Webmaster’s Note: Ohio Lame duck Senator Gayle Manning has been real busy lately. She is cosponsoring a bill to once again reduce wind turbine setbacks. This bill is similar to (but with different ID number) the bill first introduced by the reproached Senator Hite. My understanding this time the focus is from the adjacent property owner’s house not the property line. Oh, here we go again…the money must be terrific! Not a good move Senator Manning! It’s time for District 13 to wake up and make this politician accountable! Below you will see a very well written letter to Senator Manning by GNU’s president Kevin Ledet. Kevin hits the nail squarely on the head! This is just the beginning, more to come…we are just getting started.
December 6, 2017
Avoiding Scams This Holiday Season
I took the liberty of copying the header from your informative email about identity theft. Why are you not interested in protecting your constituents from something even more sinister, property theft? Your co-sponsoring of a bill that reduces the minimum setback to the property line of an adjacent uncompensated landowner is the same as property theft. Many other states and countries are increasing the setback distances from industrial wind turbines in order to protect the adjacent property owner’s rights. The Greenwich project is already grandfathered in with inadequately small setbacks. The rest on Huron county, which you represent was somewhat protected with a reasonable setback distance to the property line. The new wind turbines that are being proposed for Huron County are 600 feet tall. Under the current setbacks these turbines would have to be 660 feet from the wind facility property boundary and 1,125 feet, tip of blade at right angle to the adjacent property line. Your new proposal would allow turbines to be placed 720 feet from the wind facility property boundary and 1,225 feet, tip of blade at right angle to the occupied structure. Hugh difference. Your proposal allows the turbine to be placed 405 feet closer to my property than is allowed in current law. I would venture to say that the ice throw distance from these massive structures would greatly exceed the 720 feet established by your bill. What about shadow flicker, blade sheer, fire and noise? What about safety? By your reasoning it is permissible to limit the use of another’s property to satisfy a developer’s objective to saturate an area with turbines. How is that serving adjacent property owner’s rights?
I remember that you met Phil Hartke at the Huron county fair 2014. He related a factual real life account of what had happened to his son’s home, in Illinois, caused by turbine location. How could you so easily forget? I’m certain that most of the legislative body would not want to try and live in the presence of an industrial wind facility and most never will. How could you so easily overlook the safe and reasonable setback distance that the citizens have and propose such a horrible bill? Kevin Ledet President GNU