Livingston County Democrats are urging voters to decline to sign petitions supporting a ballot proposal that would make it harder for farmers to lease their land for clean energy projects.
The county party’s executive committee adopted a resolution supporting clean energy and opposing the Citizens for Local Choice ballot proposal. That proposal would repeal laws giving the Michigan Public Services Commission the power to approve sites for commercial solar and wind power operations.
“Livingston County Democrats are supporting the freedom of local farmers to host clean energy projects. At the same time, we want to protect the health of our planet and people, both of which are threatened by the use of dirty fuels,” said Judy Daubenmier, chair of the Livingston County Democratic Party. “As Earth Day approaches, this is a good time to reiterate our support for protecting our planet.”
The resolution states that many Michigan farmers are interested in leasing their land to solar power operations to earn additional income, making it possible for future generations to afford to keep family farms.
But the ballot proposal, if adopted, would interfere with farmers’ freedom to use their property as they see fit when no harm results to their neighbors, the resolutions states.
That’s because false claims that clean energy causes pollution have been spread by opponents of clean power, leading at least 26 governmental bodies in Michigan to pass zoning ordinances that effectively prevent the construction and operation of solar and wind operations, according to the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.
The resolution notes that generating electricity from clean sources such as solar and wind is now cheaper than generating it from dirty sources such as fossil fuels, according to the Energy Initiative of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Electricity from clean energy can save Michigan households $145 a year on electricity bills, according to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, the resolution notes.
In addition, EGLE projects that expanding clean energy in Michigan can create 160,000 jobs and bring Michigan up to $8 billion in federal tax dollars.
The resolution states that that public services commission already has the power to determine routes for pipelines and the sites of other energy transmission facilities, so clean energy projects should be no different.
Energy providers are required to negotiate with local communities before approaching the MPSC, the resolution notes. They also are required to provide communities generous payments for hosting clean energy facilities, saving taxpayers money, it adds.
The resolution was adopted at the party’s March 28 meeting.
Well said Mark.
This is not a partisan issue, it’s about people who live in the community making the decisions about their community.
Judy, I have to disagree with your opinion and that of the Livingston County Democrats. First this is not a partisan issue. According to a Michigan Township Association opinion poll conducted in October 2023 by Market Resource Group, LLC, on the issue of state control of siting wind and solar, 87 percent of those who participated agree that local control of the siting of renewable energy should remain at the local level. Eighty-five percent of Democrats, 91 percent of Republicans, and 84 percent of Independents support local control.
The argument you should be able to do whatever you want with your property is a fundamental property right. We are protecting the right of a farmer to do what they want with their land. The right to do what you want with your land has limitations where there are zoning regulations in place. Don’t get me wrong, property rights are fundamental and a bedrock in our nation. Where zoning exists, to do what you want you need to seek out property that allows your desired use.
Local governments, under their zoning authority, have the zoning power to regulate and protect the health, safety, and welfare of their community and residents.
PA 233 set a 50-foot setback distance from a nonparticipating property owner’s lot line. This 50-foot setback distance will cause some property owners to be surrounded by 7-foot fences on two or even three sides of their property lines. No screening, berms, or greater distances will be possible. If it’s a wind tower that falls over, the regulations allow it to fall on neighboring nonparticipating property. Local governments work to prevent these abuses, but not anymore.
If you happen to only listen to a radio or watch over the air antenna television at your home, you need to be concerned with a large-scale industrial solar facility. PA 233 contains a hold-harmless provision that only requires the developer to minimize and mitigate the interference impact.
No longer will a local community have a say where the development of wind or solar may occur unless the community adopts a compatible ordinance that mirrors PA 233. Now, three bureaucrats in Lansing will make all decisions throughout Michigan. One size does not fit all and is not for Michigan.
Industry operators wrote Public Act 233 to maximize their profits at the expense of local communities. There is nothing wrong with requiring larger setbacks with greenbelt requirements or requiring developers to build developments that do not impact drainage and flooding nearby properties when farm tiles are broken.
I could go on. Industrial solar facilities can be two, three, or in the Battle Creek area 5 square miles. This would fundamentally change a community. I say let local people have a say in what their community looks like. Sign the Citizens for Local Choice petition and let the people of Michigan decide.
Mark Fosdick
Fowlerville