Criteria for Wind Property Stigma

William Mundy (1992a) [“Stigma and Value”, The Appraisal Journal, 1992a, 7-13] has direct implications to the blight being caused by Falmouth’s industrial wind turbines.  In his definition, Mundy presented a specific list of criteria for stigma. 

While you read, apply the criteria items to the Falmouth wind turbine issue. 

Responsibility – is someone or some company specifically shouldering the blame? So far, by virtue of the ZBA’s finding of two (2) private nuisances, unofficially the Town of Falmouth is the likely candidate satisfying this item.  However, the blame issue has not been a consuming focus as much as has been the way to best provide relief to neighbors suffering from nuisance and associated adverse physical harms.

Exposure – has there been a risk amplification, such as in the media? YES.  (see -Falmouth’s Wind Turbines Attract National Attention)

Disruption – does the contamination impact daily lives?  Yes.  (see testimony presented to Falmouth’s ZBA – #1 Zoning Board of Appeals December 5, 2013 part 1 of 2 #2 -Zoning Board of Appeals May 9, 2013 part 1 of 1)

Concealability – is the risk hidden?  No.  Evidenced by Massachusetts DEP’s position on the matter.  After reviewing the January 2012 Wind Turbine Health Impact Study, and over 500 public comments, MassDEP concluded that the information currently available suggests the need to consider revisions to MassDEP’s noise regulations and policy to address wind turbine noise (see www.cbuilding.org Oct 26, 2013).

Aesthetic effect – can the contamination be seen, felt, or smelled?  Yes.  Evidenced by two (2) Falmouth ZBA nuisance findings and a Barnstable Superior Court injunction order addressing the subject – see Judge orders turbine limits | CapeCodOnline.com.

Prognosis – will the contamination be cleaned up in the near future? No.

Peril – is there a health risk?  Yes.  Unfortunately Falmouth’s Board of Health abdicated it’s responsibility and protective measures were instituded by the Zoning Board of Appeals  (see testimony presented to Falmouth’s ZBA – #1 Zoning Board of Appeals December 5, 2013 part 1 of 2 #2-Zoning Board of Appeals May 9, 2013 part 1 of 1

Fear – what is the general concern level associated with this contamination?  Yes.  As previously cited in testimonials.  As well as the greater populace of the community in terms of tax levy costs  see – Falmouth Enterprise Jan 22, 2013 edition – quote from Town Manager Suso, “This net drain on the town’s general fund is not sustainable.”  “If they don’t run (as originally intended), then it will mean taxpayers will be asked to reach into their pockets.”

Involuntary – are the property owners themselves innocent in this contamination?  Yes.  According to environmental impact and project feasibility studies conducted by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (now the Mass Clean Energy Center) and their contracted agents, they informed town officials, as well as currently impacted residents, that little if any adverse conditions would be imposed upon surrounding neighbors, to say nothing of the community at large.

Appraisal of the facts, whether a professional or simply a resident of Falmouth, makes it perfectly clear.  The ‘Ross Perot’ antics of academic graphs and equations can’t dismiss what local professionals and property owners know.