Roanoke County Board Failure
on September 14th, 2011 at 7:47 am
This will be nice when it happens in the middle of Poor Mountain
Roanoke County failed in their duty Tuesday night. I need to read the final ordinance before I provide a full report. As I stated yesterday, I was in Rockbridge county doing an ICLEI presentation. The Rockbridge Tea Party is one fabulous organization and I was surely blessed to spend some time with them Tuesday night.
But I only know what I know from news reports and information from those that attended. So I need to get more information. although we surely know enough to make a few observations….and to know the Board failed to protect the property rights of anyone unlucky enough to live near an industrial scale wind turbine.
Click here for an even handed story from WDBJ7, with a little bit of video footage of the windmill meeting. Here is the story from the Roanoke Times. Both reports are even handed. (although I’d like to ask the Roanoke Times reporter how the fact Elswick was smoking a cigarette was germane to the story…that just seemed like a little dig based on her personal dislike of smoking)
Moving the setbacks to only 1000 feet is an absolutely ridiculous decision. All of the information we have seen suggest that the setbacks should be MORE than the original half mile set back. Reason? Because of the noise, because of the danger of fire and because having a giant industrial wind turbine right behind your property will destroy your property values. I can surely understand why Elswick got upset and walked out. This decision is lunacy.
Why did they change this?
Because if you establish the correct setbacks you can’t build the wind farms in Roanoke County, because there is no place to properly build them without endangering other property owners. That was the whole point of the setbacks. And that is why industrial scale wind does not belong in Roanoke County. The reasons are well documented and were ignored by the board.
To add insult to injury they left the same sound levels (60db). They were too loud to start with, as 60db is the sound of a normal conversation. Just what you want outside your door at 3AM when you are living in the country. But that was the sound allowed at 2500 feet. Now they have cut the setbacks in half and kept the sound the same?!? I understand that acoustics are a complex science, but on the surface, that seems patently ridiculous.
So why did Richard Flora, Mike Altizer, Charlotte Moore and Butch Church fail so spectacularly?
I have some theories.
1. They bought the sales pitch of the environmental groups: I am convinced that is the case with Charlotte Moore as she delivered a strange response to our bi-weekly sever ties with ICLEI message about protecting whipperwills and such. She is too brain washed by liberal global warming nonsense to make an effective decision. She is pitiful and sad and we need to help Charlotte off the Board of supervisors in the fall so she can focus on her business interests and on herself.
2. They are just tired of the fight and figured the easy way out was just deciding and placating those in the county who buy into the wind power myth. I suppose that is part of this. Plus they caved on state pressure not to impede wind mill farms. This lunacy has infected every level of government.
3. They see dollar signs for revenue from the wind power project. There are estimates of $100,000 a year in property taxes. And the typical sales pitch of “green” jobs that never really materialize. Or those jobs materialize at the cost of $250,000 per job, since when the project roles (not if…when) the bulk of the funds to build it will come from your tax dollars in the form of tax breaks and grants from the Feds. Plus, you don’t think residents who will be near the actual sites will sue to stop this? If you don’t you are nuts. Legal fees will quickly eat up any cost benefit to this project.
4. They are trying to meet their ICLEI goals. All 4 of the members that approved this travesty, also approved the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020. Even thought this project will do nothing to prevent the mythical global warming problem, they will spin the ICLEI software and show reductions, so they can meet their milestones. Is it coincidence that this decision, that flies in the face of logic, helps them meet their ICLEI milestones?
I seriously doubt it. Now do you see why we are fighting so hard to get the county to sever ties with ICLEI? I don’t believe that was the only reason they sold out the county, but I do believe it played a role.
Butch Church tried to spin this after the meeting by saying this doesn’t mean wind power is coming…they just passed an ordinance. No one is buying that line Butch.
The Board has met with Ivenergy several times (exactly how many times is not entirely clear) they have tailored an ordinance that appears to take away any impediment to building these wind turbines. How much input Ivenergy has in crafting these ordinances is not entirely clear…but they surely played a role.
Sell outs. That is what the Board of Supervisors have become. We will be discussing how best to react to this utter failure over the next few days. But one thing is for sure.
ICLEI must go. If you doubt the impact of this group. Doubt it no longer. Even “good” Republicans like Altizer and Flora bought into this hook line and sinker. I wish they were all up for election this fall, but only Church and Moore are up…
More to come soon.
Chip Tarbutton
Chip, can you tell me where you learned about the “tax breaks and grants from the feds” you wrote will be “the bulk of the funds to build it?” I googled this and couldn’t find anyything, but knowing what an honest guy you are, I expect that you would not have written this if it were not true.
By the way, what Elswick did by walking out when he wasn’t getting his way, regardless of whether or not his way was the right way, was childish and reproachful in my opinion. It reflected badly on the Tea Party and other people against the turbines.
Also, the figure the pro-turbines people are circulating for tax revenue to the county is $800,000 instead of the $100,00 you mentioned. Please tell us where you obtained your more-accurate estimate so we can use that source when rebutting pro-turbine people.
Good catch….my bad.
At the federal level, the production or investment tax credit and double-declining accelerated depreciation can pay for two-thirds of a wind power project. There are also numerous grants available for these projects. Many of them expire this year so I would be surprised if this didn’t move quickly now. It will be impossible to tell exactly how much federal money will be involved until the actual project is announced…but 60% is a conservative estimate. This link breaks down the tax breaks pretty well…http://www.mnforsustain.org/windpower_schleede_costs_of_electricity.htm. The tax stuff is available on the IRS website if you dig.
On Elswick…He is not a tea party member although we do agree on this issue. As for walking out, I understand it, but I would have preferred he stay and be the dissenting vote. It is frustrating how basic information on the impact on local property owners was ignored and the setbacks were decreased. Half a mile was too close, making the setbacks 1000 feet is unspeakably irresponsible. We also don’t know what happened in that meeting prior to the vote. That being said, I can see your point on that. If I were in Elswick’s seat I would have sucked it up and registered my dissension on the record.
Mr. Elswick has been an exceptional community leader in the battle to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from the boondoggle of industrial wind turbines. The local government is lucky that Mr. Elswick simply took his well-earned anger out of the building instead of unleashing deserved wrath on his colleagues.
I appreciate Elswick’s position on this topic. And I really understand why he stormed out. There really isn’t a right answer on whether Ed should’ve walked out. That is really a matter of opinion. The focus ought to be on the other 4 who sold out the county with this ordinance.
Chip,
I checked out what you said about the federal government paying most of the cost for building the wind farm on Poor Mountain, and it appears to be untrue. Every source I could find said that the wind farm owners will have to pay 100% or nearly 100% of the cost up front. They get to depreciate their investment, and they get a Production Tax Credit of about two cents for every kilowatt-hour of juice they produce, but frankly I’m all for reducing taxes and thought you were too. We need to be careful to be accurate when we talk about numbers or else the newspaper might nail us. The $100,000 annual benefit to the county’s bottom line you mentioned also appears to be rather inaccurate, by a factor of 8. If this wind farm is really 8 times as good as we’re being told by our own side, maybe we should all rally behind it.
It is a well established fact that the Federal Government, through grants and tax breaks, makes it extremely attractive for companies to build windmills. Ultimately, the majorrty of the costs can be recouped for the building of an industrial wind turbine through the generous tax breaks available. You aren’t really disputing this are you? They have to come up with funding up front…assuming they don’t receive grants from the government (which are readily available if they start before the end of 2011). But ultimately they will write off significant portions of the cost at the taxpayers expense which usually equates to 60+% of the cost. The folks I have spoken to about this on the other side never deny this….they usually point to similar incentives for coal and oil. As for the property tax revenue mistake I already copped to….it doesn’t materially change that they sold out the county property owners for potential revenue increases.
I am disputing what you originally wrote. This wind farm appears to be paid for almost entirely by a private enterprise with little or no money from the government. All the government will do for them will be, if they are successful, to lower their corporate income taxes, which is something we ought to support.
There is a huge difference between having government hand a company money, in the form of a grant up front, to get them started, which is how you described it, vs. reducing that company’s taxes when that company gets started on its own and creates jobs.
Production Tax Credits for wind farms appear to be much like Ed Elswick’s support for the Slate Hill/South Peak development, except not as bad. Elswick voted to use tax dollars up front for that development and to enact higher tax rates on the goods and services sold there, with an agreement that the developer could use 70% of those taxes for decades. I think what Elswick said was something like, “I’d rather get 30% of something than 100% of nothing.” With Production Tax Credits for the Poor Mountain wind farm, the government will still get taxes from the wind farm’s income. They’ll get less than they would get without the Credits but more than nothing.
Come to think of it, consistency indicates Elswick ought to be supporting this wind farm since he supports Slate Hill. And he did say the wind farm would make the mountain look better. Hmm. Maybe his tantrum was just a charade for his neighbors.
You are trying really hard to dispute something that is beyond dispute. Read this article on the fight to keep the tax credits that are set to expire. There is no doubt that tz credits and incentives are a large part of the profitability of wind energy. http://thegazette.com/2011/06/05/wind-energy-supporters-push-for-federal-funds/ It is supporters who are desperate for these subsidies to continue because if they don’t there is no way to build these profitably. I mean it is not even a debatable issue. As for the South Hills development…we have never had a specific position on that, but it is not germane to this issue. And the bigger issue here specifically for Roanoke County (and what we have focused on primarily in our articles…is the property rights issues of those around the windmills. The setbacks were the primary issue as well as the weakness of the bond issue and sound restrictions. If there were a place in Roanoke County that didn’t infringe on the rights of local property owners, we would still ridicule the waste of money and would fight against subsidizing them….but ultimately a property owner should have the right to put them up. The problem is there is no where in Roanoke County where they won’t infringe on others property rights. It’s really that simple John.
I would like people to get facts before talking—check Larry Summers memo to Obama where he decried the giving of up to 90% subsidies to wind farm developers–also South Peak will generate a million/year in tax revenue versus 35 thousand now—at no risk to taxpayers.
Thanks to the Tea party for speaking out!!!!!!
While you’re talking tax breaks and subsidies, i’d like to hear a discussion on the large corporate welfare occurring right now for all the other energy companies (coal, gas, and especially oil).
Further, I’d like to see the precious souls that live in the Roanoke Valley move to areas impacted by coal extraction or energy generation through our conventional means. Those people are suffering the direct impacts of the energy consumption of the Roanoke Valley. Perhaps instead of wind turbines in your backyard, the US should go to a more distributed energy model and put the power generator in the Roanoke Valley.
You people have provided an EXCELLENT example of “Not in my back yard”. Bravo, with noisemakers like you, our country has an excellent chance of swinging to the middle or middle left. thanks!
Stan, Lets take all of this one at a time as you jump all over the place in these 2 posts. Your assertions are making me chuckle over my energy drink….
I breezed over the link you sent in. A few initial thoughts. It seemed a little out of date, It does a good job of laying out the multiple corporate welfare available for energy producers. some of the cost structures seemed (from an initial look) to be arbitrarily developed and almost impossible to quantify (the cost of noise pollution for example). The fact that the spread for the final cost of gas slides from $4 – $15 shows a lack of rigor I find troubling in a study. It seems to completely ignores market factors that would impact the price and assumes cuts in tax breaks would not be accompanied by a corresponding wide spread cut in the over all tax rate. It seems that this is a study with a predetermined agenda but I spend like 10 minutes reviewing it…
I rarely get accused of being clever, so let me just lay out the position so you can understand it. We have stated numerous times in numerous forums that we oppose all corporate welfare. The government needs to stay out of the business of picking winners and losers based on the tax code. We need a flatter tax system that allows the free market to work. If gas is truly $10 a gallon without subsidies…well the market will work to either reduce the cost by increasing supply or coming up with alternatives that actually work. By forcing technology that is not profitable into service based on what we want it to be is a sure recipe for disaster…but that is the baseline for the green energy machine. We have
As for mass transportation, the states surely have the right to pursue mass transit options if the voters OK it but can you show me where in the constitution the Federal government has the enumerated power to tax and fund to provide mass transit? The short answer is they don’t. We can debate whether or not mass transit at a state level is a good idea (it might be in some areas) but we would remind you that the Constitutional authority for those decisions lays with the states. Much like Romney care. While I disagree with the concept, it is certainly the rights of Mass. to choose to pursue this policy. We can have vigorous debates about these issues and decide as a people on what to do….if the federal government were to actually handle the items they are Constitutionally mandated to handle…and leave these other issues to be handled at a state level.
Our opposition to the windmill project in the county is the impact on local property owners. Do you not believe the property owners have a right to protect their properties when they are endangered by wind turbines? The setbacks in place 1000 feet are negligent and dangerous to these property owners. While the windmills are a bad investment as I said in my last post (which you seemed to blithely ignore….if other property owners weren’t impacted the property rights of the proposed land owners of the windmill should triumph and we wouldn’t be so vocal about the set back issues. Roanoke County is a bad place for these windmills because it is too developed. That is the simple answer.
And you are far afield from the original post. Can you justify the taxpayer money spent on trying to manufacture demand for a train service in Roanoke? I can’t.
I find the tone of your response very off-putting. Congrats on being well traveled and smarter than the average valley resident (in your opinion) Your obvious dislike for this area in wanting to punish the residents of the county is pathetic.
As for your assertion we are helping swing the nation center left….that made me spit out my AMP. Your basic misunderstanding of the Constitution, the free market and your arrogant manner seems a lot more like a liberal than anything I could have stated. Nice try part 2
Chip
@ Ed Elswick’s September 21 post: Using your Slate Peak logic, you should return to your original position of supporting the wind farm on Poor Mountain. The wind farm will generate nearly a million dollars per year in taxes for Roanoke County. Why are you inconsistent when a supposedly “subsidized” project is in your own back yard?
‘Fess up, Ed. Was storming out of that meeting, straight to a reporter, just a charade? That was all staged, wasn’t it? You really support the wind farm and you’re just putting on a show for the Bent Mt crowd, aren’t you?
That is a good question John. I would presume that Elswick is more confident in the ROI on the Slate Hill project than any potential wind turbine project…that are notoriously unreliable. Not to mention the potential impact on property owners around the turbines.
But your point is well taken.