Dear Town Council: Why is preserving Town land worth extra costs and reduced solar profitability, but protecting private land is not?
The town council of Mahone Bay is building a solar power plant. Most of us can agree that, in principle, supplying the town's energy needs with its own solar plant is a great idea. But the town has made decisions about placement of the plant and the routing of its service lines and roads that demonstrate a cavalier attitude towards the private property rights of residents. The Town is willing to increase costs and reduce profitability of the solar plant to protect its own land, but cites avoiding these issues as the reason for expropriating private land.
The town puts a higher value on its own land than the land of private citizens.
A few details the Town of Mahone Bay has not advertised on its Facebook page or website:
-The Town and its Council plan to expropriate land from its residents for their solar project
-In addition to the ~2.5 acres of trees already taken down for the solar plant itself, the Town plans to deforest the land it will expropriate; at least 2.75 acres of old substantial trees to build a service road and powerlines (see attached plan)
-This deforestation and service road will divide and industrialize the centre of a 75 acre area that is rarely touched by humans
and shelters an array of local wildlife
Two immediate, greener, alternatives are available:
1) Reroute power to main street
- No more trees need to be cut down
- No expropriation required
2) Use the land that landowners are willing to sell
- Move the planned corridor 300 meters back from the water
- Mix of shrubs and young trees to be cut instead of substantial trees
- Remaining 75 acres of land is contiguous (not split up)
- All participants are willing
Town Councilors say the existing main street infrastructure is not currently suitable. We counter that the "existing infrastructure" on the expropriation land is not suitable either- there is NO infrastructure
- Trees must be cut down, road bed laid, poles and wires installed
- Main street has a paved road, no trees in the way, existing poles
-Shouldn't upgrading existing infrastructure be desirable? Surely the cost savings of not building a road and the environmental
benefit of saving 2.75 acres of trees is worth it. Why is the town willing to invest in expropriated land but not in existing infrastructure?
Town Councilors say that the extra distance of going to Main Street or back to the tracks will increase the length of wire (~500m), which causes a loss of power over each meter of distance, reducing the power available to market delivered to the substation on School Street.
- The current plan involving expropriation has a distance/length of wire of ~1,500 meters. If an additional 500 meters causes the loss of too much power, why not save 1,500 meters of power bleeding and collocate the solar garden with the substation?
- If power to market was a primary concern, the town would have placed the solar garden on its own land, behind the soccer field and directly next to the substation, this would reduce the power bleed to almost zero, maximizing power to market, and and saving >$1million in poles and wire for the project.
- Loss to Mahone Bay's Urban Tree Canopy would have been less than the current plan.
Sub-optimal power to market is acceptable to town council when it comes to preserving their own land, but when someone else's land can be expropriated to reduce costs, that's an easy decision for Town Council.
The town puts a higher value on its own land than the land of private citizens.
A few details the Town of Mahone Bay has not advertised on its Facebook page or website:
-The Town and its Council plan to expropriate land from its residents for their solar project
-In addition to the ~2.5 acres of trees already taken down for the solar plant itself, the Town plans to deforest the land it will expropriate; at least 2.75 acres of old substantial trees to build a service road and powerlines (see attached plan)
-This deforestation and service road will divide and industrialize the centre of a 75 acre area that is rarely touched by humans
and shelters an array of local wildlife
Two immediate, greener, alternatives are available:
1) Reroute power to main street
- No more trees need to be cut down
- No expropriation required
2) Use the land that landowners are willing to sell
- Move the planned corridor 300 meters back from the water
- Mix of shrubs and young trees to be cut instead of substantial trees
- Remaining 75 acres of land is contiguous (not split up)
- All participants are willing
Town Councilors say the existing main street infrastructure is not currently suitable. We counter that the "existing infrastructure" on the expropriation land is not suitable either- there is NO infrastructure
- Trees must be cut down, road bed laid, poles and wires installed
- Main street has a paved road, no trees in the way, existing poles
-Shouldn't upgrading existing infrastructure be desirable? Surely the cost savings of not building a road and the environmental
benefit of saving 2.75 acres of trees is worth it. Why is the town willing to invest in expropriated land but not in existing infrastructure?
Town Councilors say that the extra distance of going to Main Street or back to the tracks will increase the length of wire (~500m), which causes a loss of power over each meter of distance, reducing the power available to market delivered to the substation on School Street.
- The current plan involving expropriation has a distance/length of wire of ~1,500 meters. If an additional 500 meters causes the loss of too much power, why not save 1,500 meters of power bleeding and collocate the solar garden with the substation?
- If power to market was a primary concern, the town would have placed the solar garden on its own land, behind the soccer field and directly next to the substation, this would reduce the power bleed to almost zero, maximizing power to market, and and saving >$1million in poles and wire for the project.
- Loss to Mahone Bay's Urban Tree Canopy would have been less than the current plan.
Sub-optimal power to market is acceptable to town council when it comes to preserving their own land, but when someone else's land can be expropriated to reduce costs, that's an easy decision for Town Council.
***Below image from Town of Mahone Bay correspondence sent to land owners that have been threatened with expropriation
TREES TO BE CLEARCUT IN TOWN'S PLAN - PRESERVING OUR URBAN TREE CANOPY??
>>>THE TOWN'S OPTIONS
If the Town is trying to run a power utility in the best interests of the community, there is at least one option that would save >$1million in infrastructure costs, generate more marketable power (due to zero power loss by shortening wires), and require the least clearcutting. Council could use the Town/NSP land directly next to the substation.
According to the CAO in a response on behalf of Council: "The property referred to as the “lands adjacent to the School Street subdivision” does not have the correct zoning for the Community Solar Garden, as it is zoned Residential. This property is also currently well used for recreational purposes within the community."
The town has about 13 acres of trees behind the soccer field and another 14 acres behind the baseball field. These are separated by 8 acres of Nova Scotia Power land, 3 acres of which is a maintained clearcut underneath existing wires. The Solar Garden's footprint is roughly 5 acres. To save $1million dollars of taxpayer's money, the town could have used 5 acres of land behind the soccer field, alongside the NSP clearcut. This is an option worthy of presenting to the community. Why was it dismissed outright?
This is the same 14 acres of land the town tried to sell to a developer for $90k about 15 years ago - hence the residential zoning (mahonewoodsandfield.net/the-proposed-development/). The outrage over that deal was understandable - destruction of a community's soccer field and Council selling a huge town asset for a developer to profit. By contrast, today the Town could have used less than a third of the same land, leaving the soccer field alone, to save $1million on a project for the community - the Community Solar Garden.
By not using this land, the Town has inflated its infrastructure building costs and created unnecessary electricity bleed due to increased wire length. With 599 private households (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahone_Bay,_Nova_Scotia), that equals a cost of $1,669.45 per household on the project. For a Community Solar Garden, this should have been explored on the community's behalf and presented as an option.
Perhaps it is the personal ties of the Councilors to the land behind the soccer field or fear of a repeat of 2008's backlash, but Mahone Bay's residents were let down by not being presented with this option.
The Town is choosing to expropriate private land, citing the need decrease these costs when it could have eliminated them entirely by using a small portion of town-owned land next to the substation.
Is it reasonable to cite cost concerns and power bleed to justify expropriation and unnecessary clearcutting when, to save its own land, the Town has already chosen to increase the wire length by 1,500 meters, knowingly increasing both cost and power bleed?
Why is Council protecting their own land and increasing taxpayers' costs at the expense of private residents?
According to the CAO in a response on behalf of Council: "The property referred to as the “lands adjacent to the School Street subdivision” does not have the correct zoning for the Community Solar Garden, as it is zoned Residential. This property is also currently well used for recreational purposes within the community."
The town has about 13 acres of trees behind the soccer field and another 14 acres behind the baseball field. These are separated by 8 acres of Nova Scotia Power land, 3 acres of which is a maintained clearcut underneath existing wires. The Solar Garden's footprint is roughly 5 acres. To save $1million dollars of taxpayer's money, the town could have used 5 acres of land behind the soccer field, alongside the NSP clearcut. This is an option worthy of presenting to the community. Why was it dismissed outright?
This is the same 14 acres of land the town tried to sell to a developer for $90k about 15 years ago - hence the residential zoning (mahonewoodsandfield.net/the-proposed-development/). The outrage over that deal was understandable - destruction of a community's soccer field and Council selling a huge town asset for a developer to profit. By contrast, today the Town could have used less than a third of the same land, leaving the soccer field alone, to save $1million on a project for the community - the Community Solar Garden.
By not using this land, the Town has inflated its infrastructure building costs and created unnecessary electricity bleed due to increased wire length. With 599 private households (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahone_Bay,_Nova_Scotia), that equals a cost of $1,669.45 per household on the project. For a Community Solar Garden, this should have been explored on the community's behalf and presented as an option.
Perhaps it is the personal ties of the Councilors to the land behind the soccer field or fear of a repeat of 2008's backlash, but Mahone Bay's residents were let down by not being presented with this option.
The Town is choosing to expropriate private land, citing the need decrease these costs when it could have eliminated them entirely by using a small portion of town-owned land next to the substation.
Is it reasonable to cite cost concerns and power bleed to justify expropriation and unnecessary clearcutting when, to save its own land, the Town has already chosen to increase the wire length by 1,500 meters, knowingly increasing both cost and power bleed?
Why is Council protecting their own land and increasing taxpayers' costs at the expense of private residents?
|
Bullseye - Power sub/distribution station
1) All generated power needs to reach the substation (bullseye) to be delivered to customers - according to the town, every extra meter of distance/wires reduces profitability 5 site location options 1) Existing NSP Corridor next to the substation - bright purple 2) Town land next to the substation - bright green 3) RPS back lot - blue blobs 4) Wastewater Treatment Plant - Northfacing - red blob 5) Wastewater Treatment Plant - Southfacing - light purple blob 3 routing options given chosen location 1) Expropriation - red line with white dots 2) Main Street - yellow line 3) Landowners preferred route - light green line The Ridgeway - private land the town wants developed - yellow circle |
|
Existing Nova Scotia Power service corridor - already 3 acres of clear-cut land, no barriers to substation.
|
Existing town-owned land - ~3 acres of clearcutting required, no barriers to substation, no power loss due to lines
|
>>>IS THERE ANOTHER FACTOR IN CHOOSING TO EXPROPRIATE?
In speaking with officials from neighbouring municipalities and other green energy farms, they all view expropriation as an absolute last resort. So much so that in their professional careers, each spanning 15+ years, they have never found the need to expropriate. There was always another solution - solutions that sometimes even hurt profitability, but respected individual property rights.
As mentioned at the beginning, is the Town Council just being cavalier with property rights? Or is there another reason?
In at least two council meetings, an additional benefit of placing the power corridor across private land was discussed. Councilors discussed how placing the service road on private land would encourage future development of the Ridgeway.
At the January 27th meeting, when the road placement was voted on, the discussion touched on making it a full public road for the future development of the remaining private land and was then moved in camera (excluding press and public). While in camera, Council voted to place the service road on private land.
At the May 31st meeting, when Council was approving the road construction plans, Councilors again discussed how developing the Ridgeway would never be achieved if the road was placed back by the old tracks, as access to the Ridgeway would be too expensive. They went so far as to talk about developing the Ridgeway as a "long standing dream", and the current placement of the road (requiring expropriation) would be phase one of that "decade long journey".
Consider hearing town council discuss how taking a piece of your land and forcing a road upon it will encourage you to develop the remainder of your land.
You do not want to develop it - you purchased the land for its tranquility. However, it has been a long standing dream of the Councilors' to have it developed.
This does not sound like solar farm planning.
Is this the planning that our councilors are supposed to be doing? Are these the methods they should be using?
Just because they can, does not mean they should.
As mentioned at the beginning, is the Town Council just being cavalier with property rights? Or is there another reason?
In at least two council meetings, an additional benefit of placing the power corridor across private land was discussed. Councilors discussed how placing the service road on private land would encourage future development of the Ridgeway.
At the January 27th meeting, when the road placement was voted on, the discussion touched on making it a full public road for the future development of the remaining private land and was then moved in camera (excluding press and public). While in camera, Council voted to place the service road on private land.
At the May 31st meeting, when Council was approving the road construction plans, Councilors again discussed how developing the Ridgeway would never be achieved if the road was placed back by the old tracks, as access to the Ridgeway would be too expensive. They went so far as to talk about developing the Ridgeway as a "long standing dream", and the current placement of the road (requiring expropriation) would be phase one of that "decade long journey".
Consider hearing town council discuss how taking a piece of your land and forcing a road upon it will encourage you to develop the remainder of your land.
You do not want to develop it - you purchased the land for its tranquility. However, it has been a long standing dream of the Councilors' to have it developed.
This does not sound like solar farm planning.
Is this the planning that our councilors are supposed to be doing? Are these the methods they should be using?
Just because they can, does not mean they should.
>>>RECORD OF LAND OWNERS CORRESPONDANCE
Date |
Verbal / Written |
Landowner message to Town Representative |
Meeting / Correspondence |
Town Representative |
Aug 25, 2021 |
Written |
Town notifies us that they have identified our land as being impacted by their proposed service corridor |
- |
- |
Sep 9, 2021 |
Verbal |
We support solar but will not sell our land |
In person, formal meeting |
Deputy CAO, Maureen Hughes |
Oct 6, 2021 |
Verbal |
We support solar but will not sell our land |
In person, formal meeting |
CAO, Dylan Hyde |
Between Oct 9, 2021 and Jan 27, 2022 |
Verbal |
We support solar but will not sell our land |
In person, by chance informal |
Deputy Mayor, Francis Kangata |
Jan 27, 2022 |
- |
Town Council votes to use private land for power corridor - requiring expropriation:
|
- |
- |
Feb 10, 2022 |
Verbal |
We support solar but will not sell our land |
In person formal meeting |
Deputy Mayor, Francis Kangata |
Mar 8, 2022 |
Written |
Town notifies us that they decided to use our land for power corridor at Jan 27 meeting |
- |
- |
Mar 8, 2022 |
Written |
We will not sell our land |
Letter from landowner's lawyer |
CAO/Mayor/Council |
Apr 14, 2022 |
Written |
Letter from town - second last sentence "Should expropriation be necessary you can be assured that you will be fairly compensated. |
- |
- |
May 10, 2022 |
Written |
We will not sell our land
|
Letter from landowner's lawyer |
CAO/Mayor/Council |
May 26, 2022 |
Written |
Letter from town in response to letter of May 10, 2022 - "Expropriation may be needed to establish an easement for a service corridor to this site if acceptable compensation cannot be negotiated to the satisfaction of property owners." "Town Council has made the determination to proceed with the selected site and service corridor route in consideration of all relevant factors and alternatives." |
- |
- |
May 31, 2022 |
- |
Town Council votes to approve road construction plan on private land - requiring expropriation
|
- |
- |
Aug 2, 2022 |
CBC interview with Mayor |
Mayor Devenne's comment on Expropriation:
|
- |
- |
|
|
CONTACT YOUR TOWN COUNCIL DIRECTLY AND ASK FOR MORE ACCOUNTABILITY!
|