For every appraisal there is an equal and opposite appraisal

In the last few weeks, Ben Lansink released two documents on the Wind Concerns Ontario and Ontario Wind Resistance websites.  Mr. Lansink is an accredited appraiser and declares that his documents have been published without prejudice and that they are fair, impartial analyses. 

Other than his accreditation, nothing could be further from the truth.

We'll expose his bias in three sections:

         1. Motivation

         2. Data manipulation

         3. Omission of Press influence

1. Lansink's motivation

Mr. Lansink's firm specializes in creating evidence for law suits involving perceived losses in property value.  It's called "diminution".  It’s typically used in expropriation cases, where the appellant is attempting to increase the payment for their property. 

According to his website, "Ben specializes in Diminution in Value analyses and the resulting Injurious Affection. His assignments include proximity to airports, hydro power transmission corridors, land fill sites, wind turbines, roads and road works, as well as contaminated land and buildings including urea formaldehyde foam insulation".

So, a logical question might be, “Why would Mr. Lansink choose to perform all this research and then initially publish it on the Ontario Wind Resistance and Wind Concerns Ontario websites?” An impartial expert with solid balanced arguments might have considered developing more traction by using either the mainstream press or reputable academic journals or magazines to present his case.

The answer to this question may come from the relationship between Mr. Lansink and Eric Gillespie, and Mr. Gillespie’s relationship with wind opponents.  Eric Gillespie is the lawyer who has acted for a host of wind opponents and is closely associated with Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO). There have been a number of lawsuits launched recently by Mr. Gillespie against wind developers and their hosting landowners; all of which include property devaluation as part of the argument (e.g. Wiggins v. Fairview, Norfolk Wind Concerns v. UDI Renewables, Parent v. River Canard Energy).

Eric Gillespie and Ben Lansink appear to have assisted a common client in the past (Red Hill Valley Neighbourhood Association) and Mr. Gillespie refers to Lansink’s work in a letter to Canada’s Attorney General.

In addition, at least one source has described Mr. Lansink's presentation to an anti-wind group in which he confirmed his association with Mr. Gillespie.

Given this information it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Lansink’s report is intended to support Mr. Gillespie’s initiatives in the courts and wind opponents’ public position. Whether they are “fair and impartial” is another question that may only be answered in the courts   

2. Lansink's manipulation of data

Mr. Lansink appears to be selective with the limited data he uses in his case studies and presents, as a basis for his conclusions, information from a few isolated home sales.   This would be in contrast with following the most basic notions of random sampling or full transactional analysis from which solid impartial experts typically derive their conclusions.

In Melancthon, for example, he chooses five properties that were bought by a developer (Canadian Hydro Developers - CHD) and then sold after the project was completed. He cloaks those situations as a classic buy-resell case study and attempts to create a valuation based on the following methodology:

1.    Assume that the purchase price was at fair market value.  In truth, CHD purchased all properties at over 50% premium to market values – as represented by MPAC assessment data (Table 1).

Table 1 Sales price vs. assessment value for Lansink’s Melancthon properties (1^st sale)

Property	Sale price	Sale date	Assessment	Assess. Year	Price/Assessment
1	$302,670	17aug2007	$232,000	2007	1.30
2	$299,000	01jun2005	$195,000	2005	1.53
3	$500,000	15nov2007	$293,000	2008	1.71
4	$305,000	29dec2006	$216,000	2006	1.41
5	$350,000	30oct2007	$182,000	2007	1.92
Weighted Average					1.57

Source: Lansink, MPAC

         

2. Assign a price escalator from "comparable" markets - in this case the greater Dufferin area.  However, the greater Dufferin area includes Orangeville, a market that's been on fire as a sleeper for Toronto, as well as Amaranth, a sleeper for Orangeville.  As a result, Lansink’s calculation of the increase of value due to the passage of time may be aggressive.

3. Assume that the properties were also sold at fair market value.  In aggregate, this may be close to the truth.  CHD had used a number of the properties for their project staff for a couple of years, lowering their cost of housing staff and construction workers, versus hotel, motel and travel alternatives.  Once the project was fully commissioned the operator had little on-going use for the properties and sold them.

In three cases, the properties either sold at their asking price or close to their assessed value (Table 2). 

Table 2 Sales prices vs. assessment value for Lansink’s Melancthon properties (2^nd sale)

Property	Sale price	Sale date	Assessment	Assess. Year	Price/Assessment
1	$215,000	27mar2010	$215,000	2010	0.82
2	$250,000	19jun2012	$318,000	2012	0.79
3	$288,400	12nov2009	$293,000	2008*	0.98*
4	$278,000	03aug2009	$228,750	2009	1.22
5	$175,000	16sep2010	$173,334	2010	1.01
Weighted Average					0.95

Source: Lansink, MPAC

* Assessment data not available for 2009

Two properties were likely sold below market value because of their uniquely heightened association with wind turbines.  Wind opponents who used these transactions to create a firestorm of media coverage that detailed their perceived health problems dramatically highlighted that association.  A search of the seller’s name + wind on the Internet yields over 500 citations.  One is actually used in the Lansink document.  Obviously, wind opponents’ actions devalued these properties by their unsupported statements.  Selling that house after such a mauling in the press would be like selling a haunted house.

In contrast, a search of the successful buyers’ names yields no mentions of any such complaints.

One case study "analysis" is highly suspect.  The original landowner was holding up an OMB hearing that was ruling on CHD's project.  In the hearing, CHD had made adjustments to the project in accord with the concerns of the municipalities and other landowners.  For this particular landowner CHD agreed to purchase his property (OMB PL0605653 Minutes of Settlement).  The residence condition was deemed uninhabitable and was subsequently demolished.  This fact was omitted in Lansink's appraisal.  He compares the above market price of the property when originally purchased with the market value price of the raw land when it was subsequently sold.

Of course, there remains the question about the hundred or so other transactions that occurred in the area in that time frame.  Those transactions were conventional single buyer-seller transactions, much like those included in the following analysis, but they were excluded for some reason.   A subsequent blog will explore these transactions in more detail.

So, in summary, the prices paid by CHD for these properties were sufficiently over-market to negate all the claims of devaluation stated by Lansink, and the sample used so small and selective that the conclusions drawn were clearly biased and wrong.

In Clear Creek, Mr. Lansink chooses seven properties that were sold in the area of a project.  In contrast with his previous methodology described above, only two were buy-sell situations.  A number of obvious questions arise:

1. Were these the only properties sold? Were other properties, at similar distances from turbines, sold in the area (e.g. Jacksonburg, Houghton Centre, Hemlock)?

         2. Is the residential price index for the broader county relevant to this group of properties?

         3. Did wind opponents pollute their property values through their hysterical reactions to the media?

If these properties are truly indicative of the nature of sales in the micro-area, then there may be evidence of diminution.  However, this is another area that was ground zero for health effect claims.  A group called "Norfolk Victims of Industrial Wind Turbines” had extensive press coverage.  A search for the leader of the group ("stephana johnston"+wind) yields over 800 citations.  As one commentator noted, " Also, Stephana Johnston, 81 has now guaranteed no one will buy her house as she's publicly stated that the turbines make it impossible [for her] to sleep there."

We are analyzing the Clear Creek transactions and will publish more conclusions in a further post.

3. The influence of media's amplification of wind opponent hysteria

A number of independent appraisals were performed in the early to middle stages of wind turbine development in Ontario, for example:

         • Stantec for Canadian Hydro Developers [Melancthon], 2006

• Blake, Matlock & Marshal for Windrush Energy [Melancthon, East Luther], 2006

         • S. Rayner for Canadian Hydro Developers [Wolfe Island], 2007

         • University of Guelph Master of Science Thesis [Melancthon], 2009

         • Canning & Simmons for CanWEA [Chatham Kent], 2010

         • Assessment Review Board ruling on Kenney property [Wolfe Island], 2012

Outside of Ontario, a 2009 landmark study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that “Home sales prices are very sensitive to the overall quality of the scenic vista from a property, but a view of a wind energy facility does not demonstrably impact sales prices”.

All of these studies found no significant reduction in property values before and after the project was constructed. 

However, as wind projects were proposed for cottage areas such as Prince Edward County, the Huron coastline and Grey Highlands, opposition began to grow using bogus logic, and biased media intensity increased.  The umbrella organization Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) represented most, if not all, of the wind action groups (WAG's).   WCO had sophisticated members and access to professionals (e.g. PR, medical, legal, engineering, etc.) whose cottages, in many cases, were located near these developments.  Within a few months they had developed a very sophisticated and effective PR campaign.  However, in our opinion, these professionals took license with their credentials by not disclosing their cottage locations and by posting opinions that were frequently outside their training.

As an illustration, a search in Google Trends for Ontario reveals a strong and sustained campaign from early 2009 to the present.

Figure 1: Google Trends search for the term “wind concerns Ontario”

Source: Google Trends

Since these WAG's had no evidence that was specific to projects planned near them, they shone a bright light on existing projects.  Anyone with a complaint was sure to be introduced to newspapers, television and radio; and invited to speak at scores of anti-wind lectures throughout Ontario.  As noted earlier, some of those press mentions added up in the hundreds.  Many of them, and their previously unknown small community names (e.g. Melancthon, Ripley, Clear Creek, etc.) became well known.  It is conceivable that this type of media coverage placed downward pressure on property values in a few places.  In contrast, other projects built in the same time frame, such as Chatham Kent and Prince garnered relatively few complaints and little press coverage.

In subsequent legal challenges and Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) decisions (almost totally represented by Eric Gillespie), not a single case has substantiated any of the claims of adverse health effects.  In fact, health claims seem to have been removed from recent ERT's by the appellants.  Importantly, in cases where residences were sold on the market or purchased by developers and then re-sold, there has always been a willing buyer and no media mentions of complaints of adverse health effects.  Lansink suggests that those buyers have been legally gagged, but no one is able to sign away their rights of redress under common law.  If they were provably suffering, they would still have some form of recourse.

* * *

In summary, Lansink's analysis appears to be significantly biased. While he may turn up some isolated examples of property devaluation, Lansink has failed to show that wind turbines have widespread negative impact on property values.  Moreover, there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that those suffering from psychogenic symptoms (I.e. those that originate in the mind) may have inadvertently been the root cause of their loss.  They certainly had lots of help from hundreds of activists who used these people, described as "victims", to keep proposed projects from their back yard.  And, some of the media, sensing a good conflict, fanned the flames.

Wind turbine worker threatened with gun

(Rick Bowmer/Associated Press)

CBC News

July 31, 2012

West Grey Police are investigating alleged threats against a worker, who says he had a shotgun pulled on him while working on a wind turbine site northeast of London, Ont.

Police are also investigating threatening phone calls the man says he received.

Jeff Damen was doing preliminary work at the site of a proposed wind farm in the community of West Grey, near London last week when he says a red pickup truck pulled alongside his vehicle and the driver asked what he was doing.

After Damen explained the work he was doing, the driver pulled out a gun, Damen said.

"He reached over his back seat, and pulled out a shotgun, pointed it at me and stated, 'Why don't you leave us all alone? If I catch you back here again, I'm going to kill you,'" Damen said.

Damen was unable to get a licence plate number. It was covered by a folded down tailgate.

West Grey Police Const. Janet Shumaker said Damen was alone at the time of the alleged incident but the police are taking the matter seriously.

"This is the first time something like this has ever happened," Shumaker said.

Damen said he then received some cryptic phone calls Monday.

"They stated they know where I live and know what I do," he said. "That's pretty much how they left it and hung up."

The father of two, who lives in a rural area, said he has had some sleepless nights.

Bill Palmer opposes wind farms and claims the province refuses to listen to health and safety concerns. So he's not surprised tempers are flaring over wind farms.

"That's unfortunate. I mean I hate to see that happen, but it's what happens when you divide society," Palmer said.

Damen said it's not the first time he's been confronted in his field of work.

"I have encountered verbal attacks, personally to me, regarding wind, but it has never escalated to this point," he said. "This has gone to a new level of my safety, for sure."

Shumaker said police continue to investigate.

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.

When tears are not enough

Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group Withdraws ERT Appeal


On March 1, 2011 the appellant, in the second Renewable Energy Approval (REA) appeal to have come before the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT), withdrew its appeal.  Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group was appealing the REA that had been granted to Zephyr Farms Ltd. for their Brooke-Alvinston Wind Farm project in the County of Lambton.


As usual, each side in the case have different interpretations of what happened in the proceedings and what the rulings mean.


Fogler, Rubinoff LLP, who were counsel for the REA holder, made the following points on their environmental law blog :

In Reasons for Decision on a motion brought in Ontario’s second REA hearing released on February 29, 2012, the ERT confirmed that medical records of an REA Appellant’s lay witnesses who claim serious health effects due to proximity to wind turbines would appear to be highly relevant to an REA Appellant’s case. 

The ERT further confirmed that: 

1) all such medical records must be provided at the 3 week disclosure point set out in Appendix A to the ERT’s Rules, so that the other Parties can determine if they need to include other witnesses, expert or otherwise, along with their statements, at the 5.5 week disclosure point; 

2) that specific, relevant facts, such as the location where each lay witness lives in relation to a turbine project, information about each wind turbine project, measured noise levels at each location, and the specific symptoms and particular medical conditions suffered by each individual, must be stated in the summary of evidence due at the 3 week disclosure point as well; 

3) the ERT’s rules provide that lay witnesses are only permitted to give testimony with respect to facts as they observe them and are not permitted to express opinions on medical diagnoses or the causes of disease; and 

4) the usual way of presenting opinions on medical diagnoses or the causes of disease is through qualified medical experts who are familiar with the medical histories of the individuals and knowledgeable about the etiology of the disease those individuals suffer from.

In other words, if one side or the other is calling a lay witness (someone without relevant credentials) they must also present corroborating evidence from qualified experts.

To date, there has been no communication from Eric Gillespie, counsel for the appellant, regarding the ERT Decision.  However, Harvey Wrightman, of the Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group, provided a statement to Wind Concerns Ontario.

Wednesday, February 29, the ERT released a decision that has been very helpful for understanding what appellants need to bring before the Tribunal in order to be successful.

1) The Tribunal confirmed that the testimony of residents is important and will be accepted.

2) The Tribunal has indicated that certain additional documentation will assist them in making their decision. It is much better to have a clear directive from the Tribunal before the hearing rather than at, or after the full hearing has taken place.

It is clear that it will not be possible to obtain and organize documents for witnesses prior to the start date of the Zephyr appeal, which is currently scheduled for March 7^th.  While we have an impressive staff, they cannot perform a Biblical miracle - i.e., produce in 6 days all the 23 witnesses' medical records for the past 10 years.

As a result, after consulting with the research team and counsel, the appellant, Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group Inc. has decided to withdraw the current Zephyr appeal.

In a subsequent entry, we'll condense what the Directors of the ERT had to say about this.