Samsung buying off neighbours to bypass regulations


A neighbour of an Ontario project was recently offered $1,500 to sign this contract so an adjoining property’s turbine could be placed only 350 meters from his home.  Under the Green Energy Act, the minimum that these could be placed from homes is 550 meters.   PUBLIC BEWARE.  

section 7(e):   The Lessee shall ensure that all Turbines on the Property are located at least 350 metres from the centre of any such Turbine to the centre of any existing house on the Property.

13 thoughts on “Samsung buying off neighbours to bypass regulations

  1. 350 meters is approximately equivalent to 1000 feet. Additionally, no turbine can be closer then
    450 meters from the property line of a receptor. (Although, the windies are trying desperately to get that changed to the physical location of a receptor and damn the property line!).

    Obviously, we are talking massive tracts of land here.

    Even if the foundation of one of these turbines goes down 30 or 40 feet, they will only remove the top 4 feet? What the hell is that!?

    DON’T SIGN and send the beggars packing!


  2. The confidentiality stuff is just outrageous.

    I would not sign this for any amount of money.

    It is a shameful and despicable document.

  3. I have sent a letter to Samsung and outlined to them why I are no longer purchasing Samsung product because of their unethical behaviour. Furthermore I am explaining this decision to boycott their product to others when ever the opportunity arises. It may be a small measure, but . . .

  4. I am with you, James. Many small measure add up. We are witnessing this here and now.

    Every giant rolling snowball begins with a small measure of snow; and you know the saying about the mighty oak and the acorn, I’m sure.

  5. David is absolutely correct.

    One cannot waive one’s statutory rights.

    However, setback guidelines DO NOT apply to participants. People who invite these monstrosities onto their property are not protected under the auspices of the GEA or the REA and do so at their own peril.

    FYI: Should the GEA be defeated on constitutional grounds, and this is very likely, all contracts let there under become illegal, making them null and void. Were the Conservatives even half-witted, they could probably succeed with this strategy.

    But then we ARE talking about politicians here…


  6. The Samsung Contract — debated again…

    Let me summarize, you’re bad. No, You’re bad. OK — but you’re worse. No! You’re worse.


    Whew — that was a tough debate. Another member — let’s all go for a beer and talk about our pensions. First member — Hey Yeah Man!


    Mr. John Yakabuski: I thought it was seven.

    Mr. Rick Johnson: Seven billion. Sorry. It’s growing. I appreciate the correction.

    Mr. John Yakabuski: You guys exaggerate everything.

    Mr. Rick Johnson: It’s nice that members opposite are paying so much attention and suddenly understand math in the last hour. I very much appreciate that.

    One of the things that we talked about earlier is what would happen in this province if we cut off foreign investment, if we were to take this whole idea that we don’t need foreign investment. Would Ford be here? Would a Conservative government say to General Motors, “We’re not interested”? What would that do to Oshawa? Would they say to Toyota, “We don’t want your foreign investment”? Would they say to Chrysler, “We don’t want your foreign investment”? Would they say to Honda, “We don’t want your foreign investment”? We have a company that’s investing $7 billion in our province because they believe in our province. They understand that Ontario is open for business. We’ve got Ubisoft. We’ve got Starz Animation. We’ve got the Terrace Bay Pulp mill, which we did in partnership with other members.

    Our government has created an atmosphere where foreign companies are saying, “Ontario is the place to invest.” Why is Canada leading the world in the economic recovery? And why is Ontario leading Canada in that recovery? It’s because of the policies that have been put in place by our government. I am happy to stir the ire—

    Ms. Lisa MacLeod: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would just call on the member to start actually representing the facts as they do present themselves in the truth.

    The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): That is not a point of order.

  7. Breaking Wind:

    550 metres from a receptor is not an absolute minimum and it is not measured from property lines but from the actual receptor (centre of it) to the centre of the turbine in question.

    This setback may be reduced if the proponent is able to show ambient noise sufficient to allow for such reduction. It is based on sound studies – which, quite frankly can be manipulated to produce desired results without too muc difficulty. So, 550 metres is really a guideline, not a minimum. (see the paragraph below from the Environmental Registry Technical Bulletin 6 for REA’s)

    “While the minimum setback of 550 m must be met
    in all cases, proponents are given the option of conducting a noise study to prove that
    siting turbines closer than the setbacks in Table 1 will not cause adverse effects. Such a
    study must be prepared in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment’s 2008
    “Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms”. A Noise Assessment Report demonstrating that
    reduced setbacks comply with these guidelines must be submitted as part of the REA

    “If the measurements or calculations of the analysis establish that the ambient noise from
    road traffic is greater than 40 dBA, the proponent must determine an appropriate reduced
    setback distance. This is done by conducting a noise study and submitting a report in
    accordance with the Ministry of the Environment 2008 publication “Noise Guidelines for
    Wind Farms”. The report must demonstrate that the wind turbine noise will not be greater
    than the lowest hourly ambient sound level at the receptor.”

    There is also no 450 metre setback from property lines – the only setback from a non-participating property owner’s property line is the “hub-height of the proposed turbine”. From roads – this setback is blade length plus 10 metres.

    The setback requirements from property lines, however, does not apply if the property is owned by the proponent or by “a person who has entered into an agreement with the proponent that permits the location of a wind turbine closer than the turbine height.”

    …and just in case this isn’t accomodating enough – the proponent may apply for a reduction in the setback from a non-participating landowner’s property line with another self-serving report.

  8. And don’t forget…the 550 meter setback is only a guideline…it is not set in stone.

  9. I wonder how many of those car companies would still be here if they didn’t receive more billions of our taxes in this most recent bail out?

    I wonder just how bad or good things would be in Canada if we told these international corporations to go get stuffed and nationalized all our resources?

    Suffice it to say, the world needs Canada far, far more then Canada needs the world. That has increasingly been the case since confederation. We are a resource based economy. What will become of us once the world has raped these resources?

    I am no globalist. If we want or need something, maybe we should build or make it ourselves! Why should a worker in China benefit more from making products for us then we do by importing them?

    Oh, now I’m PISSED!


  10. If anyone is wondering why some farmers are keen to get income from green energy by leasing their land to wind and solar operators, read this:

    Also, chapter 11 of NAFTA allows corporations to sue any signatory that takes any action (protectionism) that may impede corporate profits. This is likely the main reason Ontario now has a trade action filed against it resulting from Ontario content rules in the GEA.

    NAFTA and the free trade agreement before it, has resulted in the international corporate takeover of most of North and Central America. Increasing and unchecked corporate power is having the same result in most of the industrialized world and is largely sanctioned by the G20 (Stimulus). However, the most powerful economy currently on the planet -China, is immune from this. There is only one corporation in China; that of the Chinese Government.

    Where the fools that govern us see thru economic eyes with “next election” short sightedness, the Chinese government’s economic eyes have strategic glasses thru which they look out to hundreds of years. There are no elections in China. As result, not only have they become the world’s manufacturer, they have also become the world’s banker. The democratic industrialized world is obliging them nicely by giving China “carte blanche” to acquire control of whatever corporations and/resources she can all
    in the false name of freeing up global trade to stimulate economic growth.

    This certainly seems to be working perfectly in China. Not so much for the rest of the world.

    For all you globalists out there; know this: China is the ONLY beneficiary of globalization. If you think I’m being melodramatic, simply go to any retail store in Canada, grab the first non- food product you find and check where it is made.

    Any guesses?

    Wake up people! The GEA though hideous beyond imagining, is the LEAST of our worries!


Comments are closed.