“With the knowledge of that, they can build”

DestroyedHomeThere has been a lot of discussion on OWR about the fact that a lease holder can sign away the right of a safe and healthy environment for all occupants on their land, and the Ontario Government is not looking to protect these people (children, workers, other family and visitors) either. This concern was brought up at the NextEra Adelaide ERT to the Ministry of Environment’s  witness, Noise Engineer Mr. Zanganeh, in cross examination.  As well you’ll see the ERT does not recognize the term “human habitat”.  This was not the only time the appellants were was cut off by the Chair for using it, and may also be a reason as to why they had many witnesses denied… if reasons are ever disclosed. Handy, isn’t it? We don’t HAVE a habitat, so there’s is nothing to protect!

Ms. Wrightman – If you have a non-participating vacant lot beside a turbine, a person cannot build within that range of 40 dBA that encroaches onto their property – between 40 dBA and whatever it goes up to as it gets closer to the turbine…….. or can they…?

Mr. Zanganeh – With the knowledge of that, they can build – with the knowledge of that.

Ms. Wrightman – Do you think that 40 dBA zone is a human habitat zone? That its something that should be recommended with that noise level?

Mr.Weretelnyk – Mr. Chair, I don’t think this is…

Chair Mr. Vanderbent – I know, hang on. This reference to human habitat is not a defined term, and can be fairly broadly construed by whoever uses that term, so…

Ms. Wrightman – A home.

————————————

Ms. Wrightman – So, is the MOE and the engineers, by allowing that to happen, allowing these turbines to go up and these houses to come in that close. Sure, somebody can build a house there; but, is that protecting the kids in that house? Are there regulations protecting the children in that house not just the guy who put the house up; the people in it?

Chair Mr. Vanderbent – Well I think that’s something to be raised more in submissions. The basis of your question is that the MOE gets to approve whether somebody builds on their property. And we don’t have any regulatory basis with respect for that before us to know if it’s even true or not.

12 thoughts on ““With the knowledge of that, they can build”

  1. Well….yes. As a matter of fact, you’re right. Children, or others, in any number of Hosts homes, or newly built homes, that are too close to the turbines, are “out of luck!” They are to be sacrificed to the deity, Gaia! We will discuss this further, in the future….Yours truly, The Powers That Be.

  2. This could be a major problem if land owners find it fit to house foreign temporary workers in buildings under industrial wind turbines. Human health is not protected in Ontario. Stray voltage laws have been built to protect livestock, not the farmers.

  3. I can help the ERT a little bit, since all their attorneys and policy makers could not unravel the complexity of such “a broadly construed term”. Human Habitat is the “natural environment” for human beings and their families. Their homes and property…indoor and outdoor living space.

    But since they do not recognize the self-evident term, that meant they could arbitrarily and unreasonably refuse to admit certain expert testimony quantifying the impairment of the human habitat, which results from nearby turbine development…thereby forcibly creating substandard housing out of previously livable homes.

    …much like how children cover their ears so they can not hear, and cover their eyes so you can’t see them ~

    • Mr. United Nations – possibly not human – aha……
      I’m suspicious we have been invaded by ERT aliens.

      ‘[excerpt] Chair Mr. Vanderbent – I know, hang on. This reference to human habitat is not a defined term, and can be fairly broadly construed by whoever uses that term, so…’

      ‘[excerpt] Chair Mr. Vanderbent – Well I think that’s something to be raised more in submissions. The basis of your question is that the MOE gets to approve whether somebody builds on their property. And we don’t have any regulatory basis with respect for that before to know if it’s even true or not.’

      I bet Mr. Vandervent knows the definition of – ‘human encroachment’ –
      those nasty humans must leave planet earth…….

      And I hear Suzuki is tormented by his mind – yeah – no kidding.

    • The ERT has already accepted the WHO definition of health which is;

      “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well- being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”

      Human health is dependent upon the living conditions they experience.

      Denying the term human habitat means the obvious link can be denied. Go figure.

      Lawyer Word Magic in force once again.

  4. To some it’s not clear what the difference is between those who live on property with wind contracts and those who live near IWTs without any contracts.
    Property owners with IWT contracts and children had the right as parents or guardians to sign for the children. But if these IWTs cause their children health problems this is a different matter and they could have legal action taken against them.
    Visitors only need to be warned there may be danger and enter at their own risk. Employees the same thing since they are free to go elsewhere. If you don’t like a dangerous job you can quit. Exception to this with employees is smoking.
    Employees in dangerous occupations require training for the job. There are lots of labour laws pertaining to employees.

  5. I recall Gillespie saying that some people got out of contracts because they were not informed about potential health impacts closer than 550m.

    What I’m wondering is if a landowner can get out the contact either *after the turbine is installed*, or even part-way through installation.

    The argument still applies — they have not been sufficiently warned of health issues. Of course, the this will cost the Wind companies big time, especially if it went public.

    Does anyone know a landowners who has “buyer’s regret” willing to try this?

    There are so many holes in the GEA. Whether it is gag orders, safety of migrant workers, landowner liability or insurance for a farm business, child protection, or something else. We just need to find legal hole and drive a wedge into it.

    By the way, I would be willing to contribute to such a legal challenge.

    Richard

  6. PROOF: FROM WIND SLIME WHEN I ASKED THAT QUESTION, AFTER I FOUND THEM ENCROACHING OVER 100M OF MY LAND,

    “It’s important to note that there is nothing restricting you from building closer than 550 meters from an existing wind turbine should our project precede any development on your property.”

    Thank you and please don’t hesitate to contact me directly if you have any other questions
    Derek DUMBDICK Community Relations Consultant

    Next TERROR Energy Canada,

    a) THEY SAY THEY FOLLOW REG 359/09 FOLLOWING IN ACCORDANCE TO GUIDELINES
    BUT THEY DONT.
    b) THEY ENCROACH ON YOUR LAND AND TELL YOU, YOU CAN BUILD AT THE BACK OF YOUR
    PROPERTY (GEE THANKS)
    c) THEY TELL YOU, CAN BUILD RIGHT NEAR THE DARN TURBINE ITS PERFECTLY ALL
    PEACHY!
    d) THEN YOUR TOWNSHIP TELLS YOU DIFFERENT
    e) YOU BETTER HOPE AS A LAND/HOME OWNER YOU CATCH THEM IN THEIR ERRORS!
    AS THEIR NOT ABOUT TO SHARE THEM WITH YOU!
    e) WELCOME TO THE BS HAMSTER WHEEL.

  7. Theres a GB up the road (Greedy Bastard as I refer to them wind lovers)
    hes of course getting a turbine not near where HE lives, but there is a farm house there and he rents it out.
    The turbine will be nice and close for sure, do you think he gives a crap about the safety of the people there??? GB……..will just find a new tenant if the ones in it complain.

    GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGB!!!!!!

  8. Current events – and, a blast from the past.

    Remember page 4 – We are part of a Clean Revolution – okay, got it.

    November 2012 | Brussels

    Background
    State and regional governments have an exciting and important role to play in the
    transition to a low carbon future. The United Nations Development
    Program estimates
    that 50 ‐ 80% of actions required to implement a global deal happen at the sub – national
    level of government.

    As one of the first actors realizing this potential,
    The Climate Group teamed up with the
    States of Quebec and Manitoba in
    2005 to hold the first Climate Leaders Summit,
    resulting in the
    Montreal Declaration of Federated States and Regions
    signed by sub – national governments from around the world committing to setting targets and implementing climate action in their own jurisdictions
    .
    Since then, The Climate Group has continuously built a
    strong international network
    of leading States and Regions
    that identifies and shares best practices in order to
    accelerate the low – carbon economy
    and spread the evidence on the benefits of the
    Clean Revolution at the sub – national level
    http://www.theclimategroup.org/_assets/files/SR-Alliance_About_Nov2013.pdf

    Reporting for duty!
    Includes mugshot
    Annual Report 2007-2008

    A Message from the Minister of the Environment

    Faced with the reality of world-wide climate change,
    governments today have a clear choice: do nothing; or
    embrace the transition to a low carbon, green future.

    Ontario has chosen to be a leader.
    We are taking action.
    This is Ontario’s first annual report outlining
    what is be-ing done to implement
    Ontario’s Climate Change ActionPlan,
    our province’s blueprint for building this future.

    Because this annual report is our first, it lays out the
    steps we have taken in the first year, from the launch
    of Ontario’s action plan in August 2007 to September
    1, 2008. This report also outlines the challenges we
    face and the next steps we plan to take.
    http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/documents/resource/std01_079196.pdf

    I’m yelling TIMBER –
    The Liberals have to go!

    • cont.
      I’m yelling TIMBER –
      The Liberals have to go!

      Human habitat – the confusion solved;
      and, too bad for humans – they are only in the way.

      Principle 15

      In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

      Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

      The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,

      Having met at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992,

      Reaffirming the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972, and seeking to build upon it,

      With the goal of establishing a new and equitable global partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among States, key sectors of societies and people,

      Working towards international agreements which respect the interests of all and protect the integrity of the global environmental and developmental system,

      Recognizing the integral and interdependent nature of the Earth, our home,
      http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163

      Again – I’m yelling TIMBER –
      The Liberals have to go!

Leave a Reply

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