Worried About Wind Turbines (Buffalo, Akron: house, rent, lease)

[looking4home]

Are gag orders constitutional? How can you legally stop someone from expressing their honest opinion? Especially if it's about something that directly affects them.

[honeychrome]

Good question. Technically it's not a 'gag order,' I think only a court or judge can issue one of those. I think it's more correctly called a 'gag rule,' or 'gag clause' or something like that, and it's a matter of contract law, not constitutional law. The leaseholders have the 'freedom' to say anything they want, but they are bound by a legal contract that says if they say such-and-such a thing they are in violation of the contract and there are certain (surely financial) penalties. The wind companies have big budgets and big lawyers, so no doubt the contract has provisions that if the leaseholder publicly speaks out they probably forfeit the lease payment yet are still stuck with the turbine on their land.

[JustSayNo]

Thank goodness for Honey! This explanation is a good one and pretty much the way it is. It is my understanding that at least around here, and remember the wind companies do not share their documents with the public so it is hard to know the EXACT wording, the lease agreement states that you are not allowed to say anything negative about the project and all things related for the life of the project, and I would assume the punishment is loss of lease money and retention of all the legal responsibility that you assume when you sign the paper. Now this means you can not complain or criticize publicly anything-the turbines, the noise, the destruction, the road work, the tranmissions lines, the sub-stations, etc. So, that is why I always used quotes when I referred to this issue as this term is the most familiar one, but Honey is VERY right, it is contract not constitutional. Thanks Honey for helpping us all understand this issue better!

[looking4home]

Yes, I understand what you're saying. But even contractual agreements can be nullified if your constitutional or civil rights have been violated. Has anyone ever challenged this in court? I've heard of similar situations, but usually courts will find that the right to free speech take precendence over any contract.

This is a different topic, but federal courts recently ruled that community associations' rules and regulations are not as binding as was once thought. For years, they were winning court battles against residents who challenged their often unfair rules. For instance, some wouldn't let residents display political signs on their lawns during election season. But the courts recently ruled that a person's right to free speech and freedom of political expression was greater than any regulation mandated by a homeowner's association, whether if they signed an agreement to follow the rules when they purchased the home or not.

[matt l]

Maybe we should all kick back with a stogie and wait until we've spunked all the finite resources out of the earth and then come up with a replacement then???

No point bustin' our chops now is there???





































ps. I'm being sarcastic!

[JustSayNo]

Thanks for joining the discussion Matt.. no really thanks........ and I think we understood your sarcasim..........not all of us are "dumb farmers."

I think your "smokin' the fat cigar" comment is more appropriate for the wind companies and the town boards that let $$$$$ get in the way of intelligence.

[GoldenCrow]

JustSayNo, you've probably come across this issue: I heard today that a wind sales guy casually mentioned that eminent domain could possibly be used for a wind installation. Has anyone heard anything about this? Another scare tactic for us rural rubes or truth?

[looking4home]

How frightening if that's true! Only a government authority, i.e. town council, has the power to do that. But who knows what kind of shennanigans these wind companies are getting up to? Maybe they are bribing the town councils to force these abominations on their citizenry?

I think the sham of "alternative energy" has to be exposed. Somehow, opponents of the wind farms are going to have to locate an expert on the subject to speak on their behalf, convincingly and armed with facts and knowledge. Because if this continues, all of upstate could be destroyed. Who would want to vacation, buy a second home, or relocate to near an industrial energy facility?

[navinjohnson]

It is my understanding that once the developers get their machines sited they can use eminent domain to cross non participating properties for access Rd's. and power lines.

[honeychrome]

How exactly is the notion of 'alternative energy' (a term most commonly used to describe non-fossil fuel sources) a sham? Human beings have been living on this planet for quite a long time, most of that time surviving without fossil fuel energy- it is only in the last couple of centuries that we've been using non-renewable fossil fuels. I think it is the fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) that are in fact the 'alternative' (and a finite one at that) to the renewable fuel sources we've relied on for thousands of years. None of which is to say that large-scale, industrialized 'renwable' energy isn't a sham. Seems like 'industrial' and 'renewable' are usually incompatible!

I agree, the 'eminent domain' issue is horrifying and is the likely shape of things to come. As oil and other easy energy sources become increasingly more expensive and less easy we can expect to see the government start seizing any and all land that might have coal under it, or theoretically good wind options, even good solar exposure and hand it over to corporate energy 'developers.' National (energy) security and 'the good of all,' etc. will be the cited reasoning. It gives me pause in all the work in designing and planting for productivity and sustainability I'm involved in on my land. I'm trying to think about what this land could be for my kids and beyond, managing the land and planting trees, etc. that I may not live to see reach productive maturity, but I want them to be there for those who follow- the scary thing is knowing that it can all be taken away and bulldozed for the short-term profit of some corporation (oh yeah, right, its for 'the good of all....'). And the worse things get, the more likely it is to happen.