|
|
In his March 2 Guest View in the Daily News, Richard Farnsworth urged readers to not sign the petition sponsored by Citizens for Local Choice, claiming “We have the right to decide what we do with our own property.”
Robert Scott
Yet, the petition Mr. Farnsworth condemns is not about property rights. It is about protecting local zoning rights. If successful the petition drive will allow Michigan voters to decide who has authority over land use in their communities regarding utility-scale wind, solar and battery storage.
There are two choices: (A) the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), a three member, governor appointed board using one-size-fits-all state standards; or (B) a return to local officials using standards appropriate for their individual unique communities. As the last line of the petition reads, “If enacted, the proposal would allow local units of government to determine their own standards for such facilities.”
The rights of referendum and recall condemned by Mr. Farnsworth are guaranteed by the Michigan Constitution and are essential rights of citizens in a democratic society. The officials who were recalled and the wind and solar ordinances that were set aside by referendum did not reflect the will of the voters in those townships.
With the petition Mr. Farnsworth opposes, Citizens for Local Choice seeks to use the constitutionally protected right of initiative to repeal Public Act 233, a recent amendment to the clean and renewable energy act. As it stands, Act 233 has taken away local control of utility-scale wind, solar, and battery storage projects and placed it in the hands of the MPSC.
Clearly Mr. Farnsworth does not want this issue on the ballot in November. A recent poll conducted by the Michigan Township Association shows that more than 87% of Michigan voters agree that “permitting for utility-scale renewable energy should remain at the local level.”
Here is a sampling of the standards set by Act 233 that Mr. Farnsworth thinks everyone should accept:
• No maximum height for wind turbines, unless they create an air navigation hazard.
• Wind turbine setbacks that would allow, for example, 700-foot-tall wind turbines to be 1,470 feet from your house and 770 feet from your property line. The tallest building in Michigan—the 73-story Detroit Marriot at the Renaissance Center—is 727 feet tall. The Washington Monument (at 555 feet) and the Mackinaw Bridge towers (at 552 feet) are much shorter than the permitted wind turbines.
• Wind turbine and solar project sound limits measured at your house that far exceed the World Health Organization guidelines for night noise and the prevention of adverse health effects. No sound limits for occupied buildings other than dwellings or for outdoor areas where a house might be built in the future.
• No limit on the size of solar projects. The Freshwater Solar project proposed for Day Township will cover some 2,200 acres — more than 3.4 square miles.
• Solar panels up to 25 feet tall and solar project setbacks 50 feet from your property line and 300 feet from your house.
• No requirement for a greenbelt to screen solar projects from either neighboring properties or roads.
Mr. Farnsworth claims Act 233 still affords a level of local control. However, those provisions are a mirage that disappear upon closer examination. A wind or solar developer is only required to submit its project to a township for approval if the township has a “compatible renewable energy ordinance,” meaning an ordinance that is no more restrictive than the standards set out in the Act. Unless local officials are willing to give the developer exactly what Act 233 mandates, they won’t even have the opportunity for review or comment on the project plans. Even if a township has a compatible ordinance, township officials must approve any project that meets the state standards. If the township fails or refuses to approve the project, the developer can simply turn to the MPCS to get what it wants. The choice for local officials is to say “yes” or “yes.” Saying “no” is not an option.
Mr. Farnsworth has reason to want the citizens of Michigan to live with the Act 233 standards. He has leased his Pine Township properties for wind development. For each wind turbine placed on his land, he will be paid many thousands of dollars per year. And since his principal residence is in Grand Rapids, he stands to reap the benefits of a wind development without all the negative impacts imposed on so many others.
Mr. Farnsworth wants you to believe that Act 233 is necessary to “keep the farm in the family.” If that is true, why would the Michigan Farm Bureau support the Citizens for Local Choice petition? As Michigan Farm Bureau President Carl Bednarski has stated, “We urge our members to make their voices heard and help us in getting this initiative on the ballot to put the power back in the hands of locally elected officials.”
Finally, Mr. Farnsworth claims, “We have the right as citizens of the United States to decide what we can do with our own property without interference from neighbors or governments.”
Does he really believe that? I doubt Mr. Farnsworth would want a machine shop or an all-night liquor store in his residentially zoned neighborhood. A primary purpose of zoning is to prevent the mixing of incompatible uses. There is nothing more incompatible than hundreds of 700-foot (or taller) wind turbines or 2,200 acres of solar panels intermixed with people’s homes, workplaces, and established recreation areas.
When developing zoning ordinances, local boards and planning commissions determine the compatibility of different uses based on the unique characteristics of their communities. Under Act 233, the state has decided for all of us, and we no longer have a choice.
I urge everyone to sign the Citizens for Local Choice petition and let Michigan voters decide. (For more information see micitizenschoice.org.)
Robert Scott is a retired real estate development lawyer. He and his wife have been part-time residents of Montcalm County for 20 years.
The opinions expressed in the Guest View do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Daily News.
