MPAC’s Opinion

South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham Kent Burk Line (1)John Miner, London Free Press
Chalk up a win for wind energy proponents. In the heated debate over whether industrial wind farms damage property values, the latest Ontario study concludes the giant turbines have “no statistically significant impact” on the sale prices of residential properties.

The study by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), the government-appointed body that administers the province’s property assessment system, contradicts other studies that found the turbines knocked as much as 35% off the value of surrounding homes. In reaching their conclusion, MPAC used 2012 as a base year and examined 15 market areas with industrial wind turbines, including Elgin, Middlesex, Oxford, Huron, Perth and Lambton counties and Chatham-Kent.

To back their study, MPAC asked an outside expert to review their conclusions. The analysis by Robert J. Gloudemans, a property tax and assessment consultant from Phoenix, Ariz., found the presence of wind turbines had a minor impact on property values with properties within one kilometre of a wind turbine tending to be about 4% lower. Read article

12 thoughts on “MPAC’s Opinion

  1. Just for some clarification on a few topics brought up in the comments. Agricultural properties that were once larger farms and have been severed are often deemed “rural residential”. My rural residential property is across the road from a proposed turbine. That same turbine has 20 families living within one km. It isn’t always as wide-spread as you imagine in the country. The little turbine in Toronto isn’t hooked up to the grid. Turbines in the cities would seem less noisy because the city is noisy whereas the rural soundscape is so quiet. Even so, there is a set-back of 550 metres which can be waived if you are the host. Re: Selling a property with a turbine. A fellow near me signed for a turbine lease while he was building a new house. Then when it was time to turn the construction loan into a mortgage, the bank wouldn’t give him one. Now he’s paying 10% on his mortgage. Another guy tried to sell his farm to 3 interested parties, but not one could get a mortgage. Guess if you have a turbine on your property, you are going to own it forever, unless you sell it to the wind company (if they even want it). We need to get these machines out of residential areas, rural or otherwise. Setbacks need to be much greater.

    • Interesting that the lending agencies (banks) are concerned that the host farmer may be a financial risk. Perhaps host farmers involved should have sought legal council before allowing a third party to control the future of the farm.

  2. “The study by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), the government-appointed body…”
    This statement is your first clue. It is not a transparent and fair process.

    EVERY single government controlled agency or ministry is being forced to confuse the public about wind turbine impacts. Those living it know it. Realtors in the turbine infested areas have already been very vocal about the situation.
    COVER UP

  3. And these same banks use rural depositors money to loan IWT developers money to build the IWTs.

    • Barbara, are you sure? I thought many of them were multi-millionaire foreign companies. Also, our tax dollars are paying for them via subsidies to put them up. Shameful either way.

  4. My immediate reaction to this MPAC report is that ” they would say that wouldn’t they”
    Is there any branch of the Queens Park bureaucracy, or semi government agency not on side with the McWhinnty Liberals Green Energy Policy? MOE, Arlene King, OMAF, Energy Dept., OPA, Natural Resources.
    A change in government will not suffice, a wholesale cleaning of these and other bureaus is necessary.

  5. Yes, some are foreign corporations but that dosen’t mean they can’t use/get Canadian financing.
    One or two NextEra, U.S.SEC Form 10-K reports stated that the company had borrowed from Canadian banks to finance renewable energy projects in Canada but which banks loaned the money is not revealed.
    It’s possible that any NextEra sharehold could request and obtain this information.
    This general information is already in the OWR archives but can be looked up again if needed.

  6. U.S. Securities And Exchange Commission
    NextEra Energy, Form 10-K for fiscal year ended Dec.31,2011 and filed Feb.28,2012
    Part 2, page 54
    Canadian bank revolving credit agreements:
    Original amount C$300M, remaing amount available Dec.31,2011,C$121 Million
    http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html
    Enter: NextEra and then a few pages on to the 10-K report. This is public information required by U.S. law and can be copied.
    Always read the footnotes in these kinds of documents.

  7. Lease holders & potential lease holders really need to read about the problems with getting a mortgage. I wonder also, if when they (ones who do the studies) calculate “sold” property they site properties purchased by wind companies. Wind turbines in cities aren’t that quiet Libertyville, IL there was a lawsuit where the residents near 2 wind turbines (not the 400 feet industrial) sued because of noise. The court ruled that the wind turbines had to be shut down overnight.

  8. well we’ll see one day when I go to sell my home, I’ll be sure to demand that I don’t get a dime less than what my asking price is no matter how many turbines are around me! MPAC says so!

    Seems another bought and paid for study as always by the kiss ass companies by gov. and wind kings.

Leave a Reply

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