There is virtually no benefit to justify the harm caused to victims. Even if such benefits existed, they could hardly outweigh the harm being done to people. If we continue to blame the victims and deny this truth, we will soon become victims of our own devices.

This last thought is cold comfort to those who must face the steady erosion of their health, their families’ and financial reserves, and the destruction of their very livelihoods that is created by living too close to turbines.

The victims of Big Wind are like so many canaries in the mine shaft, who flee or fall in the face of this industrial toxin. Those who blame them are like unwitting miners who stand staring dumbfounded at the obvious, wondering what these canaries have done to bring this catastrophe upon themselves—and then continue along their merry way down the mine shaft, oblivious to the clear and present danger as though they are immune to it. Until it is too late.

There was a suggestion made that this problem be fixed with the Constitutional power of eminent domain. In effect, to buy out or take surrounding properties of those owners claiming to be aggrieved by the turbines. 
For any governmental body to consider this action “reasonable”, the establishment of “benefit” or “community good” must be realized.
Secondly, the action would be precedent setting. The result of which would foster repercussions impacting the similarly sized, privately owned Webb turbine in the Falmouth Technology Park. That turbine seems the next to have a ‘bulls-eye’ painted on it’s placement.
Speaking to the “benefit”, the fiscal municipal benefit is absurd (no matter the ‘spin’). Mr. Suso (town mgr), in his proposed budget to the Finance Committee, spoke of FY 2014 (2015?) projections based upon a “sustainable model” involving 24/7 turbine operations. Mr. Suso’s budget proposal, given the “purchasing of home” contingency portion of one of the options, as well as now with this power of eminent domain suggestion, DOES NOT include any costs associated with the purchasing of homes. Odd?
During the WTOP ball park estimates for the endeavor were in the range of $9 -$16 million. The profit flow tabulations, from the WTOP report, forecasted a positive flow only at the end of the turbine’s viable operational lifespan. Those numbers were marginal at best.

The benefits of achieving climate action targets are controversial. The WTOP avoided this debate like the plague. Similarly, the process set the ground rule allowing claims (i.e. health and climate impact) to be treated as reality. The climate benefit argument is a stretch, but is certainly more viable than the municipal financial benefit.

The speaker also suggested a benefit comparison over looked so far. That being to replace existing turbines with a “task orientated” wind system, compliant with the new bylaw being proposed by the planning board. The original project’s 660Kw machine was to serve all the waste water plant’s electricity needs. Such a turbine scale seems far more appropriate for the site, as well as having been likely to make all involved happier than we are today.

There are residents who say keep the wind turbines spinning. The simple facts are the turbines cause health problems .The Town Meeting members dislike the wind turbine abutters so much and they think that they are better than the abutters. Town Meeting members voted to keep the turbines spinning despite the health of a hundred homes.

An economic down turn and unemployment has heightened existing class and political differences in Falmouth over the placement of wind turbines in residential locations. Cash vs Health !

Did you ever ask yourself what the general public of Germany was thinking of during World War II ? If you lived in Germany during those times wouldn't you wonder what happened to your neighbors?

What happened to all the people in Germany in World War II ?The answer to this is that most Germans say they were unaware of what happened to those that were no longer to be seen on the streets anymore.
The residents of Falmouth are well aware of three years of noise complaints who describe the noise as torture. The people of Falmouth through a democratic process continue the torture on the abutters of the turbine .

"For decades, big tobacco successfully suppressed the inconvenient truth that smoking harms people’s health. The wind development industry closely follows big tobacco’s deception playbook — taking advantage of people’s best intentions to protect our environment as they desperately cling to outdated and inaccurate studies." ~ Steve Deslauriers ~ Green Bay Press Gazetts

I am a resident of Falmouth and I don't think it matters where in town I live. I think there's something pathetically wrong with our town when neighbors turn their backs on neighbors. I read Tulinski's comment and think.. he seems the neighbor that, after hearing shots being fired and someone screening for help, or smelling smoke waffle into his bedroom from the house ablaze next door - would only shut his window. This town has turned VERY COLD. I'm ashamed

Princeton ,Massachusetts pays the highest electric rates in Massachusetts because of the failure of its 1.5 Megawatt three year old wind turbine. The Town of Falmouth is only about six months behind Princeton . It is true they provide clean energy but at a cost of health of the residents of Falmouth and soon the expense of the entire town.

These are commercial megawatt turbines placed in residential locations .I understand the people who don't live near the turbines only care about money and not your neighbors health . You need to look at the future and the cost associated with a small town operation of a turbine !
http://www.windaction.org/documents/36015
Princeton Municipal Light Department's (PMLD) admits wind turbine failure

Mr. Carson - I don't know how to judge your comparison between two different makers and models of turbines. I have been told that I'm a decent judge of character. Good character was on display by the selectmen at the public hearing. The character of decision makers are most valued when they ask
what “the People” think. I would urge decision maker and citizens, embrace the character of being neighborly. The problem seems not about
whether you’re for or against wind energy. The problem is about the character of our community. It's sad day when Falmouth neighbors cease to care for the welfare of each other. We can't afford the damage of community character that would cost.

Tulinskis comment goes to the true root of the problem. If it doesn't bother ME it's not a problem. Most Falmouth residents are not bothered at all.
But what about me and the home I designed built loved and have been forced to abandon for the sake of my health? What about lives that are being shortened by the hour and the devastation of the few. If I was your MOTHER would you care then?
We have lost our community indeed with people like this at the wheel and making up the quiet and unrepentant majority.
This is why no matter what happens I will not be able to return in good faith to Falmouth.
The world is changing too fast and NOT for the better. It's every man for himself now I guess. It's just been such a bitter awakening because that's not how I have behaved over the years and it's a sad conclusion to accept after living a life where I believed in peoples overall goodness and trusted, obviously way too much.
Many did in fact come forth in support of the turbine victims last night and I am grateful for their efforts. Unfortunately I am still concerned that they, like me, are just beginning to see the harsh new reality and hoping to make a last stand against this selfish thinking and hoping to makes a difference.
Personally I fear it is too late for Falmouth and I'm not holding my breath anymore. So I will pray for a miracle but expect this loss of caring to proliferate. It's sad and inevitable.

The turbine is cursed : Sue , Don't worry these turbines break down in a short period of time ,Falmouth Wind 1 is just starting to break down with the condensation on that electric switch at Thanksgiving . That's just the start of the problems . This turbine has been a curse on the town since they bought it with a 1 million dollar advance of Renewable Energy Credits from the state ! What a deal NOT !

Vestas Wind Systems of Denmark has purchased other wind companies like NEG Micron and Nordtank Energy Group in the early 2000s. Vestas recently has admitted issues with 376 of its V90 3MW gearboxes.

The gear box issues continue today. The Otis AFB ,Cape Cod says their three year old Furlander 1.5 MW turbine has no problems .The air base is in denial of how much the gear box is going to cost to replace.

One company made many of the same gear box units for all the wind turbine manufacturers .

The Falmouth Town Meeting Members are only being told the good news about the older commercial wind turbines that were sold to last twenty or thirty years - The truth is three to five years before mega operation and maintenance issues - small towns can't afford a catastrophic gear box failure.

I am a resident and I vote.... TAKE THEM DOWN PLEASE

GE and Buy America

While WIND 1 was community funded through a combination of general bonds, grants and advanced payments on renewable energy credits sold under the State's Renewable Portfolio Standard program, the second is being funded entirely through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) .

Recall, ARRA Section 1605 asserts a "buy America" provision and MTC's Vestas V82 (vintage 2005-06) turbines were not American-made. Falmouth needed a waiver to get its hands on the stimulus money or change out MTC's turbine in-hand for a domestic-made equivalent.

Apparently, the Town solicited General Electric as a potential turbine supplier, but GE's siting standards required a safety setback of 1.5 times the hub height plus rotor diameter be maintained in the event of icing. The setback distance would be measured from occupied structures, roads, property lines and public access areas.

Unless the turbine was moved, GE was unwilling to do business.

Waiver granted

The federal government, in this case the EPA, determined that no domestic manufactured wind turbines were available that could meet WIND 2's project design and performance specifications. The waiver was granted.

The notice of waiver that appeared in the Federal Register on April 27, 2010 included this text:

Section 1605 of the ARRA requires that none of the appropriated funds may be used for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or a public works project unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project is produced in the United States, So, let's be clear here. GE, which has more of its turbines installed in the United States than any other manufacturer, and arguably the most experience with operating turbines in the varied climates within the US -- certainly more experience than EPA and the Town of Falmouth -- raised public safety concerns over the risks of ice throw, and Falmouth looked the other way. EPA, in turn, agreed that applying GE safety standards to the site would be "inconsistent with the public interest". Is it any wonder Falmouth is the latest poster child for poor turbine siting?

The risk is real

If anyone doubts that ice builds up on turbines in the Massachusetts area, it's worth watching this short video clip from Newburyport, MA where a smaller 600-kw turbine standing just under 300-feet was erected. Or watch this clip from Wisconsin involving turbines similar in size to the V82.

The story doesn't end there.

Two months prior to Falmouth receiving its waiver, EPA supported a waiver request by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (“MWRA”) to acquire a turbine built by Chinese turbine maker, Sinovel. The turbine is expected to power the DeLauri Pump Station in Charlestown, Massachusetts where GE found the setback distances insufficient to protect the public from ice throw. Lucky for the MWRA, Sinovel was more than happy to take the money.

Last nights meeting was courteous and friendly. There was a mix of residents in the audience in which 43 people spoke. And yes most of those indicated that the turbines should be removed or curtailed. And 4 of those were from out of town (and outspoken wind opponents in every town where there is a wind turbine).
There were noticeable faces and some new voices. The thing I found very interesting is that not one person asked a question about the options or the report or how taking the turbines down might affect fiscal concerns (don't infer that I am putting finance over health, but it is important to understand the economics). If you support taking the turbines down, then provide a way to minimize the fiscal impact on the whole town. And asking the state for money is not the sole answer because if it were we wouldn't be here today having these discussions. It is easy to say take them down, and I am not totally against that, but I want a real answer to how the debt obligations will be paid. I don't have a lot of money and the tax rate just went up to $8.00 per $1000 from $6 and change. This will have an affect on my household income. And with new tax increases due to the fiscal cliff, I am looking at less money for my family this year than last year. And that money does provide for my family's health and welfare. Taking the turbines down and bearing that cost in my property taxes may cause me to have to leave Falmouth. It's an issue and a choice I will have to face.

Once again, you are not providing solutions to the debt obligation but who YOU THINK should pay for them. As you continually state in your various posts that Vestas and MTC (MassCEC) and the state are all responsible for where the turbines ended up, but Falmouth decided to buy the turbines and is the owner (regardless of the good or bad of the situation). The debt obligation belongs to the town of Falmouth and therefore the taxpayers. It is unlikely to think that Vestas, MTC (MassCEC) or the state is going to take ownership and just hand over the money; if it were there or they saw fault they could/would have done it by now.
The turbines have been operating for almost three years with intermittent down times for various reasons. The turbines function. Each one of those entities has a case to say that the debt belongs to Falmouth.
Now we need to hear reasonable and salient solutions to the debt obligation should the turbines be removed. And no, solar is not an option - it REQUIRES a $3M grant to install the array(s) and another $3.9M to be put into a stabilization type account to pay the turbine debt. If we could get $3.9M to put into an account, we could pay the debt and take down the turbines so NO that option does not relieve the debt obligation. It assumes that there is money available to install an array and not have it cost the taxpayers - UNLIKELY.
Are the complaining neighbors willing to take on the burden of the debt obligation since they want them gone?

How could we ever turn our backs on our neighbors....how sad! This is why i LOVE living in Mashpee....Mashpee Town Hall and all its people are some of the best people i ever met-No Good Old Boy's club here....
Sue....you and all the others who have fallen victim to the wind turbines my heart goes out to you-I am all for clean energy but NEVER at the health of my neighbors!

Falmouth Son, State Representative David T. Vieira has made our community proud. Great moments are born from great opportunity ~ Mr. Vieira, by this courageous Act, has seized both.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
_________________
PRESENTED BY:
David T. Vieira
_______________
To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General Court assembled:
The undersigned legislators and/or citizens respectfully petition for the passage of the accompanying bill:

**"An Act relieving the adverse effects of wind energy"**

God bless David Viera... sign me up. I have already lost so much . And Bill , thanks for attempting to comfort me but unfortunately My bane is the NOT US webb turbine and the town will never deal with it.
So I get to sue WEBB and TELEDYNE ... a mutli million corporation with big lawyers and bank accounts. Not sure I can gamble with what little money we have left after leaving our home.
I do wonder what might have happened if 2 of the dangerous turbines were NOT owned by the town.... would they have still let the harm continue.
heartless corporations, heartless town managers and damaged lives...Until we call this behavior out and give victims a way to defend themselves everybody better keep their eyes wide open .

Falmouth Neighbor,You don't get it ! The wind turbines are failing at three years. Portsmouth High School ,Rhode Island -Otis ANG Base Cape Cod .
Here is the story from Princeton Ma - How long before the Famouth Wind Turbines Fail ?

Princeton Municipal Light Department's admits wind facility is losing money, raising rates
September 12, 2012 by Brian Allen, General Manager of PMLD
Summary:
This letter written by Princeton Municipal Light Department's (PMLD) General Manager, Brian Allen, offers a candid assessment of the utility's two-turbine (3.0 MW) project. The turbines have failed to live up to expected production levels. The project has also been plagued by technical problems. Rather than reducing rates for customers, the project lost $1.875 million and will continue to lose $600,000 yearly under current circumstances. Excerpts of the letter are provided below. The full letter can be read by clicking on the link at the bottom of this page.
http://www.windaction.org/documents/36015

One million in repairs to Portsmouth RI wind turbine three years old .

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
In order to determine the profitability of continued turbine operation subsequent to a gearbox replacement, two scenarios are considered, a three-year and a ten-year gearbox life.

http://www.portsmouthri.com/documents/Turbine_Gearbox.pdf

Military Base Having Trouble With German-Made Wind Turbine
By: Diana T. Barth
Published: 01/17/13

"Performance of that machine was impacted by lower-than-average wind speeds, a number of mechanical problems, and poor service by the manufacturer, they said.
Those issues included worn generator brushes and loss of charging capacity in backup systems.

A wind turbine’s “yaw drive” orients the motor housing of a turbine to the wind, and a major component of that drive is a gearbox. Diagnostic evidence suggests that the German gearbox may be failing due to a bad bearing and, possibly, because of poor design, the AFCEC reported:

http://www.capenews.net/communities/bourne/news/2333

Hey Neighbor - you're absolutely correct about the debt repayment from turbine production receipts. However, full operation 24/7 will be impossible due to night noise exceedances measured by the DEP on wind 1 & even more impacting when wind2 runs simultaneously. (unfortunately they weren't tested together. The financial projections from the WTOP, clearly indicate (with night curtailment allowing for a healthy period of sleep) that this protocol is unsustainable, in terms of budget. The long and short of it.. Answering your question - the tax payer will pay the debt service by either bleeding a slow fiscal death or by amputating and cutting off the likely more protracted losses. In either case, the fiscal burden will be shared by all taxpayers. Taking them down allows the complaining neighbors to share equally in the burden. Running them with a nighttime curtailment extracts from these neighbors not only a shared fiscal debt, but also a health and well being toll.

Health & Windfarms: Experimentation on people without their consent
In this video, Curt Devlin explains to windfarm neighbours how they are actually being used as guinea pigs without previous information and consent, which constitutes a clear violation of their Human Rights.
Recorded at the Falmouth Conference on Human Rights* - November 10, 2012 - Falmouth Public Library - Falmouth, MA, USA

* Science, medicine and engineering were called upon to explain the impacts of living too close to industrial wind turbines.

http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?lang=en&article=v4