hdrydor said:

---

It's certainly been an eye opening experience discussing the issue with the other "particular side". It's been made clear if you're not on board with wind farm development, any and every where, you're a liar and a rumour monger, despite the fact that we are the ones dealing with this BS right now.

---

Again, it's just very difficult to even have discussions when this is the prevailing mentality. And I don't think that is the prevailing mentality of this board. In all honesty, I think some fair and observant points have simply been made by several on this board to try to reflect the other side of the argument.

I have absolutely zero issue with an area not wanting something like windmills (though to be honest, I personally don't get the hate and anger towards them. Granted, I'm not a landowner either so I really don't have skin in the game and readily admit that).

What I do have issue with is the inability to have a legitimate conversation, which it seems that those against simply cannot do with this particular issue. I understand there are emotions, but you simply have to put your big boy pants on and leave the emotions out of the argument because when you don't, you end up with calling everybody "city slickers" and generally devolving the conversation into what amounts to a temper tantrum from the outside looking in. Conversely, there should also be better tansparency for the development of them up front as well, even when you know there will be pressure against.

I also kind of take exception to the issue of devaluing of your land (not you, just "you' collectively). Because if you will never ever ever ever ever ever sell your family land, what is the concern of the value? In fact, a 40% decrease in value is a good thing for those that will never ever ever ever ever ever sell their land because county assessment will go down, and taxes will go down. If the view is the only thing affected (which can be legitimate, don't get me wrong), then you are really getting a net benefit out of it because the physical function of the land does not change - you are paying less for it.

It is kind of ironic, however, that there always seems to be one side that wants the benefits of the progression of technology - so long as the method to gain those benefits are done somewhere else and "not here".

hdrydor said:

---

Devilsriverag, I appreciate what you're trying to do here. My dad lives on the Skyline Ranch and has been working closely with you on this project.

My wife and I visited the ranch in early Feb, and to say I was appalled at what I saw out there would be a gross understatement! I signed the petition and made a donation. Agree with the poster that said these 500 foot monstrosities should be erected in city slicker backyards; private property rights, eh? Better yet, let's line the rim of the Grand Canyon with these things.

I feel the same way PPag does about the land. It's a travesty that's going on out there. I live in the Midwest now (serve in the Air Force), and they are facing the same thing up here, particularly in Iowa. It's neighbor against neighbor, and getting uglier every month. Wind farms are not good neighbors. Hope y'all don't have to deal with it where you live...

---

This is a good example of how people get emotional on these topics and then jump into hyperbole that ultimately weakens whatever argument they were trying to make in the first place.

As I mentioned in the post just above yours, I was responding to folks that are against wind farm development being called liars, rumor mongers, and trolls. But we're the ones who can't have a legitimate discussion? Ok. One side is being held to a much higher burden.

I spent some time doing field work from west Texas into Kansas and the opinions of windmills varied greatly. One landowner in particular said something that I'll never forget but I admittedly know no facts about the issue either.

He was full-time rancher who's family had been in the area for generations making their living off of the land. We talked about windmills some because I had been on a neighbors property the days before that was very openly against the windmills in the area.

He told me, "you know the thing about those windmills is they are ugly as hell on your neighbors place but they don't look so bad on your own place."

His opinion was obviously influenced by some sort of income that he was receiving from them that helped keep his operation working but I always thought it to be a funny viewpoint.

The other thing that cracked me up was the thin line of cows that were layed up in the shade of each tower every day I was out.

I really have nothing to offer one way or the other though so carry on...

That's probably a very accurate way to look at this. Funny, but true.

hdrydor said:

---

As I mentioned in the post just above yours, I was responding to folks that are against wind farm development being called liars, rumor mongers, and trolls. But we're the ones who can't have a legitimate discussion? Ok. One side is being held to a much higher burden.

---

Didn't see your post.

Maybe I've missed it, but where are those against being called liars, rumor mongerers and trolls?

schmellba99 said:

---

hdrydor said:

---

As I mentioned in the post just above yours, I was responding to folks that are against wind farm development being called liars, rumor mongers, and trolls. But we're the ones who can't have a legitimate discussion? Ok. One side is being held to a much higher burden.

---

Didn't see your post.

Maybe I've missed it, but where are those against being called liars, rumor mongerers and trolls?

---

Page 3. 4th, 9th, and 25th posts (I think, may have miscounted).

I am currently working on land acquisition for a wind farm project in Illinios. A lot of the people are against it when I first meet them, because as you mentioned, they aren't getting paid but have to look at those towers in the neighboring county every day. When they start to realize that I am going to need 2 acres out of their 160 and pay them $15k/year, with a 2% yearly increase, every year for 50 years then they get a lot more interested. They don't all sign, which is perfectly fine, but 90% percent of them listen because they can't legally raise anything on 2 acres which brings that kind of income.

I do love how people get bent out of shape over the power generated not being used locally, and we do hear it with some regularity. Very little of anything that is produced in mass quantities is mostly used where it is produced, not the corn and soybeans in Illinois, not the cattle in West TX, etc, but no one seems to get upset when all those goods are shipped to the rest of the world. It isn't even remotely realistic to expect each and every region to locally produce everything they need to survive.

Wind, Solar, Hydro, etc. are not a cure all to our energy production needs, but I just can't see where having diversified energy production for the country is a bad thing.

Like everything else in life there are trade-offs and they aren't always easy or fun.

I appreciate your side of this, and it certainly seems you are being honest and straight forward with the folks you're dealing with in Illinois. That's the way it should be. Unfortunately, that is not what has been happening where the OP is concerned, at least from the perspective of the folks I've been able to talk to about it. They happen to be the ranchers who sold to these folks and the ranchers that are now setting up groups to fight future development at this location. They all may be "lying", but over many years of dealing with these folks, I have not known them to be deceitful.

hdrydor said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

hdrydor said:

---

As I mentioned in the post just above yours, I was responding to folks that are against wind farm development being called liars, rumor mongers, and trolls. But we're the ones who can't have a legitimate discussion? Ok. One side is being held to a much higher burden.

---

Didn't see your post.

Maybe I've missed it, but where are those against being called liars, rumor mongerers and trolls?

---

Page 3. 4th, 9th, and 25th posts (I think, may have miscounted).

---

Let's see here

4th post: How exactly is that calling somebody against them a liar, or rumor mongerer? Troll? Meh, the response was to an ubsurdly silly statement made about foreign nationals, terrorists and the electrical grid. So yeah, not going to count that one and frankly you had to reach pretty far.

9th post: A guy in the industry attempting to post some factual information about the industry in general. He used the term "ignorance", and the immediately defined what he meant by that term. So to get offended by it and construe it otherwise meant you either didn't read any further or already had your mind made up about what was said before you ever went further. Because honestly, that post was a solid post that didn't lean really one way or another but instead stated information.

25th post is a youtube clip of Trump that I didn't watch. I'm assuming something was said you disagree with int he clip, or you counted wrong. The 26th post is a poster that is by the way I read it on the anti windmill side and the entire post was about a dealing they had somewhere along the lines with a transmission company. The post was extremely one sided against the company, so that cannot be the one you are referencing. There is a post before (23rd or so) that talks of the differences between a subsidy and being able to write off the costs of exploration equipment in the oil field.

Again, it's hard to have a discussion or debate when the person on the other side is actively looking for what isn't there (at least on this thread, outside of it may be a completely different story) and whom obviously has already decided what the outcome needs to be. I don't have a dog in the fight at all and can honestly see both sides of it. I just don't see the same things you are seeing from those that haven't taken your exact stance, nothing more.

hdrydor said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

hdrydor said:

---

As I mentioned in the post just above yours, I was responding to folks that are against wind farm development being called liars, rumor mongers, and trolls. But we're the ones who can't have a legitimate discussion? Ok. One side is being held to a much higher burden.

---

Didn't see your post.

Maybe I've missed it, but where are those against being called liars, rumor mongerers and trolls?

---

Page 3. 4th, 9th, and 25th posts (I think, may have miscounted).

---

You're really twisting those posts to fit your narrative.

It's funny you get hung up on this but didn't address the post that quoted you as saying these windmills are 500 feet tall. I've never seen one close to 50 stories tall.

Not sure what is going up down there but most of the ones I have been around are just under 500' with the blade strait up. They are enormous. Our setbacks from roads/non inhabited structures are based on a multiple of the height.

"I called Ben Hoen, a research scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to get the latest numbers on wind turbine sizes. (He stresses that these are preliminary figures LBNL has a report on this coming out in a few months, but he does not expect these figures to change much, if at all.)

According to Hoen, the average total height (from base to tip) of an onshore US turbine in 2017 was 142 meters (466 feet). The median turbine was closer to 152 meters (499 feet). In fact, Hoen said, the median is approaching the max. In other words, over time, US onshore turbines seem to be converging on roughly that height. Why? Because if you build higher than 499 feet, the Federal Aviation Administration requires some extra steps in their approval process, and apparently most developers have not found that worth the hassle."

From an article on Vox.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2018/3/8/17084158/wind-turbine-power-energy-blades

It was right above your post---

"If you live in Texas, most of this is a flat-out lie (I work in the electric transmission industry)"
1 edit

Just watching the show. Back into the cave now.

hdrydor said:

---

"I called Ben Hoen, a research scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to get the latest numbers on wind turbine sizes. (He stresses that these are preliminary figures LBNL has a report on this coming out in a few months, but he does not expect these figures to change much, if at all.)

According to Hoen, the average total height (from base to tip) of an onshore US turbine in 2017 was 142 meters (466 feet). The median turbine was closer to 152 meters (499 feet). In fact, Hoen said, the median is approaching the max. In other words, over time, US onshore turbines seem to be converging on roughly that height. Why? Because if you build higher than 499 feet, the Federal Aviation Administration requires some extra steps in their approval process, and apparently most developers have not found that worth the hassle."

From an article on Vox.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2018/3/8/17084158/wind-turbine-power-energy-blades

---

.so not 500 feet?

Also what's up with counting to the tip? That like me claiming to be over 7 feet tall because of my arms.

Yep, 500 feet is a gross exaggeration of 499 feet, you got me there.

I now realize I should have followed devilsriverag and Palanchapanga's example and just said support if you like, don't if not, and let this thread die. I will now do that.

Heading down to A&M now to see my son, Class of '21, and hopefully watch the Ags sweep LSU in baseball. Gig 'em...

Yep, the OB can be frustrating like that sometimes. But glad to see there's someone else out there standing in support.

I live in Texas and my family owned the land one of the CREZ transmission lines was to go through. An alliance was formed by many landowners called "Clear View Alliance" which was made up of 200 -300 landowners. Many of them Aggies. I can assure you that all of them would agree with what I said.
We are suppose to be all Aggies on here and supposed to treat one another with respect and honor. Part of the Aggie honor is to not lie. I have tried to live and uphold that tradition in my many years of life and do not appreciate someone all but calling me a liar....especially a supposed fellow aggie. I have a file cabinet full of facts of what was documented during the whole ordeal. I am not going to banter words with what I know and experienced first hand to be the truth. You believe what you want as you say you work for a transmission company. We know what happened and what was experienced and I truly pity any landowner who has worked and sweated to have a nice piece of land and have the misfortune to have to experience what all of us did. "Million Dollar Views" in Texas does not mean looking at transmission lines going within 500 feet of your home in the middle of your farm and totally destroying your property values, and if you owned that land I am sure you would feel the same way.

mpl35 said:

---

hdrydor said:

---

"I called Ben Hoen, a research scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to get the latest numbers on wind turbine sizes. (He stresses that these are preliminary figures LBNL has a report on this coming out in a few months, but he does not expect these figures to change much, if at all.)

According to Hoen, the average total height (from base to tip) of an onshore US turbine in 2017 was 142 meters (466 feet). The median turbine was closer to 152 meters (499 feet). In fact, Hoen said, the median is approaching the max. In other words, over time, US onshore turbines seem to be converging on roughly that height. Why? Because if you build higher than 499 feet, the Federal Aviation Administration requires some extra steps in their approval process, and apparently most developers have not found that worth the hassle."

From an article on Vox.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2018/3/8/17084158/wind-turbine-power-energy-blades

---

.so not 500 feet?

Also what's up with counting to the tip? That like me claiming to be over 7 feet tall because of my arms.

---

In all fairness, the blades on a windmill are what you have to include when concerning setbacks, height restrictions, etc. Especially if the blades are actually going to be in motion, unless you are promoting a Red Bull airshow anyway and want planes to play frogger with them (which would be awesome to watch, BTW).

I'm just jokimg around. Hence the emoticon. Apparently this thread isn't the place for levity.

As you said you are not a landowner and have no skin in the game.......However, maybe if you had devoted a life's work and savings to purchasing a piece of land in an area noted for its serenity, scenic and outdoor recreational value. Then spent 30 plus years removing invasive non-native plant species to enhance the areas groundwater amounts, performed erosion control projects to restore the areas natural water resources, replanted native grass species and instituted a detailed wildlife management program to enhance all the wildlife flora and fauna, performed controlled burns to control invasive brush species, etc. etc.etc.. All in the hopes that you could pass this on to your children to help insure their financial future someday...perhaps then you would understand.

Maybe. But the condescending tone because I don't have land doesn't lend to support your argument either.

As with every situation out there, there is your side, their side and the truth somewhere in between. Fact of the matter is that everything changes - it's the only constant there is. I get where you are coming from, I honestly do even if I am not fortunate enough to have enough disposable income to go out and buy a bunch of land. But the other side is that in order to have the luxuries we do have today, and many of which I'm sure you enjoy on a daily basis, there has to be some level of progress and advancement of technology. It's really easy to say that the other guy should have all of this stuff in his back yard because you are somehow better and somehow your view or lifestyle is more important than theirs, but it doesn't always work out that way. And maybe, just maybe, the other guy thinks he has enough stuff in his back yard and doesn't want more.

I actually applaud everybody for making their voice heard - it's one of the awesome things about where we live in that we get to do such things and hopefully have our vote sway things in our favor. But sometimes you lose those fights too. And not everybody has the same viewpoints you may have either. I don't happen to think the windmills are heinous by any stretch - but my perspective is a bit skewed in that I grew up around industry and by comparison, the windmills are pretty low key and benign.

Ultimately the person that owns the land should get to do with it what they want, especially when the only real impact to those around them are, generally speaking, views. If it were a toxic waste dump or something along those lines, I'm sure you'd have a different argument. But I doubt seriously you or many of your neighbors would cotton to the idea that you have to get all of their agreement on what you want to do on your land. I admire your dedication and what you say you've done, I really do. Your tactics, at least on this thread, however, leave a lot to be desired. Hope you win your fight.

Gunny456 said:

---

As you said you are not a landowner and have no skin in the game.......However, maybe if you had devoted a life's work and savings to purchasing a piece of land in an area noted for its serenity, scenic and outdoor recreational value. Then spent 30 plus years removing invasive non-native plant species to enhance the areas groundwater amounts, performed erosion control projects to restore the areas natural water resources, replanted native grass species and instituted a detailed wildlife management program to enhance all the wildlife flora and fauna, performed controlled burns to control invasive brush species, etc. etc.etc.. All in the hopes that you could pass this on to your children to help insure their financial future someday...perhaps then you would understand.

---

Gunny, I think everyone is sympathetic to the plight of land owners in situations like these, but that doesn't mean the landowners in the region are the sole voice. Other landowners in the area obviously thought it was in their best interest to sell their land in this case. Maybe some now have regrets or feel that they sold under somewhat false pretenses. However, has has been pointed out previously, if these landowners didn't get information regarding the future use of their land post sale in writing/contract then they really don't have ground to stand on (pardon the pun).

Also, I'm curious as to your comment above regarding passing the land on to your children to help insure their financial future. Can you shed some light on that because on the face of it the comment would seem to suggest them having the ability to either sell the land for a profit or somehow use the land for commercial gain other than a sale.

I think you need to go back and read my post. My first was saying that along with the Windmill Farms comes transmission lines to move the power. They travel 100's of miles typically and therefore affect lots of landowners not just one or a few neighbors.
Then I spoke of the experience that my family and other landowners had in dealing with the transmission lines.
You said " I am not a landowner and have no skin in the game"....but then said you did not know what difference it would make to have your property values diminished if you never sold the land.
Then you say I have a condescending tone.....I just stated what you stated. How does print and black and white have a tone? That "tone" is what you perceived.
Also I came from a relatively poor family. I was the first of our family to attend college. My wife was also the same. We worked our butts off and made many sacrifices to purchase that land 30 years ago. Most of the work on It I have done myself.....riding older tractors......cutting with chainsaws, you name it. Did this for many weekends and vacations when off work. So i don't feel guilty about having something I bled literal sweat and tears for. It was my choice. Anybody could have done the same thing I did if they were willing to make the commitment to the goal.

You say my" tactics" are not conducive to my cause.........understand I don't have a fight or a cause.... the landowners already won the fight against the transmission company....they ended up using existing easements, and alternate routes. Which is what they should have done in the first place, and forgone all the grief, stress and time and money spent for two years by the landowners fighting it. This whole ordeal was caused due to the Texas immanent domain laws just make it too easy to condemn and use land.....hence why they are trying to be changed. In the case of the transmission lines, it had nothing to do with what a landowner wanted to do with his land. Nobody on many of the proposed routes wanted it on their land because the compensation did not outweigh the negative of property devaluation or the aesthetic destruction of the property. So, typically, no landowner was saying..." I want those on my property".
I only stated to the OP that besides the windfarms, landowners would also be fighting the construction of the transmission lines that follow the windmills....and they effect a lot more land and landowners than just the ones around the windfarms.

Yeah...i am,pretty familiar with the rather basic fact that easements exists and that a single spot, especially on a power generation site, isnt the only single area of the project. Or that the power will be used in other areas than where it is generated. After all, you likely use gas and diesel that was refined on the ship channel and not at your local gas station, you likely use plastics that were produced in my hometown at Dow or Dupont or Shintec or BASF or one of the other petrochem facilities, and you likely use power that is produced many miles from your land and house.

And that tone is what i percieved based on what you wrote. Contrary to your belief, tone can - and is - conveyed through writing. The diatribe that I simply could not understand how this impacts things because i dont have land there or have apent the last 30 years improving said land was pretty clear in the implications.

I was just pointing out argume,ts or obvious talking points from the other side, nothing more or less. Didnt mean to get you so riled up. Go enjoy your million dollar views.

Going back to my original post, I have learned several more things about the investment group Brazos Highland Properties LP. Brazos Highland PropertiesLP, is a subsidiary of Xinjiang Guanghui Industry Investment Group, one of the largest companies in all of China. They have received massive Federal Government subsidies ! The owner is Guangxin Sun, one of the richest men in the world. The Devils River Conservacy is gathering pertinent data dailey and exploring every option to stop these projects. The Web Site valverdevistas .org is brand new and a lot of the negatives on the site that were deemed flimsy arguments will be fully explained. The Hill Country successfully stopped wind farm development but had the backing of a much larger populous,more Texas representation, and more money to Lobby. The Devils River Conservacy was late to the game but are now garnering support from TPWD,Homeland Security, and several other groups with a vested interest in the Devils River Watershed. Again if you support our efforts go to the web site and at the very least sign the petition,

https://dontblowittexas.org/

Allow me to counter everyone one of these points below from my personal point of view. Being a long time Val Verde County resident with ties to this land beyond the Texas Independence timeline, I see it as a new reality.

From the website:

Wind farm development in Val Verde County:

• Compounds border security challenges

"I been in that business for over 27 years and as a midlevel manager I can tell you that there is no such challenge. First out rotary assets have little to no business up that way unless there is specific traffic or call to an emergency, is very seldom. Our reconnaissance asset flies so high that you don't even see them or hear them. This is just statement to compel to some folks".

• Creates airspace hazards for Air Force pilots in training

Same goes for the Air Force trainees, they have a hard deck limitation and when is time to ditch it they will over any terrain that will have the least liability impact. Last year a pilot died as a result of ditching the plan just behind my neighborhood. High price to pay for hotdogging a plane beyond your skill sets.

• Degrades the frontier legacy character of the region

"This is the same frontier legacy character that has kept this area from progressing for generations and driving our young one to leave our legacy character region for a better future somewhere else. I can see the red beacon lights of the windmill field near Carta Valley from my back porch, I kind of enjoy it".

• Sacrifices future generation opportunities for limited short-term benefits to external interests

"In other words, some folks much rather stay inside and not participate in outdoor activity because of it? Well, that is exactly what has happened for generations by keeping them from exploring those areas, there is people in this County that have never been to the Devils River, most of it is restricted and inaccessible to the public. We can work with property owner so the public has access to it, that would be a win!".

• Does not respect others' private property rights

"This is funny, you are not respecting their private property rights, where do their right stop and yours begin"

• Devalues real estate

"Is there any other use for that land? Is there a mall going up out there that we don't know about it takes 100 acres to feed a goat out there, I don't see it."

• Causes light pollution

"Yes it does, and it sucks but only when you are close to them."

• Produces energy to be utilized elsewhere

"Yes, but not entirely true, Wal Mart in Del Rio uses electricity from the field in Carta Valley, I don't have first hand knowledge of this but it was quoted in an article but if that is the case isn't that good? https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2016/12/23/akuo-energy-moves-forward-with-construction-of.html

• Deteriorates shared natural scenic views

"Again, only for those that have access to the land, some kid in Val Verde County that cannot see beyond his neighbor's fence really does not have any buy into it.

• Negatively impacts bats, birds, butterflies, and other wildlife

"I will give you this one, but animals do adapt just like the folks that painted the caves so they will be ok"

• Permanently scars viewscapes and night skies

"Yes they would only for those that can see beyond their smart-phones"

• Is bad for hunting, fishing and other nature-dependent tourism

"Ok, lets look at the prices to access that land for those nature-dependent tourist, Whitetail Hunt from $250, Axis $300 to $5000. Rio Grande Turkey $1500 to $1800, Blackbuck $3700 to $4000. Come on give me a break"

• Diminishes the natural beauty of public treasures;
• Lake Amistad National Recreation Area
• Devils River State Natural Areas
• Seminole Canyon State Park and Historical Site

"This is just an opinion of what beauty is to some people and their feelings"

• Only benefits the foreign operator partnered with foreign investors to take advantage of U.S. subsidies

"Download the ACORN application and you can invest directly alongside with the rest"

Not sure why all this uproar about lowering land prices. I'd love to have wind turbines go up so prices quit being stupid high and I can buy more land. Man has always changed land to his advantage and this is just another aspect of it.

Also lower land values equal less property taxes...what's the problem here?

If anything high land prices cause the land to be broken up thus killing the natural beauty of the land with every new owner building their damn McMansion.