Would you rather have a nuclear plant?
I am writing to you about the arguments that opponents to wind farms are putting out to the public. I have been to the wind project in Elwood. I stood under a wind turbine in operation and never heard the blades moving less than 200 feet over my head, or noticed any flicker.
A school in Union City has two older wind turbines in operation. Taylor University in Upland is using both geothermal solar and wind to help in powering its campus, and the Eastbrook school system has installed wind turbines for power. There is no pollution from wind like there is from oil or gas-fired electric plants.
Studies of bird deaths and devaluation of property due to turbines have shown more birds die from striking buildings in cities than wind turbines. Also, an 85-page study, just released by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, of 50,000 home sales, near 67 wind facilities in 27 counties in the United States, was unable to uncover any impacts to nearby home values.
The question I would like to put to these opponents of a non-polluting renewable energy source is, “Would you rather have a wind turbine or a nuclear power plant close to your schools and homes?”
Three strikes, Acres, and you are out!
The remarks made by Mr. Jerry Acres as the presiding official at the end of the March BZA hearing regarding the Prairie Breeze Wind Farm were astonishing. How anyone could attempt to persuade by admitting his own inadequacy in deciding such an issue is one for the books.
Espousing regret over his prior vote on a similar issue, and blaming the system for not providing more detailed information, was far from proper hearing decorum if not disqualifying.
And then, at the July 31 BZA meeting, Mr. Acres began the meeting with even more obvious ineptness by deciding an issue that required a public hearing at what was announced only as a procedural meeting. The final capper was his decision Aug. 28 not to hold an announced hearing that was all but underway.