Bank considers property near wind turbine infrastructure “high risk”

Royal line credit denied letter

20 thoughts on “Bank considers property near wind turbine infrastructure “high risk”

  1. I eagerly await the wind power gang’s explanation for this. Are they going to suggest the RBC is just being hysterical?
    The people making a buck off this industrialization better hope they make enough to compensate for this kind of thing.

  2. Although opponents to wind power expect that homes near power generating structures have less value, it is unexpected that a mortgage specialist at the RBC is unable to form a coherent sentence.

  3. Bankers are also involved in fraud as they create dept by multiplying 9 times of your total savings amount to loans for others out of thin air. And on top of that IMF forced this corporation called Canada to stop having the Bank of Canada print our own money and to stop lending money at o per cent interest and to start borrowing from big banks at compound interests. Guess what? We will always be dept slaves as we will never be able to pay our dept until we wake up to all this shit.
    Don not believe me? Check it out it is all true.
    Welcome to fraud in this corrupted government!

    • People who post on this site have large enough vocabularies so they don’t need foul words to express themselves.

      • Please Ma,I am grown up you know. And if “sh it” is a language of concern then I guess this site is to restrictive as that is the only questionable word I used Please do not mother me Ma or tell me to wash my mouth with soap as I have enough people that think they have authority over me. peace!

    • Nobody is doing it to you. The posts are automatically censored by WordPress by a robot. Surely by now, you should have learned to post properly.

      • Yeah, if there are words in it that WordPress find questionable, they go into the monstrous pile of spam, and I don’t go through that too often. If you find your posts aren’t going through, contact me and I can get it posted for you.

  4. Oh, Oh……Bad News…..I can smell HUGE Lawsuits against Wind Energy Companies and Property owners who agree to Host a Wind Farm…..and possibly the Ontario Liberal Government….

  5. Well the big banks are into financing IWT projects so now people won’t be able to get a mortgage or a line of credit on their property.

  6. People might want to print this letter for their own records in case you need it later for a MPAC challenge or as evidence used in a latter law suit you might just want to get into down the road.

    • Yes, people should make a copy of this letter to show that they now are in a high risk property due to IWTs and the structures that go with them.

  7. Banks typically do not willingly make high-risk loans. This is not someone acting “hysterical”. It is simply a business decision to not lend money secured by a high-risk property. No offense intended to Mr. Thompson, but from an business perspective, that was a prudent lending decision.

    The mortgage specialist at the bank made it clear the would-be borrower had excellent credit, so he (Thompson) is not the nature of the risk. It is the adjacent nuisance that creates risk. Risk that they would be unable to resell the property in the event of foreclosure, or recover the full amount of the loan upon resale.

    Banks also will not make loans on homes with Chinese drywall (Florida) or situated adjacent to a known sink-hole (also Florida), and properties that are known to be environmentally contaminated. Or even homes in low lying coastal areas without full flood insurance in place, despite the typical amenity value and strong marketabilityof coastal residences.

    What a unique concept…require insurance against the risks! Now who should pay for that, when a “sink-hole” or “flood-zone” risk-equivalent is introduced into an area that already has the homes present? Clearly, turbine siting approval should mandate ALL risks be insured, including neighboring property value loss.

    On balance, like the AWEA/CanWEA members, if the auto manufacturing unions said car insurance was not necessary, would the government accept that nonsense at face value? Even though the number of car crashes is “statistically insignificant” compared to how many cars are on the road? Or if hospitals and Doctors claimed malpratice insurance is not justified, and they have a “study” that proves it? (A study which would undoubtedly find a certain number of botched surgeries to be an “acceptable” risk)

    Food for thought ~

    Mike McCann
    McCann Appraisal, LLC
    Chicago, Illinois

  8. RBC is the main “Green Investor in Banking” and to have RBC actually draw negative attention to it’s involvement in pushing Green Energy is almost laughable…….the woman who wrote this letter won’t like it being made public for sure!!!!

    • No she won’t like this made public but then she was required to write this letter.
      Anyway the banks make more money now from renewable energy project financing.

      Aren’t there enough credit union branches in rural towns to take care of the banking needs of rural Ontarians?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *