Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
More solar farm
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RDFF" data-source="post: 1676222" data-attributes="member: 39018"><p>That was one of the concerns that was raised when I was on the wind project advisory board here, and because of that "local level" advisory board being embedded within the developer's project, we got it written right into the contract for EVERYBODY, that if they paid someone else more to get their land into the project after some had already signed their land in, then they had to go back and pay those already signed in the same... specific language to that effect, AND specific language that all participants in the project HAD to receive the same compensation per participation (meaning, so much per acre signed in, so much per turbine, so much per foot of road, so much per foot of buried transmission, etc... every impact had to be compensated the same across the entire project). </p><p></p><p>IMO, if you don't have THAT in writing, good luck. You have to get the whole community to buy into that kind of thing though, or you won't have any leverage to accomplish it. They'll want to have it written in that you can't discuss compensation or any of the terms of the contract with anyone. That's standard development language, and in part, it is to protect them from their competitors that are vying for the same properties in the area, and that's somewhat legitimate, and common in industry...... however, it WASN'T how we operated here, and it DID force competition between the developers to "ante up" if they wanted to be in the game.</p><p></p><p>Other things that got changed entirely because of the advisory board? Setbacks from homes, payment structure for everything... it started out with a payment structure based only if you ended up with a turbine, and roads. That changed to payments within 1/2 mile of a turbine, payments if you had land in the "harvested wind elipse", payments for buried cable, roads, field compaction, radio and TV interference, revenue sharing with the local school districts and fire departments, a community fund which the advisory board had control over for local annual philanthropy, ... just LOTS of changes that would never, ever have been done without that board.</p><p></p><p>In the end, the company I was working for (for free as a community advisory board member) won the battle for the land contracts, but lost the battle against the "anti-wind" campaign... so the project failed, unfortunately IMO. The anti-winders dragged out the process so long that they bled the investor dry. Now the area (so far not in my township, but within about 7 miles of me) is being inundated by these solar farms covering up acres and acres of some of the best ag land anywhere in the world, and THAT's all being done without the benefit of a local/area advisory board.</p><p></p><p>I'd strongly recommend that anyone considering these installations insist on community wide information meetings, AND, a local community member advisory board with EACH company. We obviously had 0 "power" or decision making ability OVER what the company ultimately decided to do... but our voice WAS heard, and they DID listen and respond, and make changes specifically because of that involvement, AND, I believe most importantly, THE COMPANY greatly appreciated and valued the input of us as members of the community. None of the language mentioned above would ever have made it into the contract, and it would have been purely "standard boilerplate language", had the advisory board not been involved.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RDFF, post: 1676222, member: 39018"] That was one of the concerns that was raised when I was on the wind project advisory board here, and because of that "local level" advisory board being embedded within the developer's project, we got it written right into the contract for EVERYBODY, that if they paid someone else more to get their land into the project after some had already signed their land in, then they had to go back and pay those already signed in the same... specific language to that effect, AND specific language that all participants in the project HAD to receive the same compensation per participation (meaning, so much per acre signed in, so much per turbine, so much per foot of road, so much per foot of buried transmission, etc... every impact had to be compensated the same across the entire project). IMO, if you don't have THAT in writing, good luck. You have to get the whole community to buy into that kind of thing though, or you won't have any leverage to accomplish it. They'll want to have it written in that you can't discuss compensation or any of the terms of the contract with anyone. That's standard development language, and in part, it is to protect them from their competitors that are vying for the same properties in the area, and that's somewhat legitimate, and common in industry...... however, it WASN'T how we operated here, and it DID force competition between the developers to "ante up" if they wanted to be in the game. Other things that got changed entirely because of the advisory board? Setbacks from homes, payment structure for everything... it started out with a payment structure based only if you ended up with a turbine, and roads. That changed to payments within 1/2 mile of a turbine, payments if you had land in the "harvested wind elipse", payments for buried cable, roads, field compaction, radio and TV interference, revenue sharing with the local school districts and fire departments, a community fund which the advisory board had control over for local annual philanthropy, ... just LOTS of changes that would never, ever have been done without that board. In the end, the company I was working for (for free as a community advisory board member) won the battle for the land contracts, but lost the battle against the "anti-wind" campaign... so the project failed, unfortunately IMO. The anti-winders dragged out the process so long that they bled the investor dry. Now the area (so far not in my township, but within about 7 miles of me) is being inundated by these solar farms covering up acres and acres of some of the best ag land anywhere in the world, and THAT's all being done without the benefit of a local/area advisory board. I'd strongly recommend that anyone considering these installations insist on community wide information meetings, AND, a local community member advisory board with EACH company. We obviously had 0 "power" or decision making ability OVER what the company ultimately decided to do... but our voice WAS heard, and they DID listen and respond, and make changes specifically because of that involvement, AND, I believe most importantly, THE COMPANY greatly appreciated and valued the input of us as members of the community. None of the language mentioned above would ever have made it into the contract, and it would have been purely "standard boilerplate language", had the advisory board not been involved. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
More solar farm
Top