Solar park house 'destroyed' in East Hawkesbury

Police estimate $25,000 in damage; Spray-painted message reads "solar not on prime farm land"
Vandals damage farmhouse in East Hawkesbury
Farm house damaged in East Hawkesbury
vandalism in East Hawkesbury
Vandalism in East Hawkesbury
Vandalism in East Hawkesbury

Slideshow Button

A farmhouse in East Hawkesbury was severely vandalized in recent months and spray-painted with the message, "Solar: not on prime farm land."

The farmhouse is on land purchased in mid-July by Solaris Energy Partners Inc., an Ottawa-based company which sold the property to a larger developer, Enfinity Canada, in September.

The damage, reported to Hawkesbury police by Enfinity on October 16, is estimated at more than $25,000.

The destroyed property is located on one of two East Hawkesbury sites where Enfinity plans to build its Stardale solar park next spring.

Opposition to Stardale by local farmers and provincial farm groups sparked a series of Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearings this past spring, which eventually approved the developer's plans.

On November 26, The Review visited the ruined farmhouse, joined by former landowner Sidney MacCallum. His family had managed the 115-acre property as a dairy farm for over 100 years.

The family house's brick wall had been torn down while its windows and interior walls had been smashed. Debris was strewn across the house along with animal feces and calf bones; the floorboards were ripped apart and washroom fixtures were missing. Two barrels of oil were also left in the front entrance.

Empty bottles of alcohol were also found on the property.

On the outside of the house was spray-painted the word "solar," while painted in block letters on the barn's roof was the phrase, "Solar not on prime farm land."

MacCallum said he believed opponents to the solar park had done the initial damage, but suspected thieves equally took advantage of the unsecured property.

The phrasing of the graffiti is the exact same as on signs displayed on properties and roads across East Hawkesbury.

"I have a hard time understanding how anyone can be so insensitive, and so disrespectful and really, so bold as to walk in on private property and do what they've done here," said MacCallum. "There is no excuse for that."

Representatives of the "no solar on prime farm land" opposition campaign have denied any involvement in the vandalism.

Robin Hutcheson, press liaison for Solaris Energy Partners, said the opposition to the Stardale project "was the worst scenario for public opposition" in his experience and has "gone on long enough."

"There have been so many concessions made to [opponents] to hide this park from anyone's view," said Hutcheson, adding the eight to ten-foot solar panels will be blocked from view. "If you can't see the park, hiding between berms and hedge rows, what more to you want to do to this thing?"
He added the opponents "signed on" to such conditions at the time of the OMB hearings, and that initial concerns like stray voltage were proven to be impossible by independent engineers; the panels are connected to the distribution grid, not the customer grid, he noted.

Investigators at the Hawkesbury OPP are investigating the crime, though have confirmed that the damage likely took place on several occasions.
According to the Canadian Criminal Code, vandalism exceeding $5,000 in damage can carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

Chris Young, general manager at Enfinity Canada, said there are new leads that have developed as a result of recent media attention.

With regard to security measures at the site, Young said there would be no additional security as a result of the vandalism. The security during and after construction, however, will be in line with general measures at any construction site or solar park: "They are high-security installations, and we do have things like infra-red cameras, alarm system, and security patrols. It's a case of ‘every market has its own issues,' and we take measures to protect our property."

The Stardale project will generate 30 megawatts of power, enough to supply about 5,400 homes. It was approved under the Ontario Power Authority's former renewable energy standard offer program (RESOP). The new legislation applies to the new feed-in tariff program, one that will likely attract more interest in rural Ontario, according to Solaris. Ontario has since passed legislation that bans solar park development over 100 kilowatts on class 1 and 2 farmland, though Hutcheson and Young said it wouldn't apply to the East Hawkesbury project in any case.

The MacCallum farm is certified as class 3.

Hutcheson said one possible plan for the farmhouse was to convert it into an energy-efficient model of alternative energy in historic homes; it might have also acted as a monument to the family, as well as a tourist attraction and open house for students.

"The day that I that I saw [the vandalism], I was heartbroken as to the opportunity that was lost - not to mention the legacy the MacCallum family has lost," he said.

"It was Sidney's late father, Guy, who told me he was really happy his farm was being turned over for future generations, as a ‘climate change positive' project. For a guy in his nineties, I found it remarkable that this was his perspective on the matter."

Both Hutcheson and Young said any educational or office plans for the site have now been suspended - a situation which leaves MacCallum dissapointed.

"The company wanted to have the house remain as a model green energy house, to welcome class trips and school groups. Now with the property destroyed, it's not likely to happen."


Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Comments

cost of solar energy

Besides everything else as far as I can see the government is subsidizing solar energy by not charging the real transportation cost on its lines. The price is artificially low because there is capacity on the lines now because of the poor economy. But if ever there is more demand they will have to build new transmission lines since the capacity will have been "rented" low-term to solar and other alternative energies. Anyway I am totally against vandalism, especially this kind of disgusting vandalism.

solar energy is positive

People who complain about this renewable energy should realize that growing corn to be used for fuel is scarier for our environment. Farmers will have to change their way of thinking and realize that a acre of soya feeds more people than land used for raising beef. Food will be a commodity and if we can save carbon usage we will a win in the long run. Maybe using prime farming land is not the answer when they could of used an old airstrip in St-Eugene.

Where does soybeans grow then?

You completely contradict yourself in this comment. Growing corn is bad, but soybeans is good. Where do we grow the soybeans???? On farmland, a lot of which is in Eastern Ontario, and was the last crop grown on the proposed solar site, which is now sitting idle growing weeds and contaminiating neighbouring farms with the weed seeds. Perhaps take an agriculutre course before you criticise.

Solar Energy

Not sure what the issue is with solar energy, and why there can be anybody against it to the point where they will result to vandalism. Perhaps it's a reflection of our society's attachment to agriculture and the reason we're in the dire straits we're in today. It's because of industrial agriculture that we're experiencing many of the economic and environmental issues we're facing today.

Using solar energy to counter the effects caused by agriculture is a small step to attack the environmental problems we face today. Not to say that all agriculture is "bad" as there are many organic farms that are also trying to make a difference. I suspect that many of the farmers opposed to solar or any sort of solution don't really give a darn about the environment and operate their farms for the almighty dollar - which I could get into here, but, it's this quest for the almighty dollar which is the root of our present economy. If you delve into it deep enough, our economy was derived from our agrarian roots. And that is in fact the real problem.

I have noticed that there are

I have noticed that there are no names signed to any of the comments, well I will sign my name at the end of my comment. I cannot express the sadness I feel looking at these pictures, this farm was where my father was born and raised; as a matter of fact he is buried in the cemetery next to it. I will never again be able to visit either of my parent’s graves again without having these pictures in my head. Both my parents were born and raised in the St. Eugene and Vankleek Hill area and although we have been away from the area for years I continued to love it and shared many memories with my husband, my son and my grandchildren. It was a place of joy. I never went up to visit my parents (and ancestor’s graves) without visiting this beautiful part of the country, even the Fair has been part of my life, my son’s life and my grandchildren’s life. I have always been so proud to be part of this very special community, it was a place that always brought peace to our lives – no matter what was going on we could go and visit Mom & Dad. Well, no more! This has nothing to do with your "Solar: not on prime farm land" and everything to do with destruction. This has everything to do with destruction of a 100+ year home and just take a good look at the pictures and tell me that this was because someone was angry with "Solar: not on prime farm land". How can anyone excuse this!!!! If someone does not like the color of a house, a new door, a new garage or the vegetable patch is in the wrong place – will this give you the right to destroy something that DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. This is a very sad day and it will take a very long time to feel the same way about this area. Jill McCallum Giasson

Solar is just a different crop

Thank God these crazy people don't go after every farmer or landowner who is using their prime agriculture property to do whatever they want to do with it. Because it's not all being as these crazys would have everyone think. Solar, how I see it, is just farming the harvest directly from the sun 12 months of the year, with really shiny equipment.

Farmers. Get over yourselves.

Farmers. Get over yourselves. The world does not revolve around you and your beliefs. Yes, I know, Farmers Feed Cities Blah Blah Blah. Who makes your fertilizer? Who makes your tractors? Who makes the things you buy? People. That's who. As Sid MacCallum said, have the same respect for other people as they have for you. I HOPE YOUR CROPS FAIL.

Solar park vandalism

This is the essence of terrorism, to use whatever extortive means you can to beat out a victory, or avenge a loss. If what I have read and heard is true about the anti-solar activists' behaviour, then they should be truly ashamed. I found some of their arguments a little inventive and over the top, but if they truly want to protect the land, they shouldn't ally themselves with criminals. That's no way to get support.

Too Far!

This has gone way too far. I hope that the OPP finds and punishes anyone involved in this. YOU did not destroy a SOLAR Project.... YOU Destroyed the home of your former neighbour. All this has done is shread your credability and ensured that when construction starts security will be high. YOU have caused this to spin out of control and if YOU had any moral bone in your body, YOU would come clean and Restore that which YOU have destroyed. The Community is ANGRY with YOU and do not expect them to keep silent, because Word always gets around, and Someone WILL Say something.. and YOU will be found out.

Vandalism at the proposed solar park site

Seems that Solaris Energy, unlike the previous owner of MacCullum property, is incapbable of effectively ensuring it against tresspass or theft. This public-private firm's lack of incentive is not surprising: physical and financial downsides of their enterprise are socialized among hapless taxpayers. If the firm really valued the house and out-buildings as much as their PR man Mr. Hutcheson claim they did, why did the firm not take some precaution against this outcome and why did it take so long to report the damage to the authorities? Cutting through the Mr. Hutechson's tiresome rhetoretic, I wonder how much insurance coverage Solaris had on the "valuable" dwelling building and "valuable" detached private structures?? Was there any security system anywhere on the property? Perhaps his employer was unaware that Costco sells a pretty good one for about $700. The interview with the previous owner is rather odd. The past owner cared so much about his family heritage that he hadn't been back in months and was surprised to see what had happened? Give me a break. Given that individuals were told at the MacCallum auction sale that everything was going to be torn down, the present situation was entirely forseeable. Perhaps this was the plan all along -- it gives rise to a lovely public relations stunt abetted unwittingly by journalists employed by small town newspaper publishers. Hopefully the perpetrators of the crime in East Hawkesbury will be caught and be punished to the full extent of the law, but I for one am not holding my breath. A far more hainous and hurtful crime is obvious: The destruction of inter-personal and family relationships in a small rural community because of government interventionism in the market for electricity in Ontario.

perfect.

This write up couldn't have said it better.

The destruction of

The destruction of inter-personal and family relationships was caused by certain small minded residents in East Hawkesbury, not the government. What the government is doing in this case for electricity is right on. I'm not a McGuinty fan at all, but this program is exactly what we need to encourage other forms of electricity supply in Canada/Ontario. WE also need this type of investment in our area desperately. Although the up front economic benefits to this project are somewhat limited, they are a lot better then some farmer planting corn on this land. Look in the papers at all the layoffs in the region. Don't you think that we need all the investment possible????? How many jobs would have been created if the farmer next door would have got the land? Agriculture will always be our main economic engine in this area, but when we have a chance to diversify our economic base a little we should, especially in cutting edge, growing industries.

The Destruction of ...

Almost every sentence of your reply is incorrect. [1] There would be no solar farm if the Ontario government could not guarantee $0.42/kwh to Solaris Energy Partners. In the absence government guaranteeing that taxpayers and consumers will be on the hook for costs, large scale generatation of electricity through photovoltaic cells is completely uneconomic. The interference in the marketplace for electricity prompts landowners to exploit an opportunity that otherwise would not exist, and this is the basis of the conflict in East Hawkesbury. [2] The currently renewable electricity policy in Ontario is counterproductive. It is diverting financial and physical resources away from more productive applications for use in the generation of solar electricity, which in the absense of the policy, would be a egregious money losing activity. The forseeable result with the current policy is that taxes in Ontario will be higher, electicitricity prices in Ontario will be higher, there will be fewer goods and services produced in Ontario, which implies individuals trying to earn a living in the private sector in Ontario will be made worse off. [3] Who are "we" that "need" to encourage other forms of electricity in Ontario? The price system does this if the provincial government allowed it to function freely. It is obvious that prices to date have been fixed by central authorities at too low a level. As at March 31, 2009, total debt and liabilities of the Ontario Electricity Financial Corportation were $30.5 billion, with total debt at $27.6 billion. How do you think this financial liability came about and who do you think is going to pay for it?? Here is an idea: Why don't "we" pay for the electricity that "we" have already consumed. Pay "our" bills and take some individual responsiblity instead of pleading for government to support of an even more expensive means of producing electricity by burdening current and future taxpayers and consumers. [4] The provincial government can only make the "investment" in East Hawkesbury come about by first taking resources from someone else somewhere else in the province. While I did not do too well in physics at VCI, I seem to recall that you cannot take water out of the deep end of a swimming pool and dump it in the shallow end with the expectation that the water level will rise. Coroparte welfare to a photovoltaic energy supplier in East Hawkesbury can only come about by an increase in takings through taxes or by higher electricity prices. Whose taxes would you like the government to increase? How does this make *everyone* better off? Answer: It doesn't. [5] While some individuals stand to gain (and have already gained), the current policy produces only overall losses. Despite attempts to invalidate this argument, this fact remains indisputable: In the absense of government interference, forces are at work which tend to put every means of production to the use in which it is most beneficial for the satisfaction of human wants. When central authorities interfere with this process in order to bring about a different use of the productive factors it can only impair the supply, it cannot improve it. The upshot is that "we" do not need all the investment possible in East Hawkesbury. What is needed is less government and more individual freedom so that individuals can produce and consume what they want, where they want, how they want, when they want, all at a mutually agreeable price. This is the only way by which wealth can be created. [6] Taxpayer financied solar projects may create jobs, but the proper question is, do they create wealth? McGuinty could easily reduce the unemployment rate in Ontario to 0% by mandating that every unemployed citizen shovel dirt at some provincial project without pay. Employment alone is not a good indicator of economic success; overall wealth is. Even if governemnt spending can "create jobs," creating jobs alone does nothing for our provinces's overall prosperity or standard of living. The question then becomes, do solar projects, as you claimed, "boost our economy"? The answer is no. When government spends money, it simply takes that money from one place (taxpayers) and moves it to another (state employees, roads, etc.). When private individuals spend money, that money always has the potential to create wealth as they choose the best use between competing businesses or banks. Given your feeling on the need to increase solar power, the myth of "job creation" and a "boost to the economy" cannot be one of your rationales.

You are correct that the

You are correct that the current solar project is uneconomic, but look down the road, maybe 5-10 years and lets see if solar power is still uneconomical. As more of these projects come on line, technologies are improved, manufacturing costs come down and all of a sudden solar becomes competitive with other sources of electricity generation and with less of an eviromental footprint. The Ontario government promoting this in my mind is a good thing. If Ontario is so off base promoting alternative energy, then all of Europe and the United States must also be just as stupid in your mind as Ontario, because they all have some form of incentives to companies for these types of investments. I do realize that past actions of governments fiscal policies has placed huge financial burdens on future generations, but there are also environmental burdens that have also been placed on the next generation. Programs like these are maybe ways that we can releive some of these burdens while also potentially opening up new industries for economically depressed areas like ours.

Regarding the yes but,

The experience of the 1970s and 1980s taught that if a technology is commercially viable, then government support is not needed and if a technology is not commercially viable, no amount of government support will make it so. The kind of infant industry argument you are forwarding is fallacious and this policy has proved disastrous in practice everywhere it has been tried. (Example: Renewable energy is completely dependent on government consumption mandates and subsidization in the EU and the US. This has nothing to do with being stupid; rather it is very unprofitable relative to less expensive, widely available alternatives. In 2007, the International Subsidies Institute published a report which estimated that biofuel policies in the US would cost taxpayers a total of US$92 billion between 2006-12). There is no need for government to protect a new, young, industry from foreign or domestic competition. In the last few decades, the "infant" plastics, television, and computer industries made out very well without government support. Any government subsidizing/support of a new industry, including solar electricity, directs too many resources into that industry as compared to other lines of production, and will inaugurate distortions that persist and render a firm or industry permanently inefficient and vulnerable to competition. As a result, "infant-industry" subsidies have tended to become permanent, regardless of the "maturity" of the industry. Take a look at the recent Conference Board of Canada assessment of the dairy industry in Canada as a good example of this. Programs to support solar energy (and other infant industries) do not aleviate economic problems; they exacerbate them. They create dependance, they increase costs and they reduce product quality. They do not make regions like ours wealthier; these programs make us poorer and further beholden us to elected officials to maintain our livelihoods.

Good Rationale, but I'll go the other direction.

I really enjoyed this discussion, though its direct reference to the article is quite small. I do agree that subsidies tend to distort real prices and eventually become difficult to phase. However, I must point out the billions of dollars in tax breaks and other subsidies that fossil fuel currently enjoys. I am not exactly sure when such practices became a norm, but I am certain that the 1970s energy crisis impacted such policies immensely. Such policies resulted in mass new technologies (both in discovery and extraction), and production of fossil fuels. I tried to compare subsidies of different energy sectors, but the task was too great for an article discussions. I couldn't find the International Subsidies Institute you mentioned in order to determine fossil fuel subsidies, I did, however, find Global Subsidies Initiative. GSI studies for biofuels were not as high as you stated; they calculated 7.3 billion a year (which would equate to less than 45 billion in your time frame). The same group also attempted to find a suitable subsidy figure for fossil fuel but only suggested a general global figure stating the difficulty in estamating. Their global figure was US$ 500. Thus to be fair all such subsidies should end. However, this in it self creates many problems (drastic price increase, to say the least since fossil fuels are not the only thing subsidized). So, as tough as it may seem I would vote for no subsidies and let true market determine what become a success. Though this would lead to whether environment impact should be calculated in cost ( but I'd rather not get into that). Cheers, From Ottawa

Except...

Except that this article isn't about whether or not the solar park should have gone ahead. I sympathized with those who fought to keep it off of prime farm land. This is about a bunch of drunks (judging by the empty booze bottles) trespassing on private property and vandalizing a gem of an old farm house. I'm absolutely disgusted. I hope the OPP find whoever committed this crime and that they are made to pay for all the necessary repairs as well as spend a year or two cleaning up every bit of trash dropped and scrubbing off every graffito in town. It's about time that people who destroy the property of others are held to account.

I agree

Some, but not all of the vandalism appears to be clearly attributable to some from the "not on prime farmland" crowd. As I indicated above -- a lot of people were told the whole thing was being bulldozed at the auction. It is quite likely that some of perpetrators of the vandalism could care less about the solar issue. They were scavenging for anything they percieved as valuable for resale at various flea markets. It would be wrong to include these folks in with the first group.

Loophole?

"The farmhouse is on land purchased in mid-July by Solaris Energy Partners Inc., an Ottawa-based company which sold the property to a larger developer, Enfinity Canada, in September."

Is there some sort of loophole that allows Solaris, the company East Hawkesbury dealt with, and the company the OMB ruled on, to sell its land to another developer?

Are Effinity's plans the exact same as Solaris'?

Or, is there nothing wrong with this at all?

Loophole

The site plan was agreed upon and must be adhered to regardless of the developer.