Sherwood West gets new plan

If it's in the UGB, it has to have a plan.  Sherwood is looking at it's western edges for expansion possibilities.  For anyone thinking about escaping Metro's grip, keep going.  And going.  

City begins looking at future inclusion of Sherwood West
The Times, January 1, 2015  By Ray Pitz

The city of Sherwood is asking residents how they would like to see growth occur in a 1,300-acre portion of land outside the city limits that’s being referred to as Sherwood West.

In the next 14 months, the city will develop a preliminary concept plan to determine how future housing, schools, parks and neighborhood commercial uses would fit inside the parcel, which is generally located north of Chapman Road, west of Elwert Road and south of Scholls-Sherwood Road.

Sherwood West Preliminary Concept Plan

PROJECT OVERVIEW  

A long range look at our future: The City of Sherwood is beginning a long-range community planning process, designed to help us manage growth and protect the things we love about this place. The City received a Construction Excise Tax (CET) grant from Metro to prepare a concept plan for the regional Urban Reserve Area 5B, nearly 1,300 acres we have identified as Sherwood West. Our goal is to develop a “preliminary concept plan” that will identify how we grow and provide quality places to live, work and play over the next five decades. This long-range planning process helps us all think about where best to build housing, where to protect farmland and where to build or expand roads and utilities—all with a goal of keeping Sherwood a safe, thriving and healthy community. 

Our goals: Most cities grow, but planned cities grow better. Our goal is to create a 50-year outline of how we might grow, an outline for that is informed by the community. This preliminary long range community plan will guide us as we make important future decisions about whether we grow up or out, where housing is built, where schools are located and how our transportation system can be improved. If managed well, Sherwood’s growth will provide us with jobs, new businesses, thriving neighborhoods and the sense of place we hold dear.

Portlandizing Manhattan

Living Small
The Atlantic Magazine, December 28 2014  By Henry Grabar

The making of Manhattan's first micro-apartments. 

Later this winter, a truck will pick up this prefabricated apartment from a former naval foundry in Brooklyn, carry it over the Manhattan Bridge, and deliver it to a construction site on Manhattan’s East Side. A crane will hoist the unit—and 54 others like it, along with segments of stairways and elevator shafts—into the air and stack them together, creating a nine-story building.

In a city that’s seen just about everything, the undertaking, a collaboration between the firm nArchitects, Monadnock Development, and the Actor’s Fund Housing Development Corporation, will be a novelty twice over. For one thing, this will be the tallest building ever constructed out of prefab modules in Manhattan, and one of the first such apartment buildings in the entire city. The modules—each of which weighs the equivalent of a dozen Ford F-150s—will arrive on East 27th Street virtually move-in ready, with toilets, cabinets, and electrical sockets all in place.

For another, this will be the city’s first “microunit” building. In 2013, its design won a city-sponsored “micro-housing” competition devoted to compact housing for single occupants. (Forty-six percent of Manhattan households are made up of one adult.) The architects, Eric Bunge and Mimi Hoang, hope that large windows, high ceilings, and floor plans featuring multipurpose living areas—fold-up furniture sold separately—will make the apartments feel more spacious than their 255 to 360 square feet.
 

A tree code gone rogue

Can Portland's tree code be more onerous than Lake Oswego's?  Who was looking out for the common person when the codes in Lake Oswego were created?  Why are Lake Oswego tree codes disliked by over half of the city's residents?  Isn't it time for a change?  Since the process for creating the codes didn't work,  who should be involved in changing them, and how should it be done?

Photo Credit: TRIBUNE PHOTO: JONATHAN HOUSE - Portland arborist John Ryan prunes branches off a maple tree at a Southeast Portland home. Ryan is bracing to be the 'bearer of bad news' when explaining the city's new tree-cutting restrictions to his clients.

Has city gone too far out on a limb?
Portland Tribune, January 8, 2015  By Steve Law
Enforcement of new tree code could be costly to homeowners

John Ryan stands to land more customers from Portland’s new tree code that took effect this month, but the certified arborist, like many other tree lovers, fears the new tree-cutting restrictions go too far. 

“I’m sure some homeowners are feeling like the city is infringing on their rights; their kind of basic right to control their own property,” says Ryan, owner of Limb by Limb, one of the companies on the city’s referral list.

The new tree code requires every resident to seek permits before removing medium-size or larger trees in their own yards. In many cases, they must replant trees elsewhere to compensate, which could cost several hundred or even several thousand dollars.

“I consider that a taking,” [Eric] Sorensen says, referring to the constitutional guarantee of  compensation when governments strip peoples’ private property rights.

The citizens involved in helping draft the new tree code were mostly of one mind —   other than the homebuilders, who made sure their industry’s needs were represented, Sorensen says.  “There was nobody there that stood up for the common person.”

He [Robinson] fears the tree code could provoke a backlash, or get widely ignored. “Sometimes if you overreach too far, some people will walk away versus comply.”

Take the requirement that people must get a permit before pruning twigs on street trees in front of their house as small as one-quarter-inch diameter. That’s about the size of a pencil.

“That seems like a joke to me,” Ryan says. “You just say that and you make people mad.”

Ryan prunes his own street trees probably 10 times a year. “I’m not getting 10 pruning permits per year,” he says. “It seems excessive.”

But navigating the new city tree code isn’t so simple for the layperson.  It’s 95 pages long. 

LO faces multiple developments

Along with the development projects listed in the Lake Oswego article (link below), the city will still be dealing with key code issues that could seriously impact the outcome of what is eventually built.

Another issue to look out for and talk to your city councilors about is how Citizen and Stakeholder Advisory Committees are composed and selected and then run.  There are some who would like to see a more citizen-only committee that brings in experts as guests who share information, but leaves citizens in charge of the plan and recommendations to protect and enhance the character of our neighborhoods and the town.  Change, but thoughtful, purposeful change that benefits all.

Development likely to dominate in 2015
Lake Oswwgo Review, January 8, 2015  By Saundra Sorenson

Controversy has raged for more than a year over the redevelopment of the Wizer Block and, in a larger sense, the identity of downtown Lake Oswego. But as the City Council prepares this week to set its agenda for 2015, there are a handful of other projects that are likely to garner just as much attention and could play just as significant a role in shaping the city’s development landscape.

A major city-owned property is back on the market, and city planners are eying another prime piece of downtown real estate. Two major retail centers are springing up on Kruse Way — to be followed quickly by a new senior living center — and the city is hoping to build modern emergency-response and operations facilities that are more seismically sound.

All of those projects will be on the table tonight when the Council hosts an Open House from 5:30-7:30 p.m. at the Adult Community Center (505 G Ave.). Councilors will be on hand to answer questions, hear concerns and gather input from the public before heading to the Holy Names Heritage Center (17425 Holy Names Drive) on Saturday for their own goal-setting retreat.

* * * * * * *

The Town Hall at the ACC tonight is open to all to discuss what the public thinks are the most pressing issues the city should be working on in 2015.  This is your chance to be heard!  The format will be relaxed and very welcoming, so don't be shy.  

Clackamas R. water rights in dispute

Several years ago - well before the 2012 election for a mayor and 3 city councilors, sharp-eyed citizens were actively pointing out that there were problems with the Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Treatment Partnership (LOTWTP).

• Estimated costs ballooned from $90M to $250M
• LO sold its sole interest in the water treatment plant and is now be only a partner in the new one without complete say in how it is run
• LO overstated its need for additional water by using badly concocted consulting reports that did not take into account conservation measures or adjusted growth figures 
• Lake Oswego residents could not afford the high water rates that the project would require
• LO sold its interest in some of its water rights for the future - will this help or hurt when final effects of the lawsuit play out?

Added to citizen objections, the group Waterwatch filed a lawsuit to limit water taken from the Clackamas River to protect wild fish during summer low flows.  That lawsuit has been in the judicial system for some time. On Monday a decision was rendered, and it is not good news for the LOT Partnership.  

What now?

Oregon Court of Appeals sides with salmon in lawsuit over Clackamas River water use
The Oregonian, January 6, 2015  By Kelly House

The Clackamas River east of the Carver Boat Ramp. The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled too much of the lower Clackamas River's water is being diverted for human use. (Brent Wojahn/ The Oregonian)

The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled that the state Water Resources Department failed to limit the amount of water cities and water districts can draw from the lower Clackamas River so that there would be enough water left in the river for threatened and endangered salmon.

The ruling handed down last week says the withdrawals permitted by the department were not supported by evidence or reason. The court sent the permits back to the department to be revised.

The permits are held by the city of Lake Oswego and water districts serving people in Oregon City, West Linn, and northern Clackamas County.

Attorney Lisa Brown of the conservation group WaterWatch, which brought the lawsuit, says there is plenty of water to draw on in the area without threatening salmon.

--The Associated Press

Other Links:

Waterwatch

Appeals Court Delivers Victory for Clackamas River Salmon and SteelheadOpinion Requires State to Maintain Flows Needed for Imperiled Fish

Oregon Department of Justice
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc., Petitioner, v. Water Resources Department, a state agency;


From the LOCAL website:
Lake Oswego Tigard Water Partnership
Did you know...that the Inter-Government Agreement for the Lake Oswego Tigard Water Partnership (LOTWP) was signed in 2008, under Mayor Judie Hammerstad, with an original cost estimate of $90 million, which ballooned to $250 million during Mayor Jack Hoffman's administration?

In November 2012, Lake Oswego elected a more fiscally responsible majority to the City Council. While exiting the very costly project was an obvious solution, the original inter-governmental agreement signed during Mayor Hammerstad's term contained very expensive penalties preventing Lake Oswego from exiting the agreement. 

In 2013, Mayor Kent Studebaker and the new Council did renegotiate the cost sharing agreement to reduce the Lake Oswego capital cost by $20 million by reducing Lake Oswego's share of the water.

City staff now estimate the total cost of LOTWP at $254 million--as reflected in your water bills.

Why Is This Important?
The costs of this very expensive project were put in place by previous City Councils and are now hitting citizens' water bills. The efforts of the current City Council have served to slightly reduce projected on-going cost increases but it is the decisions of past administrations that have left citizens with huge water bills to cover the costs of this super-sized water plant. 

Aliens cause global warming!!!

Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton

Anthony Watts / July 9, 2010

Read lecture at: Watts Up With That?  

Caltech Michelin Lecture – January 17, 2003

My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming.

Charting this progression of belief will be my task today. Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do.

Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact.

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?

And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the model-makers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.

Ice and snow in 2014

NOAA Science on a Sphere
December 31, 2014

Closing out the year by taking a look at snow and ice cover over the course of 2014. Happy New Year from SOS!

To see video, Use this LINK to NOAA Facebook Page.

2,483,034 Views

Manipulating climate

The article below is revealing about how the Climate Change subject has changed from science to propaganda - and how the international COP meetings each year are increasingly dominated by NGOs rather than governmental representatives or scientists.  Media is manipulated, and how scientists are selected (or deselected) to participate is discussed.

For all things political none of this should come as a surprise.  But for science to be hijacked by bureaucrats is somehow worse because it takes away the foundation of evidence and facts we need for decision-making, and to how tell quackery from the real thing.

Metro's dive into the Climate Smart Communities Plan was a certainty the day it was conceived.  All the planning and advisory committee meetings leading up to it were window dressing and a waste of time for everyone involved.  The whole charade keeps the myth alive and people employed however, so we can expect to more of this before Climate Change dies, taking our money along with it.

We still have experts willing to stand for the truth and tell Metro what a mess their Urban Growth study is.  Growth projections drive policies about housing and transportation and will significantly impact our region.  What if Metro got it wrong?  There's no doubt in my mind that they did.  It is not in their best interest to do anything except follow the same course to its bitter conclusion.  Unless someone stops them.  Evidently facts and logic alone won't do it.

The website, Watt's Up With That? is by far the best one on the web that is devoted to climate science.  The link to the website in in the blog list on the right.

Ironically, Change Catches Up With Climate Change Alarmists in Lima

Guest Blogger / December 18, 2014 

Guest opinion; Dr. Tim Ball 

It appears that, as the political and scientific evidence fails, a hard-core group of environmentalists don’t want to face reality. One of the masterstrokes of Strong was to resurrect the concept of the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) to participate in the political activity. It began with their attendance at the Rio 1992 UNEP conference under a Consultative Status designation. The increasing political nature of the COP is apparently reflected in the attendance data. In a recent article by Till Neeff titled “How many will attend Paris? UNFCCC COP participation patterns 1995-2015” he says, 

The COPs to the UNFCCC (the Conferences of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) have evolved into environmental mega-conferences (Gaventa, 2010). They have become the key networking opportunity for environmental professionals of all colours, and attract increasingly large numbers of diverse participants (Okereke et al., 2009). Beyond the negotiations, it seems to be the desire to network, to exchange information and to be part of a larger climate change constituency that drive attendance (Schroeder and Lovell, 2012).

The revealed truth is that of the sixteen choices given to people regarding what they think are the important issues in their lives, climate change is dead last. Not only that, but in every sub-category, by age, by sex, by education, by country grouping, it’s right down at the bottom of the list. NOBODY thinks it’s important.
 

This is consistent with findings of the Pew Center polls (Figure 3).

Notice that the priority, at least for the US public, was at the bottom five years ago in 2009. Despite this politicians have paid no attention for five years. Almost all of them continue to put it high on their list of concerns. It is part proof that they don’t care what the public think and are more afraid of being accused of not caring about the planet.

Lima’s failure is a culmination of the deliberate attempts to predetermine the science and the politics overtaken by reality. Neeff summarized what went on there in a heading that says, “COP participants are part of a climate-change – club.” The public knew a few years ago, but the politicians continued to punt a non-existent can, at enormous costs. The real lesson from Lima is that once government takes up an issue it will expand and never be resolved. There is nothing ironic about the fact that, as always, the people will pay the price and the politicians and deceivers will not be held accountable.

North Anchor Project gearing up

This meeting is for you!  
If you can't be there, send a letter to the email address below with a copy to the city council.  

The North Anchor Project is being forwarded by the city on city-owned property along B Avenue on both sides of 1st Ave. on the North side.   

Previous concept plans included a library, 4-5 stories buildings, housing, offices, retail, and parking.  This time, the city and LORA is asking citizens what they want and don't want prior to sending out requests for proposals to developers. This is your opportunity to tell the city what you DO and DON'T want to see downtown in the North Anchor location.  (Building height, parking, building use, etc.)

This is a public meeting, no pre-registration is required, so if you haven't called, come anyway!  You should call or email if you can though.  

                                                 * * * * * * * * * *
LORA will initiate a public outreach process to receive input on the project prior to moving forward with the RFQ, as noted in the below update section.  Feasibility study reports and additional related documents can be reviewed in the materials listed below.

         NORTH ANCHOR COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP FORUM

                         Sign up to participate here!

                         Saturday, January 31, 2015

                               9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

               Adult Community Center,  505 G Avenue

To ensure adequate accommodations please sign up to participate at the link provided above.  Contact Anne-Marie Simpson at asimpson@ci.oswego.or.us or call 503-534-4225 for additional information.

                                                 * * * * * * * * * *
Following the Open House, a Stakeholder Advisory Committee will be formed comprized of members of:  First Addition/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association; Old Town Neighborhood Association; Evergreen Neighborhood Association; and Foothills property owners.

Energy Performance Reporting

First require tracking data.  All information is collected by the government.  As time goes on, the circle is widened and more entities are included - more information collected.  It doesn't make sense that Portland would set up a tracking program just for the trackees to know what they already know - how much energy they use.  It sounds like the tracker is the one wanting the information - but why?   Why would anyone NOT think that this would eventually be applied to private homes?

Does this new regulation mean the government will be controlling our energy use in new and more oppressive ways?  How much energy do you use?

Tracking energy use may be required

Portland Tribune, December 25, 2014  By Jules Rogers

Portland’s commercial buildings today have no requirements to track their energy performance, but are responsible for almost 25 percent of Portland’s carbon emissions.

The largest carbon pollution source in the city, commercial building tenants spend more than $335 million on energy annually.
I thought the largest carbon pollution source was automobiles!?

Last Thursday, the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability officially launched a new energy performance reporting proposal for commercial buildings, hoping to create awareness and transparency in energy-efficiency improvements reducing carbon emissions.    
Transparency?  These are private buildings - where is there a requirement or need for "transparency?"  This program sounds creepy.  How can it even be legal to monitor legal transactions for electricity or natural gas between private entities?  

“We want to move forward with sustainability; we want to do the right thing for Portland,” says Alisa Kane, Green Building and Development Manager with BPS. “We hope to shine a light on high performers.”
We, we, we.  We want to, want to, hope to... do the right thing.  (And we're the ones who decide what the right thing is!)

Imitating successful similar policies in the states of California and Washington and cities including Boston and Chicago, the proposed energy performance report will require buildings to complete a 
three-step process.
What is the measure for a successful program?  Who pays for additional administrative costs of new  government regulation?   What is the purpose of this thing?  

First, building owners will track their energy performances using Energy Star Portfolio Manager, the industry standard with free online software. Energy Star will help them calculate their official energy use per square foot and their carbon emissions, scoring them. Lastly, they’ll report the score to the city to be uploaded to a public database annually.
The City of Portland will be keeping score, and then publicizing the score. 

"This tool will allow participation in this to be something that benefits the rest of our society,” says Renee Loveland, a sustainability manager at Gerding Edlen real estate, whose company already has an Energy Star score of 99. “This is a great step in the right Direction."
Anything for the Greater Good.  

More information from the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services website:

TO REDUCE ENERGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS 
the City of Portland proposes a new policy that would require commercial buildings over 20,000 square feet to incorporate the following practices: 

1. 1  Track energy performance using ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager.
   
2. 2  Calculate an Energy Use Intensity (energy use per square foot), ENERGY STAR score, and carbon emissions.
   
3. 3  Report this information to the City of Portland on an annual basis. 
   

And this is going to reduce costs and carbon emissions how?  

Street of Dreams

Go ahead, dream big, but you must also fit those dreams into the existing neighborhood.  Goodall Knaus, LLC is proceeding with a 16-lot development on Goodall Rd. in the Forest Highlands area that will be the site of the 2015 HBA Street of Dreams.  USC has not been following the ins and outs of the planning process for this - it appears to be a good fit for the neighborhood - but a few things caught my eye.  "The Highlands" Development File No. is LU 14-0072.

1.   The Highlands Development Agreement is back at the City Council on Tuesday for a public hearing about an approval (or not) of an amendment which asks that the city use a different system for measuring height of a building on excavated land, rather than use the existing natural grade as the base point.  Please read the staff report for a detailed description of the code issues.  The current agreement requires the development proceed using the same development standards as the previously zoned R 7.5, but Street of Dreams homes may need to be sized differently.  There are two citizen letters in the file expressing concern about any new height /size allowances allowed on the property.
 
Q:  These letter writers make good points.  Can the city or developer demonstrate that the change in measuring requirements will NOT be detrimental to the neighbors and neighborhood?   Does the developer want to mound dirt in order to build higher than otherwise allowed?   This kind of "detail" can undo an otherwise exemplary plan.

2.  The development is being done as a serial

partition over three years, rather than a Planned Development which is more typical when this many lots are involved.  Partitioning allows the developer to keep the lots larger than if the land went through the subdivision route.  Most county land being annexed into the city is made R 7.5 zoning density regardless of  existing zone designation.  Partitioning can be a good thing for a neighborhood concerned about increased density and loss of neighborhood character.  See City File No. LU 14-0021.  Partitions are ministerial decisions made by planning staff and are not subject to appeal.

Q:  Low-density is good for Forest Highlands - it fits their neighborhood charachter.  Why does the city impose a standard R 7.5 zone on all county property annexed into the city?  This zone designation is sometimes much lower than the county zoning, so why not all flexibility for all county property in the city's service district?   Neighbors would like it - developers may not.

3.  The Staff Report, Applicant Narrative and Develooment Agreement state:
"..the proposed Development Agreement is supported by the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association."
"Applicant entered the Agrement in order to honor the request of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association that the property be developed at a lower density than could be allowed under the R 7.5 zoning district."
"Following significant consultation with FHNA, Developer has determined that the best and only method for developing the proprty in compliance with the Lake Oswego Code ("LOC") is to develop the property through a series of major and minor partitions governed by a master plan ("Master Plan")".

Q:  The Comprehensive Plan supports preserving the unique character of neighborhoods.  The statements above demonstrate the developer and city were respectful of the neighborhood association's opinions about the development - is this because the FHNA, the developer and the city agreed upon a low-density development?   What would the situation be if a developer and a neighborhood association did not agree on critical elements like density?  In future staff reports, it would be nice to read how each NA feels about each development - even those that are ministerial in nature as this one was.  If documents report positive things that support their case, shouldn't they report the opposite and be required to justify an opposing position?

My favorite letter to the City Council maybe ever!

Croney Capitalism in the U.K.

There's nothing new in the subsidy-scam business.  If someone is handing out money, there will be people lining up to take it.  The trouble is, it's our money!

The Guardian; John Vidal, Environmental Editor, February 28, 2012

Wind turbines bring in 'risk-free' millions for rich landowners

The windfarm at Doune in Perthshire forms a backdrop to Stirling Castle. Photograph: Alamy

The boom in onshore wind power, likened to a "new industrial revolution", is being dominated by a small number of private landowners who will share around £1bn in rental fees over the next eight years.
According to agents in Scotland and Wales, competition for suitable land is escalating rents. Landowners can expect to be paid 5-6% of the annual turnover of windfarms, or around £40,000 a year for each large 3MW turbine. "They see windfarms as a new farm subsidy but they do not have to take any risk," said one agent. "Only 60% of development applications may go through, but the returns if they do get built are enormous."

In return, landowners are offering communities around £1,000 per MW installed, according to RenewableUK, the wind industry trade body, in compensation for what some consider visual pollution and other disturbances such as lack of access.

"Opposition is growing as the applications flood in. We cannot keep up with the proposals," said Kim Terry from the campaign group Communities Against Turbines Scotland. "I know of 60 groups fighting windfarms in Scotland alone. The tiny bit of money being offered to communities are  
nothing but bribes. The landowners or developers decide what the money is spent on. We gain nothing, but our properties are devalued and the land is devastated."

The academic and land reformist Alastair McIntosh said: "Landowners have woken up to the fact they can make a heck of lot of money at the expense of those who have lived there for generations. There is a world of difference between a windfarm controlled by a local community and one imposed from outside by a landowner and a multinational company. The people benefiting are the ones who have always worked the subsidy system."

  See also:
The Guardian; Rob Edwards, February 28, 2012

Scotland's spectacular scenery 'being wrecked by windfarm vultures'

Critics say turbines are scarring beautiful, unspoilt country and multi-millionaires are benefiting most from the developments. 

Scotland's spectacular mountain scenery is being wrecked by "windfarm vultures" making millions on the back of government subsidies, an environmental group says.