“I oppose the current Article 10 proposal on the following grounds:
» I oppose Hecate’s business practices: by centering their business model on first acquiring land privately from landowners, they have pitted those who stand to gain from land leases against community members with genuine and valid concerns for their home and its well-being. Hecate has fractured and strained personal relationships between community members in a very small town. This is socially irresponsible and unethical behavior, and shows from the very beginning that this company stands outside of our community and does not have our community’s best interests at heart.
» I oppose the extent of proposed solar development in Coxsackie without sufficient analysis of its cumulative effects. Hecate’s proposal is one of seven in Coxsackie. As far as I can tell, there is no long-term study of the cumulative effects of these developments on our environment, community, or economy. Research that does exist casts doubt on Hecate’s claims about the impact of solar; for instance, with respect to property values, Gaur and Lang (2020) find:
‘Our preferred model suggests that property values in the treatment group decline by 1.7% ($5,751) on average compared to those in the control group after the construction of a nearby solar installation, all else equal. This translates to an annual willingness to pay of $279 per household to avoid disamenities associated with proximity to the installations. However, this average effect obscures heterogeneity. We find substantially larger negative effects for properties within 0.1 miles and properties surrounding solar sites built on farm and forest lands in non-rural areas.’ (Gaur & Lang 2020:18, emphasis mine)”
read the statement PDF
Wellstood, Zachary. 5 October 2020.