More on the Kenney vs. MPAC case

This is a guest blog entry by Roger Short

It appears that some people are never satisfied, no matter how fair the outcome, nor how much they irritate (former) friends while costing them and others in the process.

The issue has to do with a retired couple, both former Civil Servants, who objected to wind turbines on Wolfe Island a couple of years after start up.

They asserted that their property had suffered devaluation as a direct consequence of the turbines being installed (strictly according to regulations, by the way).  They then raised a formal complaint against The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the Township of Frontenac using Ontario's Assessment Review Board and asked for their property assessment, and thereby taxes, be reduced.

The finding after considerable investigation, was that  the current value of the property was fair and consistent.

A day or two after the decision, one of the complainants was interviewed on CBC radio on the matter.  He repeated that the hearing was biased, that the defendants had each used high-powered lawyers to make their case and that he was left with little support.

Specifically, as part of his rationale, he asserted along the lines, "....well, properties always go up, don't they?"

During the radio interview, it was evident that he was devoid of solid facts to make his case. There was plenty of subjective opinion, but without any consideration of the large body of independent expert work supporting the view that real estate valuations are unaffected.

The complainants apparently had it in mind for years, and had been opposed to the Project as part of a small group of Opponents.  In this instance they had insisted on getting a letter stating that their taxes would be reduced, and that the cause was the Wind Turbines. 

As part of the appeal process, before the decision was handed down, a specific noise study was carried out.   We have learned that over an 8 week period, the results confirmed the noise model information and that the level was 37dBA.

What was left unsaid was that it cost the Township $40,000 in expenses, while it cost the defendants  virtually nothing.  When asked in the same interview what they planned to do next, he replied along the lines of, "we'll probably appeal, it will only cost $150 to file and try again".

What this suggests is that they have estranged former friends, cost the Township time and money, ignored what "a reasonable person" might have accepted, and are all set to waste more public time and money, regardless of its merits but probably rather to quell their frustration.

You be the judge.

Wind turbines don't affect property assessment

Toronto Star
John Spears
April 09, 2012

A Wolfe Island coupleʼs argument that nearby wind turbines significantly

decreased their homeʼs value has been rejected by Ontarioʼs assessment

review board.

The appeal by Ed and Gail Kenney was being closely watched in rural

Ontario, where turbine developments have provoked both support and

opposition in local communities.

But the board said the Kenneys had failed to prove that the turbines scattered

around their waterfront home have reduced its value.

“Weʼre incredibly disappointed,” Ed Kenney said in an interview.

“Weʼre not dissuaded,” he said. “We have concerns that our rights to fair and

unbiased representation in the face of a province completely driven by the

current agenda have been trampled.”

MPAC, the Municipal Property Assessment Corp., assessed the property

near Kingston, Ont., at $357,000 in 2009.

That was up from the earlier level of $200,000, which had been set before a major wind power development came to Wolfe Island.

The Kenneys, both in their 70s, have been fighting the assessment ever since.

There are three turbines within a kilometre of their home, and 27 within three kilometres. Wolfe Island has 86 turbines in all, concentrated on the west end of the island, where they catch the winds sweeping the length of Lake Ontario.

The Kenneys say noise from the turbines forces them to keep their windows closed, even in summer.

They say the sound ranges from a low swoosh to the noise made by a jet plane flying overhead — but one that never passes.

But MPAC told the review board that proximity to wind turbines is not built into the model the corporation uses to assess properties.

While the Kenneys — who represented themselves at the hearings — said both their health and property values were affected by the turbines and their noise, the review board rejected their pleas.

“The board finds there is no evidence before this panel of the board to show the effect, if any, that these concerns have had on the current value of the Kenneysʼ property.”

The sides had informal talks about a possible settlement during the hearings, Ed Kenney said, but MPAC had insisted that any settlement agreement should have no mention of wind turbines. In the end, no agreement was reached and the case was decided by a two-member review board panel.

The Kenneys are considering whether to appeal the decision, which he says contains factual errors. For example, he said, it refers to his 0.72-acre property as a “farm.” It also says the property has a barn and a detached garage. Kenney says he has neither. The case would go to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

John Andrew, real estate professor at Queenʼs Universityʼs School of Business, said the decision by the review board isnʼt surprising.

Putting a value on external factors like wind turbines, a nearby airport, or concentrations of student housing can be tricky, he said in an interview.

“People could run to MPAC and say: ʻHey, Iʼve got a whole bunch of student houses on my street and theyʼre partying ʼtil one in the morning and my property value should reflect that,ʼ ” Andrew said.

The marketplace does actually price those factors in for properties where there are lots of sales, he said.

But thatʼs not necessarily the case with wind turbines.

“When youʼre talking about a rural community with very few transactions, thereʼs no mechanism for the market to price that properly,” Andrew said. “It would have been a slippery slope. It would have opened the floodgates for a whole bunch of appeals.”