Wind Generator Development on Amherst Island

The Loyalist Township Official Plan - Energy Policy Chapter

Special Council Meeting of September 2, 2008

The Question before Council:

Loyalist Township Council held a special meeting on September 2, 2008 to consider a staff proposal to put in place an an energy policy chapter to the Township Official Plan. This initiative from Township staff arose as a result of the Ontario Power Authority's announced intention to receive proposals for wind generated energy development on Amherst Island.

Who Was There:

The meeting was attended by about 100 persons, mostly residents from Amherst Island, of whom all but one or two were strenuously and vociferously opposed to any wind power development on the Island.

Council was addressed by several individuals, but the principal proponent - and the one who took the most speaking time before Council - represented a group who had entitled itself the "Coalition to Protect Amherst Island". This group has been quite active over the summer months of 2008, formulating opposition and circulating documents on the Island to "inform" residents of the peril presented by the province's intent to explore the potential for wind generator development on Amherst Island. Upon entering the room, it was evident from the atmosphere that most of those present had come by prearrangement, with the express purpose of exerting some not very subtle pressure on Council.

One or two members of the Colloquium were also in the audience. Upon reflection, none made any comment - discretion (as the saying goes) being the better part of valour. While Council might have welcomed some more measured comments, it had already taken the best public policy decision it could.

Any comment that might have taken issue with the other comments made would only have given the belligerence of the others present the occasion to take up more of Council's time with peripheral discussion.

Action taken by Council:

Township Council and Staff had, in fact, approached the issue of wind energy development on the Island entirely appropriately. By seeking to put into place a policy and planning framework that would enable the township to deal with any future proposals that may come forward, Council acted prudently and in the best long term interests of the Township and its residents.

Tone of the Meeting set by Slander:

Several of the speakers, to loud murmurs - indeed loud voices - of agreement, made directly ad hominem attacks on the Township staff members responsible for developing the proposal before Council. Not satisfied with attacking civil servants, who by the nature of their office are unable to respond, speakers also asserted that it was Council's intention "to ram through" wind power on the Island.

Those remarks were disingenuous to the point of mendacity.

Township staff members had quite patiently in preceding weeks had carefully laid the groundwork for the proposal to Council, including consultations and meetings with people on the Island and including specifically with representatives of the "Coalition". They had received and examined the plethora of documentation presented to them in the course of that process. Finally, Council had made explicit the substance of the proposal before it, the context and the intent.

Issues Raised - Public Health:

The principal interlocutor for most of those chose to cast the issue before Council as one of potential hazard to public health, specifically the obligation upon Council to take action to prohibit any development in light of the existence of a 'reasonable apprehension' of health impacts.

The advancement of this argument should be recognized for what it is: A convenient cover to advance a quite different agenda.

Notwithstanding the extensive use of wind generator power in Europe, the U.S.A. and other parts of the world, no credible link has been found to any tangible or scientifically observable public health concern. Virtually all of the documentation tendered by the Coalition on this specific issue consists of references to published op ed pieces, letters to the editor and other comparable material unsubstantiated by any empirical evidence. Reference was made obliquely to what is known in environmental and regulatory circles as the precautionary principle (i.e., don't wait for proof if there is a danger of real harm).

The proponents of prohibition operate on the premise that their apprehension is reasonable and that, accordingly, Council should take no action that might in the future permit wind power development.

It is, however, in the end, up to Council and other decision making or regulatory authorities (and them alone) to determine what is, in fact, reasonable. It is not up to self-interested persons.

The Colloquium posits the following for Council's consideration:

The logical public policy approach, thus, would be to accord any health-related apprehension based on sound or location the same level of credibility that would be accorded to concerns about:

- residential housing located near power lines (of which there is no significant evidence despite a century of practical experience);

- the intermittent but recurrent noise generated by farmers' power equipment;

- the intermittent but recurrent sounds of cows and other domestic animals on private property;

- the intermittent but recurrent sounds of lake vessels' fog horns;

- the intermittent but recurrent sounds generated by power lawn mowers or ATVs on private property;

- the intermittent but recurrent sounds of motor boats on the lake;

- the intermittent but recurrent sounds of vehicles passing by residences on public thoroughfares.

Issues Raised - Non Health Concerns:

Several speakers raised a range of other, non health-related concerns.

While these might well have been genuine, the choreography of the presentations to Council made it clear that there was a concerted, and quite patently disingenuous, effort to divert attention to points at best marginal to the substantive public policy issue before Council, i.e., the need to have an official plan in place before any applications of any kind are made for any municipal government approvals.

One speaker, who claimed to be a local historian, raised the question of aboriginal rights. To anyone reasonably informed about the Island's history and current status, it is a clear matter of fact that it is subject to no aboriginal claims from any quarter.

Similarly, a rather confused point was made by the same individual about hunting and the use of rifles when it is equally clear that, under the law, hunting and the use of firearms is subject not only to federal, provincial and municipal regulation, but also to the permission of landowners.

Other concerns expressed about landowners being forced to locate structures on their property, or structures within meters of private residences can only have been based on wilful ignorance. If ignorance was not at play, the only logical conclusion must be that such assertions have the deliberate intent to misinform and to alarm the uninformed.

In this regard, the assertion was baldly made that the Township was the body inviting proposals for wind generator development. If not genuinely ignorant, that can only have been a tactical ploy to put Council members both collectively and individually on the defensive. politically.

The Interests of "New" Islanders are Not the Interests of All Islanders, or even of the Majority:

From the general tenor of comments made by individual speakers before, during and after the meeting, it was plainly evident that the central concern is aesthetic, i.e., the effect of wind generators upon the appearance of the Island.

This was underlined by subsequent letters to the Editor of the Kingston Whig Standard from two Amherst Island residents on September 8, which condemned the greed of "old" islanders who might be tempted by the financial "windfall" of permitting wind generators to be located on their property. The apparent implication of the letter was that new islanders were now calling the shots because they had paid "dearly" for land on which to build their new rural residences and now contributed "the lions share of taxes".

Council might find it instructive, perhaps, to inquire how many people who object to the principle of development on the Island are recent or relatively recent arrivals.

This is often, though not always, a gauge by which to judge their commitment to the physical status quo of any area, as opposed to the overall best interests of the community. Indeed, one speaker at the meeting who indicated he had recently moved from Toronto was explicit on this point.

The Use of Threat and Intimidation:

There was at the meeting a palpable undercurrent of intimidation and potential for violence in the public and in quasi-private comments of some individuals at the meeting is a matter of legitimate concern.

One speaker who cited experience as a union organizer specifically asserted that he "would do everything" he could to stop any wind power development. The clear implication was that he was prepared to do so both before and after any development might be in place, particularly as he took care not to eschew violent action or threats to property or persons.

Another speaker promised to engage any decision making process with appeals at every level, and by implication, threatened to embroil the Township and Council in protracted legal action and, presumably, the unproductive expenditure of public funds.

The Not So Hidden Agenda:

Aesthetic considerations are certainly worthy of consideration. It is, however, incumbent upon Council to balance the aesthetic sensibilities of some residents with the best interests of all residents, particularly where broader public policy interests and responsibilities are at play.

It is important to understand clearly the ultimate purpose of those who have organized themselves to oppose the issue of wind power development, quite apart from protecting their rural idyl and perhaps land values.

Any wind power development necessarily will involve the consent and cooperation of landowners on the Island.

The political intent is, if possible, to force Council to foreclose in advance - and irrevocably - the possibility of any such consent and cooperation by landowners.

In plain words, that intent is to circumscribe the freedom of other residents of Amherst Island to use their own property as they may see fit within the confines of the law. Before concluding,

The Public Policy Issues at Play:

In the broadest possible context, the public policy issue at play here is how all levels of government - Federal. Provincial and Municipal - will address pressing environmental and energy questions.

There is a growing consensus in Canada that reliance on carbon-based energy is no longer sustainable and that alternative forms of energy must be developed.

Wind generated electricity is only one component in the mix of possible new sources of energy. Though it may be arguable whether wind power, in itself, it is likely to be adequate or sufficient, it cannot be disputed that it is part of the mix to be explored.

No one with any claim to intellectual credibility can seriously contest that fact.

At the local level, therefore, the critical public policy issue is whether self-interested groups of "concerned citizens" are to be permitted to block decisions or developments that are in the broader public interest.

Those who opposed the possibility of wind generated electricity development on Amherst Island would, quite probably, not object if the potential location were elsewhere. Their position is "Not in my back yard, and not in my neighbour's back yard or field, either!!"

Concluding Observation:

The manipulation of information, its misrepresentation, and the quite crass political machinations practised by some of the proponents on the question before Council are inimical to good public policy.

They should not and cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

Return to Home Page