Town rejects solar because it'll suck up sunlight and kill the plants

[GMDino]

http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2015/12/08/woodland-rejects-solar-farm/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

Quote:WOODLAND – The Woodland Town Council rejected a proposal to rezone a section of land north of town to M2 (manufacturing) from RA (residential/agricultural), essentially denying approval of a solar farm.

Newly sworn in councilman Cecil Harkey voted against the motion to reject rezoning the land, while council members David Cooper, Ron Lane, and Pat Liverman voted to approve it following public comments against the rezoning.

The Planning Board had recommended the property be rezoned to allow Strata Solar Company to build a solar farm off U.S. highway 258.

Three other solar farms had previously been accepted by the town council, with one of the now putting solar panels up.

The solar farm companies seek placement around Woodland because it has an electrical substation the solar power generated by the panels can be hooked up to the electrical grid.

Strata’s proposal would have competed encircling the Woodland substation.

Later in the meeting, the Town Council voted for a complete moratorium on solar farms.

During the public comment period preceding the rezoning vote, citizens expressed distrust and fear of the solar panels.

Jean Barnes said she represented many citizens who rejected any more solar farms coming to the Woodland area and presented a petition to the council.

Barnes asked that any future solar farm request be put to a referendum so the citizens can make the decision.

Mary Hobbs has been living in Woodland for 50 years and said she has watched it slowly becoming a ghost town with no job opportunities for young people.

She said her home is surrounded by solar farms and is no longer worth its value because of those facilities.

She added that the only people profiting are the landowners who sell their land, the solar companies, and the electrical companies.

The next speakers were Bobby and Jane Mann.

Jane Mann said she is a local native and is concerned about the plants that make the community beautiful.

She is a retired Northampton science teacher and is concerned that photosynthesis, which depends upon sunlight, would not happen and would keep the plants from growing. She said she has observed areas near solar panels where the plants are brown and dead because they did not get enough sunlight.

She also questioned the high number of cancer deaths in the area, saying no one could tell her that solar panels didn’t cause cancer.

“I want to know what’s going to happen,” she said. “I want information. Enough is enough. I don’t see the profit for the town.

“People come with hidden agendas,” she said. “Until we can find if anything is going to damage this community, we shouldn’t sign any paper.”

Bobby Mann said he watched communities dry up when I-95 came along and warned that would happen to Woodland because of the solar farms.

“You’re killing your town,” he said. “All the young people are going to move out.”

He said the solar farms would suck up all the energy from the sun and businesses would not come to Woodland.

Strata then addressed the council and audience. Several company representatives, to include Beth Trahos and Sam Judd and Brent Niemann spoke about solar farms.

They changed the plan to increase setback from the road and said the solar farm would be have substantial amounts of vegetation.

Trahos said solar farms are proven to be safe and exist next to homes. She said there are no negative impacts on property values statewide.

“There are no negative impacts,” Trahos said. “A solar farm is a wonderful use for a property like this.”

The town would not benefit from the solar farms because they are not located within the town limits, but only in the extraterritorial sections.

The only funding the town would get is about $7,000 per year to train the fire department in case something goes wrong.

Niemann said the only sunlight the panels use to generate power is that which hits them directly.

“The panels don’t draw additional sunlight,” Niemann noted.

The power generated would go directly into the electrical grid and would not reduce Woodland’s power bills.

“There are no toxic materials on site,” Niemann said. “This is a tried and true technology.”

Mayor Kenneth Manual called for the vote, which was 3-1 against rezoning the land (the mayor only votes in case it is tied).

The council later voted for a moratorium on future solar farms.

[Mike M (the other one)]

And what is wrong with this?
The townspeople are not benefitting from the solar panels in any way. In fact their countryside is getting uglier.

If the companies would rework things to where the town would get a small cut to be used for developing the city then it would be an advantage for them.

[GMDino]

(12-14-2015, 10:26 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And what is wrong with this?
The townspeople are not benefitting from the solar panels in any way. In fact their countryside is getting uglier.

If the companies would rework things to where the town would get a small cut to be used for developing the city then it would be an advantage for them.

Quote:Jane Mann said she is a local native and is concerned about the plants that make the community beautiful.


She is a retired Northampton science teacher and is concerned that photosynthesis, which depends upon sunlight, would not happen and would keep the plants from growing. She said she has observed areas near solar panels where the plants are brown and dead because they did not get enough sunlight.

[Au165]

(12-14-2015, 10:26 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And what is wrong with this?
The townspeople are not benefitting from the solar panels in any way. In fact their countryside is getting uglier.

If the companies would rework things to where the town would get a small cut to be used for developing the city then it would be an advantage for them.

Yea, see comments about "sucking up all the sunlight". Doesn't quite work that way.

[GMDino]

(12-14-2015, 03:24 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, see comments about "sucking up all the sunlight". Doesn't quite work that way.

[fredtoast]

(12-14-2015, 10:26 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And what is wrong with this?

What is wrong with the government telling private property owners that they can not make money off their
property?  I can think of a lot of things.

What if you wanted to lease your property to an oil company to drill, but the city said you could not because drilling might wake up giants that are sleeping underground?

Solar farms are silent, clean, and healthy.  The city has absolutely no grounds to block them.

[*bfine32*]

So a science teacher said these Solar panels will suck up all the sunlight?

Sciency folks are......

[Mike M (the other one)]

Again, they blocked only the 4th farm.
There is 3 already up and running.

The comments from "certain" townsfolk were picked for a reason. No one would've paid much attention to the article if they had said that it is destroying the local ecosystem. Make fun of them all you want for them being country folks, but they've already got 3 farms up, and they are seeing the damage that it's doing to the local ecosystem and don't want any more put up.

Also, why should they let the big corporations destroy their adjoining land with out getting any benefit from it? reduced electric? Nope. taxes paid to the city? Nope. Oooo $7k paid annually for training the fire department on how to handle fires in their farms. Big Whoop.

How would you like to come home and discover that on 3/4 sides of your property there will be a new Church of different denominations built?

[SunsetBengal]

(12-14-2015, 07:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So a science teacher said these Solar panels will suck up all the sunlight?

Sciency folks are......

Beaker must be proud of his fellow Science Educator.

[mallorian69]

(12-14-2015, 03:24 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, see comments about "sucking up all the sunlight". Doesn't quite work that way.

You're right it doesn't quite work that way but solar and wind have far more negative impact on local environments than supporters like to admit.

Quote:It's clear that PV panels will cause shading and changes to wind flow, and in principle is likely to alter temperature, change the rainfall distribution (which impacts on soil moisture) and the wind flow over the land.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/solar-power-parks-impact-environment-soil-plants-climate

[GMDino]

(12-14-2015, 07:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So a science teacher said these Solar panels will suck up all the sunlight?

* some* Sciency folks are......

Fixed it.


Amazing how people will let logic / science fly out the door when it opposes their political / religious views like that person did.  Isn't it?   

[Se ky bengal]

(12-14-2015, 08:39 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Beaker must be proud of his fellow Science Educator.

[fredtoast]

(12-14-2015, 08:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Again, they blocked only the 4th farm.
There is 3 already up and running.

The comments from "certain" townsfolk were picked for a reason. No one would've paid much attention to the article if they had said that it is destroying the local ecosystem. Make fun of them all you want for them being country folks, but they've already got 3 farms up, and they are seeing the damage that it's doing to the local ecosystem and don't want any more put up.

Also, why should they let the big corporations destroy their adjoining land with out getting any benefit from it? reduced electric? Nope. taxes paid to the city? Nope.  Oooo $7k paid annually for training the fire department on how to handle fires in their farms. Big Whoop.

How would you like to come home and discover that on 3/4 sides of your property there will be a new Church of different denominations built?

Personally i don't think the government should have any say on what a person does with their private property unless there is some damage to surrounding property.

Why should the city get a cut of the profits anyway?  The government should not be able to tell me I can't make money off of my property without giving them a piece of the action.  The government is entitled to the property tax and that is all.

There is no damage to the surrounding ecosystem from these solar farms.

[XenoMorph]

(12-14-2015, 03:24 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, see comments about "sucking up all the sunlight". Doesn't quite work that way.

We need to improve our education system.

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2015, 08:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: Fixed it.


Amazing how people will let logic / science fly out the door when it opposes their political / religious views like that person did.  Isn't it?   

It is equally amazing how people will let religion/faith fly out the door when it opposes their political / scientific views like many people do. Isn't it? (smirky face)

[GMDino]

(12-15-2015, 02:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is equally amazing how people will let religion/faith fly out the door when it opposes their political / scientific views like many people do. Isn't it? (smirky face)

I can honestly say, and with no hesitation, that that is the single worst post you have ever made.  In any forum here.  Ever.

And there was some tough competition for that.

But you really outdid yourself there.

Congratulations?

Yes, this post was about you.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-15-2015, 02:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Personally i don't think the government should have any say on what a person does with their private property unless there is some damage to surrounding property.

Why should the city get a cut of the profits anyway?  The government should not be able to tell me I can't make money off of my property without giving them a piece of the action.  The government is entitled to the property tax and that is all.

There is no damage to the surrounding ecosystem from these solar farms.

Of course cities need to get a cut, they can get a much better tax return on any other type of business (commercial, residential or industrial) that goes there. The owners of the solar farm will most likely pay an annual property tax worth about $240 per acre, where as a town home would bring in $2500/acre annually. $3k/acre and up for businesses, and those things do increase the value of the land around it, where as a solar farm devalues the land around it.

(12-15-2015, 02:08 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: We need to improve our education system.

I couldn't agree more.

[Rotobeast]

(12-14-2015, 08:46 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: You're right it doesn't quite work that way but solar and wind have far more negative impact on local environments than supporters like to admit.



http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/solar-power-parks-impact-environment-soil-plants-climate

Underrated post

I'm surprised this never took off.
http://www.gizmag.com/vortex-engine-tornadoes-electricity/25508/

[fredtoast]

(12-15-2015, 09:29 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Of course cities need to get a cut, they can get a much better tax return on any other type of business (commercial, residential or industrial) that goes there. The owners of the solar farm will most likely pay an annual property tax worth about $240 per acre, where as a town home would bring in $2500/acre annually. $3k/acre and up for businesses, and those things do increase the value of the land around it, where as a solar farm devalues the land around it.

They are REFUSING to allow ANY business use of the property.  So the issue can not be property tax.

And a solar farm does not devalue surrounding property.  Solar farms are quiet, produce no noxious smells, and do not increase traffic flow.