :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Take the bet then and stop trying to deflect. Or...
heres a clue. Google noise pollution airports and property values.
and Mike you argued non stop that IWTs don't affect property values, because 'MPAC". Well guess what,
if views/sightlines do,
if noise pollution does in many cases as with airports where its not about both noise and views...
Take the bet, I don't know how anyone can prove or disprove IWTs currently, way too many variables, especially in Ontario (economic, the RE market in the GTA, too short timelines and data sets, etc etc) anytime soon
What can be proven, is whether or not views and noise do.
Take the bet or....
while your going down that road...here's another study done in England that again found there was no appreciable affect on the proporty value due to Wind Turbines.
So now you have to find another one to match this.
Quote:
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
This case study focused on one location in the UK where there was a significant number of houses located within half a mile of a wind farm to enable a hedonic regression analysis to be undertaken. The results found some evidence to suggest that the view of the surrounding environment from a property could influence selling price, although there was no clear relationship between having a view of the windfarm and a reduction in value. Nor was there any evidence to suggest a relationship between distance to the windfarm and house price. Whilst the conclusions drawn relate specifically to this location, they support the findings from other studies (Sims and Dent 2007, Hoen 2006, Poletti, 2005) and therefore may be indicative of the likely impact in other areas within the UK. However, whilst there seems to be little evidence to suggest that windfarms reduce house prices (one exception to this was observed within the case study location; a farm where the rateable value had been reduced by one rating band due to the problem of flicker from the turbine blades), these results do raise a number of questions relating to the value or perceived value of the ‘vista”. As model 1 indicates, certain vistas can inflate or diminish house price suggesting that landscape has some intrinsic value to either community or the individual which has not been captured by the variables included in this analysis.
http://www.oddzialywaniawiatrakow.pl...d/file/228.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Did you find the post where I said such a thing yet ?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
104, 109, 117. I'm sure there are more. Having a hard believing time I have to remind you of your own post, nor do they leave much room for misinterpretation. Lest you....
Man up and take a simple bet or don't.
Does noise pollution alone depress property values. And because you seem to forget your own weak dance once cornered when I initially "cornered" you (re offered the bet and referenced train tracks and the noise from them) and you tried to slide away...
So simple question:
if noise from train tracks, airports, roads ALL depress property values........
$1,000 if you have the stones to bet and continue this nonsensical argument.
Nope nothing in any of those posts where I said such a thing....if you say I said them, then I must of eh!! You'll have to keep looking.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Mean while, here's another study from the University of Guelph...Well JBen you're falling far behind and have shown nothing to support your argument...so I'm going to drop this "nonsensical argument" before CalTex locks it down and accusing us of arguing ..LOL....Quote:
Monday, December 8, 2014 — News Release
Wind turbine developments have no effect on property values of nearby homes and farms, according to new research from the University of Guelph.
Published in a recent issue of the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, the study is believed the first peer-reviewed study on this issue in Canada.
The study has received significant media attention in Canada and beyond, including articles in the National Post andThe Daily Mail in the United Kingdom and reports on CTV News, CP 24 News, Global News, CBC News, and Yahoo! News.
It was conducted by Richard Vyn, a professor in the Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, and Ryan McCullough, a former U of G graduate student and now a policy analyst for Health Canada.
They analyzed more than 7,000 home and farm sales in Melancthon Township and 10 surrounding townships in Dufferin, Grey, Simcoe and Wellington counties. Melancthon, located about 100 kilometres northwest of Toronto, is home to one of Ontario’s first and largest wind farms; 133 wind turbines were erected between 2005 and 2008.
The study included sales data over an eight-year period – from 2002 to 2010 – to capture property values before, during and after the wind farm’s development. During that period, more than 1,000 homes and farms were resold — some multiple times, which allowed for repeat sales analysis.
Using a method common in real estate studies, the researchers created six models accounting for the impact on property values of proximity to the wind farm development and turbine visibility, as well as a combination of these two factors.
In every case, they found wind farms had “no statistically significant effect” on property values
http://news.uoguelph.ca/2014/12/wind...s-study-finds/
Ta Ta, been a slice.
Hmm.
1) they admit themselves more data and studies are needed or did you read the last paragraph.
2) How much has the RE market from the GTA (100k is pretty close) which is insane, muddied waters.
In essence, has the addition of Train or bus service, improvements to the 400 and other factors, tens of thousands moving out of the city and to the burbs and in turn burbites moving further away had any kind of impact?
About the only way to prove or disprove is to take two completely identical homes/properties. Put them in a vacuum (control environment where there are no variables, ever hear of that Mike???.) one has a WF added, one doesn't. Probably (note that word) the only way to really measure and prove is to find two identical homes from areas in the province with and without and see if they appreciate the same.
Good luck with that Mike.
Will say a better "test" might be comparing the appreciation of that area, to an area in the East without. See if its the same. But obviously, there will be problems with that as well.
In the meantime. What is known is that sound and views.....
for illustrative purposes.
Currently the 407 is being extended to 115 and Orono. The site of an incoming WF.
5 or 10 years from now they measure a few thousand re-sales from the area.
No matter the results, who can definitely say that the net appreciation whatever it is has been or hasn't been affected by the WF. Because homes 5 miles west in Hampton homes appreciated the same amount or more/less? Im pretty sure anyone with half a brain knows that the 407 is going to result in a huge amount of growth.............no matter what. so there are variables occurring at the same time within the same area that.........Would it not be better to compare price movements say between orono and Newcastle just south? Well theres other variables.
SO in conclusion Mike. does or doesn't sound/curb appeal/views affect market value. Its a yes or no question
And I just want to add. They at least admit (unlike MPAC) that more studies are needed, more time is needed, more data sets, more comparables, from more regions other than just the one, including cross comparisons .....aka same or similar homes in different regions. I would love to talk to a statistical expert and ask them how when measuring the impact of a WF how they discounted things like the 407, expansion of Go Train service coming to Newcastle on top of the 407 linking to 115, (improvements to the 400 in this ONE and only one case study), how they discounted any economic factors like new plants or plants closing, or Google coming to waterloo and more, how much Google employee's are paid relative to income levels in the same area, and on and on and on and on.
funny that.
Yes or no Mike. Does sound and views affect property values?
And you wonder why Northern Ontario wants to separate!
Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by rippin_355
Separate from whom?
The rest of Ontario. This isn't something newQuote:
Originally Posted by zoli 16ga.
Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk
Great. Now you can cover the $1,000,000,000 (yes billion) price tag of the sault ste. Marie hospital over the next 30 years. I didn't mind helping out, but now that you wish to support it yourself, well go ahead. Oh that and the hydro supply, road maintanance, puplic support, cops, schools, etc.
Knock yourself out.
Geez don't get your panties in a bunch for reiterating the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoli 16ga.
Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk
Well this thread has gone to hell in a hand basket?
Yah, it went from how to keep hunting allowed around wind mills to crapping on others for their existence to finally the separation of the North...lol
A wild thread indeed!
It's the "Off" season. Hunters get a bit cranky.
I think I'll head off to tits tomorrow and smash a few clays!
Actually these days Toronto takes more than it puts in. Which is why the Liberals cut just about everything up North.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoli 16ga.
Is there some math to go with that claim ?Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Must be and end run on hunters by someone, either the libs, the antis or the Wind turbine company.
In fact in the States most major commercial timber tracts are welcoming hikers, birdwatchers and hunters because they fear the ire of slighted hikers, birdwatchers, hunters, etc. if they start to act like azzes.
They would rather get along than contract water bombers.
You'd think the same cerebral process would occur in the brains of the Wind Turbine folks.
Personally think at this time the States are a better barometer. More developments spread across a larger mix of ecological/economic regions. In the "other" thread it took forever to find an article Id read from "realtors.org". By the time I found it again. Blah
R I've come across a couple articles with respect to land owners, wind farms and Hunt clubs. There is some indication fights are brewing, I think it was one in Oregon. For years no problem, recently the wind co, influenced the land owner not to renew the lease with the HC. Sign of things to come, or a "one-off". Again don't know. But my guess would be, keep an eye on developments in the U.S. For indications here
Not sure if this is the same article YD was talking about but. But is being shared on FB today.
By asking the MNR (aka QP) to get involved, pick a side (defend the rights of hunters/hunting).The province has been dragged into it already. QP may say "not our fight" or they may not. OFAH or others may say "it's illegal to interfere with legal hunting" (is there a legal arguement that this company is interfering?). Don't know, but if "push comes to shove". Stranger things happen.
And while I don't know the specifics of the airport fight being referenced. One might think Transport Canada would first ensure the safety of pilots/planes/passengers. Apparently not. While there are certainly large differences, it's illegal to fly drones within 9km of an airport, and higher than 300 feet. Why? Due to the risk. While IWTs unlike drones are stationary they are 500 feet, and a lot sturdier. Am kind of surprised they are allowed anywhere near airports.
But $ talks.
http://www.lfpress.com/2016/08/11/el...-hot-air-level
Money always Wynnes. Of course she will go along with the wind farms. Get rid of the Liberals or far more things we consider as rights are at risk to the liberal social engineering activist agenda. People just don't seem to understand how giving away a strategic crown asset like Hydro can have negative effects. Stay tuned, toll lanes on existing roads ( not new ones to be built ), Carbon taxes that will $5.00 to every gas tank you buy and then cause another 5% inflation on everything you consume. We are being spared major tax increases only because of low interest rates and we have no control on world events and markets so yes they will eventually rise and it will devastating.