To the editor
Unfortunately Horizon has begun a recent publicity campaign with trip giveaway and expensive ads in the local newspaper.
This campaign versus dealing directly with the concerns expressed by citizens throughout the city and especially those most impacted speaks volumes. Their newly updated website contains the same old reports, but has a flashy new look with postcards that when filled out are directly mailed to the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Energy.
Please take the time to fill out a postcard with your reason why you do not support the Big Thunder?Wind Park at BigThunderWindPark.ca.
The deadline is Oct. 12.
Here are my top 10 why this project is simply in the wrong location:
Disrespect for the citizens and City of Thunder?Bay:?The developer sued the city when they simply wanted four turbines moved back, citizens lost their municipal representation due to gagging councillors for fear of future lawsuits, hired PR company to belittle citizen concerns and divide community with misleading information, turning a serious public process into a popularity contest by giving out free trip, paying for full page ads, lobbying business and political groups while ignoring those most concerned.
2. Disrespect for the Municipality of Neebing: Council resolution does not support this project. In April of 2012, Premier Dalton McGuinty said, “I've got all kinds of communities that want them,” and “I don't need the headaches that are associated with them going into communities that don't want them.”
Will the premier honour his word?
3. Disrespect for Fort?William First Nation wishes: Band council resolution does not support this project.
Lack of consultation, proper planning and clarity by developer:?They kept the project secret for years, with improper research they placed original turbines in no-go zone, withheld fact they were planning four more phases, have represented project as 27, 30, 32 MW and 8, 16, 18, or 39 turbines, remained virtually silent for 16 months without updating website so many thought project was over.
Protected watershed lands for more than 100 years: How this land was ever considered remains a mystery and should have gone through a public consultation process and should be investigated; historical agreements may have been breached, FWFN rights disregarded.
6. Protected peregrine falcon habitat: There are huge local efforts made to reintroduce the peregrine, are we now willing to endanger them again?
7. Destruction of unique sugar maple forest: Mature 150-year-old maple forest at its most northernly point in the world will be destroyed at a time when Environmental Commissioner warns of losing maples, trees protected in the south but no mention in the North, lost opportunity to harvest and teach children the art of sugar making.
Unknown health issues and safe setback distances:?A disagreement exists among highly respected professionals but the total dismissal of any and all possible health issues by this developer causes concern, worldwide there are people who have had to abandon homes including many in Ontario who have been bought out by developers and silenced by signing gag orders, a recent Environmental Tribunal admits health issues are real and Health Canada has recently initiated a study; Ontario's Chief Medical Officer is fighting the courts request for her to testify under oath as to her selective literature review and comments dismissing health effects.
9. Lowering property values amounts to expropriation without compensation:?Recent independent studies of Southern Ontario have shown turbines lower property values by as much as 58 per cent; again developers take no responsibility.
10. Incompatible land use with Loch Lomond Ski Area and Big Thunder: Never has there been wind farm turbines impacting a ski area; this is experimental and dangerous re: liability insurance and safety, noise levels and flicker are not taken into consideration for skiers and workers as they are not considered receptors; how much shadow flicker is safe for skiers? They will not indemnify Loch Lomond Ski Area and take no responsibility.
Location, location, location.
Had the developers consulted properly from the start they would have known this is protected and that is too historically significant and valuable to be industrialized with turbines.
Irene Bond,
Thunder Bay
