The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada
Do you agree with the OFA that no more wind turbines should be built until a number of issues are dealt with?
The OFA has made a call to the Ontario government to suspend industrial wind turbines saying there are too many unanswered questions about its value, and that the debate over turbines is polarizing rural communities.
Read the OFA article - click here.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree that no more wind turbines should be built until a number of issues are dealt with?
Take the POLL: Do you think Ontario should halt wind turbines? - click here
Views: 2008
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joann on
-
"nor do I understand why "warrants" or "sovereignty" is of such importance to the energy issue"
But that is my point exactly. Most people, most farmers, the farm organization and most politicans don't understand either the implications of the Sovereign "warrants"... much less know they exist.
But Mr. Bentley is a lawyer. Mr. McGuinty, I believe was a lawyer. I highly suspect Mr. McGuinty understands the Sovereign "warrants" on farmland and therefore transferred Mr. Bentley into an area that requires unique Crown knowledge.
It ties back to my original question...... Who owns the wind?
Colette McLean said:Realtors are only becoming aware of the implications green energy projects are having on the sales of land. The info. I provided is recent. I am not suggesting that realtors should be selective, only truthful and knowledgeable of the ramifications "green" projects are having ag. lands. I apologize but I do not understand your line of questioning nor do I understand why "warrants" or "sovereignty" is of such importance to the energy issue when what needs to be considered, in deciding to go forward with alternative energies like wind, is whether it is a technically, economically and enironmentally sound solution to our energy problems. After 5 yrs of examining this, it is NOT and it appears that OFA concurs by asking the provincial gov't that it examine wind development and that further construction be halted until outstanding issues such as land succession, and the inefficiencies of wind, are addressed.
-
-
I've enjoyed, with a cynical view, the dialogue that has progressed about this issue - but everyone is missing the same point. Cynically speaking, this was done purely for OFA reasons - and their reasons only: the loss of membership from counties in Huron, Bruce, and Grey where the wind turbine debate exploded with devastating effects. This isn't political except for farm politics - pure and simple. Think 1,000 farmers giving the middle to OFA either asking for rebates or visiting another GFO. It's not a great deal or number but it certainly opens the barn door (pun intended) to having the horses wander the fields. But keep thinking it's about energy or NIMBYs or lawyers or anything else like that - it's about "green" (cash).
-
-
BINGO!
(Unless, of course, the OFA suddenly developed a conscience on this isuue . . .)
farmer_advocate said:I've enjoyed, with a cynical view, the dialogue that has progressed about this issue - but everyone is missing the same point. Cynically speaking, this was done purely for OFA reasons - and their reasons only: the loss of membership from counties in Huron, Bruce, and Grey where the wind turbine debate exploded with devastating effects. This isn't political except for farm politics - pure and simple. Think 1,000 farmers giving the middle to OFA either asking for rebates or visiting another GFO. It's not a great deal or number but it certainly opens the barn door (pun intended) to having the horses wander the fields. But keep thinking it's about energy or NIMBYs or lawyers or anything else like that - it's about "green" (cash).
-
-
Wind farms, especially big ones, generate turbulence that can significantly alter air temperatures near the ground, say researchers. These weather changes can occur in 25 km "wake" so whether a farmer owns land and climate or not the climate beyond the property line is the neighbour's! "Often, in a rush to implement new technologies, we ignore possible side‐effects that may show up in the future” Somnath Baidya Roy University of Illinois,
-
-
Hemmmmmmm..... the abrupt silence on such a hot button issue?
Is it because everyone is stampeding to ferret out those registered "warrants"?
Does the Province, as representatives of the Queen in the Right of Ontario, have jurisdiction of the wind flowing over agricultural lands in certain prescribed areas? Do those "warrants" reserve rights to the wind to the Crown?... or do the "warrants" reserve rights only to things "of the soil"?
-
-
The effect on adjacent property value alone is an issue of serious legal implications. I would not rest too easily if I owned property hosting wind turbines in a hostile neighbourhood. Not sure how far those royalty/rental fees will go in covering legal defense costs. Unless, of course, NextEra or Suncor offer to pick up the costs . . .This will not go away any time soon -
http://windaction.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/ofa-looking-out-for-prop...
-
-
The original posting in this thread asked: Do you think Ontario should halt wind turbines?
While there was a rash of opinions at the beginning, it would appear for some reason, further postings have failed to materialize.
Before we consider the question IF Ontario should halt the construction of wind turbines, we however are asking IF the government has authority over the wind that flow over agricultural lands in certain prescribed areas in Ontario.
Let's ask a few questions first.
Has anyone ever noticed that under (more than one) legislation, enforcement officers are allowed onto agricultural lands without a warrant and yet private non-agricultural residential homes warrants are required by law.
That means, the Queen in the Right of Ontario has given assent to enforcement officers to enter farmland during daylight hours and those powers can/have been transferred to Crown agencies.... such as giving marketing boards the right to enter property.
So when an enforcement officer appears on farmland without a physical warrant in his hand, does that mean he is warrantless?
No.
There is a warrant buried away. The Sovereign reserved the right to enter agricultural lands before the lands were granted to farmers. There are a number of documents that retained conditions on farmlands. Land was then granted to farmers under a series of conditions....whereas urban settled lands were treated differently. The land grants hold a key as they are Sovereign contracts of which the grantee was given possession of the soil and the climate.
Which brings us to a very fundamental aspect.
It is obvious the Crown is respecting their previous right to enter farmland without warrants in hand as those warrants have been previously registered........ yet it would appear the Crown is now encroaching on the farmer's right to the climate.... the right to harvest wind.
Through legislation we must respect Crown rights but in the same token, it appears the Crown is not respecting the contracts that have been previously signed, sealed and registered in regards to the climate.
As the Sovereign appropriated rights of the climate to farmers..... that it stands to reason that IF Ontario wishes to halt the construction of wind turbines..... then Ontario must expropriate those Sovereign rights from the farmers.
The question that really needs to be answered is..... Who owns the wind?
Does Mr. McGuinty have the right to over-ride Sovereign rights given to farmers?
-
-
As the Sovereign appropriated rights of the climate to farmers..... that it stands to reason that IF Ontario wishes to halt the construction of wind turbines..... then Ontario must expropriate those Sovereign rights from the farmers.
The question that really needs to be answered is..... Who owns the wind?
Does Mr. McGuinty have the right to over-ride Sovereign rights given to farmers?
Actually it is much simpler and more compicated than that. What is simple is that if Ontario wants to stop the construction of Industrial Wind Turbines all it has to do is cancel the FIT subsidies, the farmer can still build his IWT, but he won't get any financing nor make any money on it. Furthermore the Province can determine that IWT are as bad or worse than coal generasting stations and refuse permits. No expropriation required.
What is more complicated is the rights to exploit the wind (no one 'owns' it), and I suspect the courts would use the existing law regarding the rights to exploit water to base their judgements on. Which means the farmer can exploit the wind as long ass he doesn't infringe upon the rights to exploit that same wind that others hold. Given that a Wind Generating Station changes the quality and quantity of the wind, as well as the climate and has the same drying effects as global warming, the farmer and his IWT would need to indemnefy his downwind neighbours for these effects, not to mention loss of amenity etc… Those lawsuits are just starting…
Furthermore the visit by inspectors without warrant is part of the contract the farmer makes when he starts a farming business, in exchange for the right to sell your produce and qualify for the 'benefits' of Gov't programs which are supposed to help farmers, you agree to abide by certain rules and requirements, one of which is inspection and enforcement.
-
-
"Furthermore the Province can determine that IWT are as bad or worse than coal generasting stations and refuse permits".
I digress. If you read some of Lt. Gov. Simcoe's papers, you will read that farmers were given rights to generate power for various reasons. Grinding wheat into flour was a big issue and a source of energy was required.
You also state :"Furthermore the visit by inspectors without warrant is part of the contract the farmer makes when he starts a farming business, in exchange for the right to sell your produce and qualify for the 'benefits' of Gov't programs which are supposed to help farmers, you agree to abide by certain rules and requirements, one of which is inspection and enforcement."
We would dearly love to find out where you obtained that information. What contract does a farmer make with whom when he starts a farming business?
The warrants are very old documents. My understanding it is part of the basis of our no-tresspassing laws.... but if that is incorrect... please advise.
The Sovereign contracts farmers have are the land patents issued by a representative of the King/Queen of England. The land grants are the signed, sealed and registered Sovereign licenses for agricultural production in parts of Ontario. That means the farmers may produce any/all indigenous commodities for personal use. The land patents have a clause that grant the rights to "their heirs and assigns forever".
Very recently I had the extreme honour to have an informal discussion with a gaggle of Bay Street lawyers (is gaggle the right word for a group lawyers?)...... one in particular specialized in "Securities".
What was interesting was we could not identify the Sovereign source of restrictive laws against winds flowing over agricultural lands. I left with the distinct feeling that the harvesting of wind will open a whole new avenue of legal opportunities..... job creation....
There are ancient laws concerning things "OF" the soil...there are ancient laws concerning rights of water flow... but we have yet to find laws concerning the wind over the farm..... and those warrants, i believe is just another important piece to the puzzle.
Having said all that....... if any of the above is incorrect, by all means please advise...... after all .... it is only the truth that we seek.
Jake Alleyne said:As the Sovereign appropriated rights of the climate to farmers..... that it stands to reason that IF Ontario wishes to halt the construction of wind turbines..... then Ontario must expropriate those Sovereign rights from the farmers.
The question that really needs to be answered is..... Who owns the wind?
Does Mr. McGuinty have the right to over-ride Sovereign rights given to farmers?
Actually it is much simpler and more compicated than that. What is simple is that if Ontario wants to stop the construction of Industrial Wind Turbines all it has to do is cancel the FIT subsidies, the farmer can still build his IWT, but he won't get any financing nor make any money on it. Furthermore the Province can determine that IWT are as bad or worse than coal generasting stations and refuse permits. No expropriation required.
What is more complicated is the rights to exploit the wind (no one 'owns' it), and I suspect the courts would use the existing law regarding the rights to exploit water to base their judgements on. Which means the farmer can exploit the wind as long ass he doesn't infringe upon the rights to exploit that same wind that others hold. Given that a Wind Generating Station changes the quality and quantity of the wind, as well as the climate and has the same drying effects as global warming, the farmer and his IWT would need to indemnefy his downwind neighbours for these effects, not to mention loss of amenity etc… Those lawsuits are just starting…
Furthermore the visit by inspectors without warrant is part of the contract the farmer makes when he starts a farming business, in exchange for the right to sell your produce and qualify for the 'benefits' of Gov't programs which are supposed to help farmers, you agree to abide by certain rules and requirements, one of which is inspection and enforcement.
-
-
Dear OntAgAdmin:
Twice you repeat the same comment, that the only thing that a Pro Wind Family is against is people stopping their choice. That is a sorry comment. I would have hoped that a family, any family, would have recognized that when their actions do harm to their neighbour, that they should reconsider, and question if it is "good perspective" that drives their choice. Exactly what part of "Love God and Love your neighbour" does doing harm to one's neighbour fit into?
Colette McLean said:So what is their perspective. This is not just about the property right of the landowners who want turbines, it is also the land rights of those next to the turbines. Because of required setbacks, landowners with no turbines are limited with the future development (eg. barns, outbuildings, even their own energy projects)
OntAG Admin said:
formosafarmer Had a great talk with a farm family that is Pro Wind Turbines. Good perspective. Only thing they are against is people stopping their choice
-
Permalink Reply by OntAG Admin on
-
Hi Bill, The posted comment was a response on Twitter from the question, that should have been clarified. This is definitely a topic that need a lot of clarity and discussion. Take Care, Sandy
-
-
There are innumerable drug dealers, pimps, pedophiles, child pornographers and others who profit at the expense of others. Profit is not an excuse to harm others or society. There are many choices society deems undesireable and stops people discourages people from making them or stops them when they do. IWT have a demonstrable negative human health impact. The placement of IWT deprive neighbours of amenity and the use of part of their land as well as reducing the value of their property. It is like expropriation without compensation or theft. The courts haven't yet ruled on this because the cases have not yet been brought before them.
The only perpsective pro wind turbine families have is that they think it enefits them, albeit at the expense of their neighbours. Other than that they don't have any facts or empirical evidence to present in defence of 'greed' energy. The sooner this sort of anti-social behaviour is stopped the better.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2025 Created by Darren Marsland.
Powered by
