Petition Tag - windmill


We, the people of the Netherlands, are asking for support. In our densely populated country, they are planning huge wind farms next to our homes. In spite of all the reports about negative health aspects caused by industrial wind turbines, the requests for more wind farms are piling up.

We are afraid that many people will get sick and therefore we want to ask the government to stop the planning of building more turbines.

Apart from the health aspects, we are afraid that there will be a large environmental impact, no nature left and that we will not be able to leave because the houses become unmarketable.

Therefore, we ask you to sign this petition in order to help us with our struggle.

2. Support Denver Mills

In 2008 we came to this troubled project with the objective of turning it into a sustainable heritage asset – putting the Windmill back into the centre of the community.

Despite the many obstacles we have experienced we have shown that the project can be viable, but the accident last year has left us with no sails and our main milling facility gone. Without sails turning to produce flour, the last working windmill in Norfolk becomes just another old, preserved building.

We are still passionate to see this succeed, but if the current situation is to be overcome everyone involved must share a commitment to this as a long term project.

Many people have voiced their support, and your vote and comments will affect the future of this project.

3. Make Nantucket Turbine Free

The island of Nantucket is a beautiful, peaceful and unique place. We want to maintain our island's cultural and scenic heritage for future generations.

Renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels include solar, biomass, wind, gasification, hydro and other methods. Green energy solutions are preferred when properly sited and with the approval of neighbors.

There has been a tremendous amount of controversy worldwide in siting Industrial Wind Turbines in and around residential neighborhoods. This has caused unnecessary splits in communities. There are real health, financial and other concerns about Industrial Wind Turbines that need to be considered by all parties in the debate.

Industrial Wind Turbines are intended to be used in industrial areas - not to transform residential neighborhoods into industrial zones. Neighbors to proposed or installed Industrial Wind Turbines have had to fight to maintain or restore their communities to residential peace and quiet enjoyment of their homes and properties.

Industrial Wind Turbines were always intended to be placed in areas far away from residential areas. Nantucket's leaders, residents and homeowners have fought hard and spent millions of dollars to maintain our historic open space and bucolic vistas. The construction of Industrial Wind Turbines is not appropriate anywhere on Nantucket island.

4. Recall and Replace the Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority Commissioners

On page 5 of the GE Energy publication titled “Wind Energy Basics” (www. _energy/en/downloads/wind_energy_ basics.pdf), it states, “Siting wind turbines and assessing the feasibility of a proposed location must consider factors such as Community Acceptance and compatibility with adjacent land uses. … Hence, megawatt-scale wind turbines cannot be located in densely populated areas.”

In Union Beach, NJ a “densely populated area” begins just 1,080 feet from the Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority’s site for their planned 380-foot-tall GE industrial wind turbine. There are real and serious concerns regarding the negative impact the turbine will have on property values, health and safety due to its proximity to homes. Many experts recommend a minimum setback of 1.25 miles from residential property lines. Our current BRSA commissioners have categorically denied these dangers in their zeal to erect the turbine, although there is a large and growing body of evidence to support these claims. As for "Community Acceptance," Union Beach, Hazlet, Keyport and Monmouth County have all passed resolutions opposing the turbine. About 80 percent of area residents are staunchly opposed and 10 percent are ambivalent. There is a bill before the state legislature calling for a 2,000-foot mandatory setback. Yet, the BRSA has claimed that area residents are friendly to the idea of a turbine. They clearly are not.

What is most troublesome is that the BRSA already constructed the foundation in order to meet their deadline for receiving fifty percent funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. However, they did this prior to having all their permits finalized and also prior to acquiring an additional half-acre of land from JCP&L on Conaskonk Point, a pristine wetland and bird-nesting ground. They need this to allow for the blades of the industrial turbine to overhang their existing property line. Essentially, they spent that money on spec because they are in a legal battle with Union Beach and its neighbors for the rights to purchase the land and finish the project. The outcome is uncertain. This is the height of fiscal mismanagement. They have spent millions of ratepayer money already and even more ratepayer money is in jeopardy of going down the sewer if the BRSA is unable to erect the turbine and they have to pay back Uncle Sam.

The commissioners were appointed to represent the interests of their towns, residents and ratepayers. Clearly, they do not. The two from Union Beach even voted to sue their own town for putting on a sign outside of borough hall. Union Beach won that suit, a First Amendment victory, but it further makes the case that the commissioners put the wind industry above the interests of their communities. An organic outcry has begun among area residents, “Recall and replace the commissioners with ones who represent their towns, not Big Wind.” This petition is in response to that outcry.

5. Review Alfred, NY Wind Law Setback

The town board wants to hear from Alfred Town and Village Residents about their concerns pertaining to the proposed industrial wind turbines that may be sited in Alfred. It is time to become active and attend the board meeting on May 13, 2010 at the Alfred Station Fire Hall at 7:00pm.

Issues of concern: negative impacts that industrial wind turbines sited within close proximity to homes will have on the local environment and landscape, our health and quality of life, property values, noise and other long term effects.

6. Save the Denver Windmill Heritage Project

In 2000 Denver Windmill reopened to the public as a heritage, education, leisure and tourist site following a massive funding grant to the Norfolk Historic Buildings Trust.

By 2007 the project was in financial trouble and in June 2008 Denver Mill Ltd leased the site in order to turn the failing business round and establish a long term sutainable project in conjunction with the Trust.

The Trust have failed in their responsibilities for the maintenance and condition of the site to such a degree that Denver Mill Ltd and the project will close at the end of January 2009 with the loss of 13 jobs and business to over 25 local suppliers unless immediate pressure is brought on the Trust's governing organisations, the Norfolk County Council and Campaign to Protect Rural England (Norfolk) to move the project forward.


UPDATE 17th Jan: Meeting with the Trust on 13th January.

The current work schedules on the Cottages and Windmill were confirmed along with repair work to stop water entering the building in various places. However it is apparent that there are differing opinions within the Trust as to its responsibilities, both as a commercial landlord and to the project.

The Concluding Report of the Dispute Resolution states “NHBT seems not to have understood the needs of Denver Mill Ltd, as having a working mill and cottages in good, lettable condition as the basis of their business, neither the impact on the business of delays…” and “…in the case of Denver Mill, the mill is both the property and, in a real sense, the business; it is integral to both and to the interest of both parties … and its implications may not have been appreciated by the Trust”.

Within the proposals is stated “… a claim for loss of income … is understood to be legitimate within the terms of the lease …” This has now been confirmed by a specialist lawyer and the position of the project on the 1st February hangs entirely on the decision by the Trust at the end of January to honor this debt without the financial and commercial damage litigation will cause.

Both the Norfolk County Council and CPRE (Norfolk) continue to work with us to maintain this project and ‘cautious optimism’ prevails.