Southgate council rejects Samsung wind turbine project

buyout_noBy John Miner, The London Free Press
An attempt to win municipal backing for a major wind turbine farm north of London has been voted down despite an offer of millions of dollars for a community fund that could be used for everything from social events to lowering property taxes. Southgate Township near Mount Forest had been in discussions with Samsung for months for two possible renewable energy projects – a 120 megawatt wind farm and a 50 megawatt solar energy project.

A month ago Southgate council passed a resolution stating it would consider declaring itself a “willing host” for the projects if a satisfactory agreement could be reached for a community benefit agreement. A draft agreement from Samsung offered $5.1 million over 20 years in exchange for council’s backing.

But Wednesday night Southgate council voted to go in the opposite direction and passed a resolution declaring itself an “unwilling host” for industrial wind farm developments. Mayor Brian Milne, who initiated the motion, said it had become clear the wind farm proposal was splitting the rural community. “I could see this was going nowhere in terms of the community,” Milne said Thursday. Read article

Watch CTV News

5 thoughts on “Southgate council rejects Samsung wind turbine project

  1. Glad to hear that Mayor Milne is a Canadian Mayor, who puts morals before money! In the upcoming provincial election… Let Wynne and her crooked cronies know, that the status quo of gas plant scandals, Ornge, and subsidized called Green Energy, is unacceptable! Morally speaking… The Emperor, is wearing no clothes.(ugly thought…at least, put the jogging suit back on please..) blaming things on the former premier, is capital cop out… And voters must turn out in mass numbers, to make sure this provincial regime is sent packing!

    • I wish more US mayors had this sort of spine! Canada leads the way, we yanks need only look north for inspiration.

  2. A company that is pulling down $$$ Billion$ in profits and far more in cash flow from their deal could afford $5.1M a year.

    The offer is an insult!

  3. If a bribrency fund for any particular community was accepted by their council, the first expense that would have to be paid out would be to all those whose property is devalued & lives are destroyed.
    In other words, all negative issues caused by IWTs are the first expenses to be paid, before any ‘feel good’ community projects are funded.
    So the 5.1mil./20yrs. would have to be on top of all the damage funding. It would, I’m sure, exceed 50.1mil / yr.
    ‘WillR’ is correct, the offer is a huge insult, a joke, but not at all funny.

  4. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.96,Issue 3,pp 851-861

    “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”

    “It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage done by climate change.”

    Subscription required to read this article.

    This is one of the issues rural Ontarians have to deal with. Accentuate and exaggerate.

Leave a Reply

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